Jump to content

User talk:M kuhner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


M_kuhner is a computational biologist, gameplayer, and writer. M kuhner (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]



Your submission at Articles for creation: Natalia Tsodikova has been accepted

[edit]
Natalia Tsodikova, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Future articles

Next steps

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]
A plate of chocolate chip cookies.
Welcome!

Hello, M kuhner, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ ● ✒️ 16:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

[edit]
For your great work on Hypocnemis and Warbling antbird. Thank you! RainbowtheDragonCat (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to fungi articles

[edit]

I did make a post at the WikiProject Fungi too, but here's a link to that other TA's contributions that are still current: [1]

I really appreciate your offer to look it over too! Pikkupapupata 💌 🌷 15:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is alarming. The user just got blocked for 31 hours, but there might be a need for a sockpuppet investigation here. I will look at it further this evening. M kuhner (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm wrong about the block, I confused the two temp accounts. Still suspect they are sockpuppets. I'll try to do a careful job tonight. M kuhner (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I talked to the admin User:Spencer who blocked the first temp account. He agreed that this looked like sockpuppetry and indef blocked and reverted the second temp account as well. Thank you for bringing this up! If you see this guy again under a new name, I recommend contacting Spencer. (Wouldn't mind a head's-up myself. If Spencer is busy I may try to learn how to start a sockpuppet investigation.) M kuhner (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I will definitely be on the lookout. I've made a couple of sockpuppet reports, so if I see that user/identical edits starting to pop up again, I can put something together as well if needed (and for sure notify both of you). Ideally there won't be any more activity, but we'll see. Thanks again for all of your help! Pikkupapupata 💌 🌷 23:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

[edit]

Imagine my surprise that a developer of LAMARC happened to stop by an AfD I had been following about a pop geneticist (I see you are also at UW?). I had brought up that so many biologists who were far more influential than that subject, themselves lacked wikipedia pages. My specific example was developers of packages many thousands of biologists use and I was going to mention phyloseq, LAMARC, structure/admixture, etc, but decided against it for lack of common recognition. Funny coincidence! And thank you for all your work!

PS: regarding your mention above of starting a sockpuppet investigation, I started one recently (for the subject of that AfD, actually), feel free to glance at it. It is very straightforward. Copying the source text of an existing one as a scaffold can be helpful for formatting. Bioconda (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, that's me; still at UW but lost my faculty position and now a research consultant in conservation biology. I wasn't expecting that, but the coding skills are still good! M kuhner (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a technical question that's contributing to my nervousness: I know how to reference a named user, but every time I try to reference a temp account I end up with a non-functioning link. How do you do it? M kuhner (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine they're quite a bit better than good! But gosh, I am so sorry to hear that. I hope its going as well as can be expected. I work at an org with lots of ties to East Africa and I have followed your ivory work, really encouraging stuff.
It's possible your link is actually functional, but that the temp does not have a "User Page", as most do not. Some have entries in Talk pages, often people informing them of various violations. Link one here in the way you've been doing, I'll take a gander. Bioconda (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Egyptian hieroglyph U016

[edit]

