User talk:TruthIsCurious

Welcome!

Hi TruthIsCurious! I noticed your contributions to Kristina Roegner and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Bridget (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recent additions

Hi TruthIsCurious, I just wanted to confirm whether your recent edits to state politicians were produced using a large language model, such as an "AI chatbot"? I'm concerned because you are making additions to various articles within such a short timespan, and text produced with such software may not be suitable for an encyclopedia without extra scrutiny. Bridget (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I understand your concern. It won't happen again. TruthIsCurious (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was making the same update to multiple politicians who supported the same legislation. That's probably why it looks that way. The majority of the edits are the same text, with different politicians who co-sponsored the legislation. Sorry for the confusion. TruthIsCurious (talk) 03:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TruthIsCurious, there may be objections to your mass addition of entire sections dedicated to a specific political decision to a large number of articles about politicians involved in it. If the content is removed, please be aware of WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS, both of which would require you to obtain a consensus on the article's talk page before re-adding disputed material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TruthIsCurious (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. --tony 16:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Newman page

Hello,

I just wanted to bring up a few things on the page you created for Johnathan Newman.

1. Make sure you are reading the articles that you are citing. A very brief reading of the sources shows that the 80th district was not newly created, the previous incumbent chose not to run for reelection. An open seat is not the same as a newly created seat.

2. You had a lot of information about embryos to add I guess context to the anti-abortion bill he proposed. Only add information regarding the politician to their wiki page. People would go to pages about embryotic science for that information.

3. There are specific boxes used for elections. I usually just copy and paste election boxes from other politicians and fill in the information for the specific politician I'm working on. You can check out the code on the Newman page.

4. When creating a page, make sure to add a short description and date tags at the top of the wiki page. This gives a description under their name when searching them.

5. Always add URLs when you are creating a citation.

Let me know if you have any questions. Bpuddin (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll work on this and fix. TruthIsCurious (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question

Hello @TruthIsCurious. Thank you for taking the time to help improve the encyclopedia. I don't mean any offense by asking this, and I hope you take this question in good faith: do you happen to receive any compensation for work which involves your efforts here, or are you otherwise employed in a field involved with politics of Ohio? --tony 19:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am unemployed. TruthIsCurious (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't say that. I have a bnb. I have been wanting to do this for years. I now have the time. TruthIsCurious (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very heavy into politics and have been for years. I donate my time and money to the cause. Why do you ask. I'm kind of taking it as a compliment. TruthIsCurious (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Roemer -- He is corrupt and has been hiding in the shadows, winning election after election because no one knows his abortion stance or his bribery ties. Plus -- I saw a picture of his wife on-line at a wedding anniversary dinner photo. She had a makeup covering a black eye and that look. I've been gunning for him since I did oppo research as a campaign manager for his opponent. TruthIsCurious (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before AI, I was not able to put all the pieces together from the First Entergy scandal. I was looking at my files a few weeks ago. It was so complicated to figure out. I'm still figuring it out and making updates. maybe tmi. TruthIsCurious (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who took bribe money, I'm updating their pages. Next I'm going dumpster diving for dark money. I plan to make those updates next to the wiki pages, after this first wave. I plan to do a lot of truth bombing. TruthIsCurious (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing -- I have an almost master of business administration. Not sure if you are American, but Master's degrees here are all research and citations. I'm right at home. TruthIsCurious (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on creating pages/updates for free for random incumbent candidates - those with press. I don't plan to make