Hey! I saw you put Egyptian hieroglyph U016 up for delation. Now I know you saw that I had used an LLM, but I have only used it for two pages—weirdcore aesthetic and list of internet aesthetics. I have also not used any LLMs for my previous pages. The detailed explanation is on my talk page. And I have understood my mistake, and apologized for it. I have not used any LLMs to create the page for the hieroglyph, and only tried to keep the language formal..... Also having a Wikipedia page for a symbol only increases the number of pages on Wikipedia and a bit of knowledge, there is no harm in having a page that seems a bit extra.. So pls understand Bøttle-x (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever chance the hieroglyph has to be notable comes from this source:
Yamamoto, Kei (2015). "Iconography of the Sledge in Ancient Egyptian Funerary Art". Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar. 19: 665–674.
Unfortunately this is paywalled for me. If you could possibly share a copy, or even a photo of a page from it that shows discussion of U016, it would really help. The other sources can't show notability, they're just lists of hieroglyphs. I'm afraid notability really is required.
The page I would really like to see fixed is TOI-5007 b. I'm grateful to you for writing it, because that's a bizarre planet and I enjoyed learning about it. But there are issues--it says the JWST should be used for further studies but the source doesn't say anything about that, for example. If you could check that one carefully it would be great. I have not put it up for deletion, because the sources were real and most of the information seemed accurate.
As a tip, in the Visual Editor when you put in a citation, there's a tab labeled "Reuse". Whenever you want to use a source more than once, Reuse it rather than pasting the citation in again. If you use the Source editor instead, give the citation a name the first time you use it, and then use the name next time. (I'd show you how, except I have no idea how I can type wiki-code and not have it interpreted, sorry.)
Best wishes, and I hope to see interesting human-written articles from you in the future! M kuhner (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bøttle-x just pinging you on this--wasn't sure you saw it. M kuhner (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kei Yamamoto's 2015 study, Iconography of the Sledge in ancient Egyptian Funerary art, confirms that the Egyptian hieroglyph U016 represents a transport sledge, but it does not support claims of a jackal-headed design or act as a linguistic pun for wns. While the sign is related to mining and the concept of bjꜣ (copper/wonders), the paper focuses on the physical iconography of the sledge on funerary objects in the new kingdom rather than providing a linguistic analysis of the hieroglyph itself.
As I had said some of the information was written by myself without any source
for the full study, visit Academia.edu. Bøttle-x (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the reason I wrote some info without a source is because at that time I was oblivious of the fact that you needed to write a source for everything Bøttle-x (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a working scientist (conservation biology and evolution). I use Wikipedia a LOT. Recently my lab had a big discussion about extinct elephants in Africa, and I used Wikipedia as a source for finding out about them. (We are wondering why African savannah elephants seem to have been rare in the past though they are the more common kind now. Could extinct elephants have been competing with them?) If someone just made up the dates in those extinct elephant articles, or quoted papers that don't exist, it could seriously mess up our science. So I feel very strongly about this.
I will just let the AfD for the hieroglyph article run its course. I did strike out the part where I questioned whether one hieroglyph is worth an article, because someone showed me I was wrong.
Hope you can learn from this and things will go better in the future. M kuhner (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
maybe you should remove the wrong information?
And keep the rest of the page as it is? Bøttle-x (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm allowed to remove stuff from the nomination once I put it in. That can be seen as bad behavior. Striking it out shows that I no longer stand behind it.
Can we work on TOI-5007 b? If we could find one article talking about these giant planets right next to tiny stars, I think this article can definitely be saved. M kuhner (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something that's close to useful: doesn't mention TOI-5007 b specifically but a good description of why planets like this are important. [2] Maybe you can find more? M kuhner (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"It's Not Supposed To Be Like This: A Giant Planet Orbits A Small Star" — explains why giant planets around low-mass stars are important and difficult to explain.
"The Planet That Shouldn't Exist" — discusses TOI-5205 b, another giant planet orbiting a small red dwarf, and why such systems challenge planet-formation theories.
These articles can be used as background sources for explaining the significance of TOI-5007 b even if they mention another planet.
Planets like TOI-5007 b are important because they challenge current theories of how planets form. According to standard models, small stars should have smaller disks of gas and dust around them, making it difficult to form giant Jupiter-like planets. Yet these planets exist. Their existence suggests that astronomers may be missing something about planet formation, disk evolution, or planetary migration. Bøttle-x (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man. Don't post LLM text. Just don't. I want to work with a human being. M kuhner (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh..... I really don't like when the text I wrote sounds like it's written by an LLM
Look.... I used the microphone option to write this, that's why I wrote it so quickly
I derived this information from that source, and wrote in my own words..
I am an astronomy nerd ,so I like to use formal language and terms when talking about astronomy related topics. Bøttle-x (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is your "microphone" tapping into an LLM-based system which is modifying your text? People sometimes get burned by this, for example Copilot is integrated into a lot of things. I really do not believe that the response above was written by you, comparing it to what you said just now in your own voice. If you keep posting LLM material to WP you are likely to walk into an indefinite ban. People have used up all their patience with this. M kuhner (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bøttle-x (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To type wiki code and have it ignored, use <nowicki> tags. SenshiSun (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And spell wiki correctly. SenshiSun (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! (Though, that "spell correctly" step, that's a tough one. I wrote my PhD thesis on insulin-dependent diabetes and the fact I can't spell "dependent" was a HUGE issue!) M kuhner (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

[edit]

Hi, M_kuhner! I saw your message sugestion for my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alansmithh/sandbox Thank you so much for your feedback! Alansmithh (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC) (moved to bottom)[reply]

@Alansmithh: I'm glad it was helpful! Comments should go at the bottom of Talk pages, just so you know; I moved this one down. M kuhner (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tip

[edit]

Go to your preferences, then to the gadgets tab, and check Strike out usernames that have been blocked. I'm assuming you don't have this on already because of this edit. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Thanks, that's really helpful. M kuhner (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI cleanup

[edit]

Hi @M kuhner! Thanks for pointing me in the direction of AI cleanup at the Teahouse yesterday. I've gotten a glimpse at this massive undertaking, and I would like to take you up on your offer to help me get started with some tasks, whenever you're available. Purring maggot (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! A couple questions so I know where you're starting:
(1) Do you use Source Editor or only Visual? Most maintenance work is easier with Source, and I confess I don't know Visual all that well.
(2) Have you looked at "diffs"? If not, let's start by looking at some. They are key.
My current project is the cleanup at WP:AI noticeboard § User:Bookisher. The cleanup list includes a lot of tiny edits which are probably innocent but have to be checked, because a large deletion and a large insertion of new text could add up to a tiny change in article length. I figure we could start there, and look at the mechanics of checking a tiny edit, working out if it's innocent, and editing the tracking page.
M kuhner (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1. I have few edits, but I feel more comfortable with the Source Editor.
2. I've viewed some diffs, and I'm familiar with the concept of using them to identify problematic edits, but don't really know how that's done in practice or what I'm specifically looking for.
Just let me know how to start and I'll give it a go! Purring maggot (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the tracking page: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/2026-06-22 Bookisher. Partway down there's a run of tiny edits that have not yet been checked, starting at Smyrna and Delaware Bay Railroad. Have a look at 2-3 of those and let me know what you're seeing. In the meantime, I will try using the Source Editor (which I don't normally) to update the tracking page, so I hopefully know what I'm doing!
(I'm perhaps overly bold, and do things where I don't know what I'm doing on a daily basis. I've had two such actions reverted with a polite explanation of what went wrong, which emboldens me to continue. You can make a lot of mistakes as long as you don't make the same one over and over.) M kuhner (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I learned something: I think this has to be Source Editor, it's not even offering to let me switch to Visual on that page. M kuhner (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This bit was easy - from Smyrna and Delaware Bay Railroad to Leona's Sister Gerri there were no LLM edits, just 2-3 internal links added per edit. Purring maggot (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! This will be the Newcomer Task "add wikilinks". So all of those are clean. To mark them as clean, edit the page. It will look awful because all those diffs involve quite a lot of text, but this can be ignored. Use your browser's search function to find the line for one of the clean articles (by name). That line will say "status=requested". Change that to "status=unnecessary". Preview to make sure you didn't break the formatting, then commit. I'd do one to get started, then you can do the rest of the articles you looked at as a single edit. If you break the format, you can bail from the edit and do it again.
We can look at a harder one after that. Thanks so much for your help! There were over 200 to start with, so progress is definitely being made.
This editor left a trail of people saying "What the hell is this plot summary, it has nothing to do with the book!" so it's definitely good to get them taken care of. (If you ask LLM to summarize a book whose text is not on the net, of course it can't, so it just makes stuff up.) M kuhner (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I've updated statuses for all of the ones I checked. Purring maggot (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Useful to know: if you want to talk about technical syntax, you can't just type it because it gets interpreted. But if you put it inside <nowiki> </nowiki> tags you can. So without the tags, User:M kuhner but with the tags you can see what I actually typed: [[User:M kuhner]] . M kuhner (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Hard science fiction. What do you think happened there? One of the two Bookisher edits is bigger on this one. M kuhner (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they added a genre to the "see also" list and then added definitions for all the linked genres there. It seems plausible that they rephrased language from the leads of the linked articles, but at this point are we to presume all their edits of substance are AI-generated? Purring maggot (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel the need to delete very short snippets of text, since we can seldom tell whether they are LLM or human. One thing I do watch for, which I just saw in The Gone World, is something like it is often described as a mind bending thriller sourced to a SINGLE review where ONE reviewer says that. It's such a typical LLM mistake, and it is worth removing even if very short. (It's wrong even if a human wrote it, anyway.)
I do notice that Bookisher added a link to his article Rationalist fiction and that article is at Articles for Deletion where it will likely be deleted. If it were already deleted I might take the link out (it would become a redlink) but before deletion, probably not. We have bigger fish to fry.
So this one is reasonably clean and can be marked. One more tonight (it's getting late where I am): The Gone World is a big fish, an article created by Bookisher. Here the question is, looking at the history, does this article have substantial content added by anyone else? Copy-edits, templates, categories, edits by bots don't matter. But if someone added a big chunk of human text, we are not allowed to use LLMPROD, the protocol for rapid removal of LLM articles.
Because the consensus at AINB is that all Bookisher articles are LLM, we don't have to try to diagnose that. But it's good practice to have a look at the text. Any red flags? The article WP:AISIGNS may be helpful.
M kuhner (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like every edit at The Gone World after Bookisher is just little stuff like categories and infobox. Nothing of substance added, so I suppose this one can be deleted. Purring maggot (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that conclusion. Are you feeling bold tonight? Here's how to mark an article for deletion (neither of us has authority to delete it ourselves):
(1) On the tracking page is a chunk of text labeled "LLMPROD template". It has a copy button (upper right, at least in my view). That text is to be copied and inserted into the Gone World article at the top. This flags the article for deletion. After a waiting period of 5 days, an admin will review the case and decide whether to delete it. Or any user can remove the tag, in which case, either that user gets to fix the article, or we take it to Articles for Deletion.
(2) Once the template is added, copy the "Edit Summary" on the tracking page and paste that in as your edit summary. Preview the edit to make sure nothing is broken.
(3) Once you publish the edit, a big notice will appear at the top of the article that's being LLMPRODed. It is kind, but not required, to copy the text at the bottom of that notice, where it says "Nominator: Please consider notifying the author if active", onto the Talk page of the author (Bookisher). However we've done several already, Bookisher hasn't edited in months, I think they are adequately warned. I'd always do this for the first article LLMPRODed for any given editor, though; and for all of them, if the author is actively fighting over the issue.
You can look at The Tyrant Philosophers for what this will look like when complete.
(4) On the tracking page, mark the article's status as "ongoing" and at the very end of the status line add "LLMPROD" before the last two curly braces. This one is peculiarly easy to get wrong and will break the whole table, so preview before publishing! If you do break it, go into the history, find your edit and hit "undo".
"Ongoing" is used here because we can't be sure the problem is solved until the article is actually deleted. If the editor who wrote them is not blocked and is actively fighting them, the LLMPROD notices will usually get removed before the 5 days are over. My next stop in that case would be to ask an admin to review the LLM evidence and block the user.
I didn't ask for a block on Bookisher because they haven't edited in months and blocks are usually refused in that case; they are only given to halt ongoing problems.
Another possibility is that a new temp account appears and removes the LLMPROD notices. In that case it's probably AfD time, because blocking temp accounts is not very useful. In a really bad case we take it to WP:SPI, the sockpuppet investigators.
I'm calling it a night! Talk to you later. Feel free to leave this article as it is if you'd rather have more interaction. M kuhner (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Good night, thank you for all the tips and instructions so far! Purring maggot (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and since you asked for red flags: The statement "It has been cited as one of the best science fiction thrillers for its ability to maintain tension across multiple timelines." is cited to a top-10 listicle that only contains a short plot summary. I'll definitely have to hone my skills at recognizing this stuff! Purring maggot (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's a red flag. I think mismatch between source and text is one of the best signs of LLM, as it's hard for the editor to quickly patch up. They can take out the excessive boldface and the bullet lists and whatnot, but source/text consistency is hard work.
Good night! M kuhner (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one last thing: good idea to read the policy that lets us do this, which is WP:LLMPROD. I used "consensus at AINB" to justify this cleanup, though "inactive" might also have worked. M kuhner (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gone World has a rather frightful edit summary (for the edit where he moved it from draftspace to mainspace): Bookisher moved page Draft:The Gone World to The Gone World: Move to mainspace: MTM meets WP:NBK (Criterion 1) through widespread critical acclaim in reliable, independent outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, and Kirkus Reviews.. Who puts puffery in their edit statement? And, what is WP:NBK? Wikipedia search doesn't know. LLMs that know they are writing for Wikipedia like to make up Wikipedia policies! This edit summary is a smoking gun for LLM use. M kuhner (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Next topic is what to do when there are substantial contributions by other editors. The Captive's War is an example. You can place the template {{AI-generated|date=June 2026}} on the article to indicate that it's suspected of LLM use, and write something on the Talk page as I did at Captive's War to try to enlist editors to help. (Fixing these is an ENORMOUS project: I've done three or four and would only do it again for an article I really cared about.) If you aren't comfortable with that, put a note in the tracking like "needs attention" and I can help.

It's very useful to be able to point people to the AINB report: WP:AINB § User:Bookisher. Code for this is {{slink|WP:AINB#User:Bookisher}} . "Slink" is "section link" so this points people to the actual case, not just to the main AINB page which is far too big. It is also helpful to provide a link to the guideline forbidding most LLM use, which is [[WP:NOLLM]] . This guideline changed in March 2026, so many people are legitimately not aware of it.

All of the things inside {{ }} are templates. To get info on any template that puzzles you, search on Template:Name of template.

So, at your convenience you can look at other entries on the tracking list, deal with what you can, and come back here if you run into something you're not sure about. M kuhner (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M_kuhner&oldid=1360776306"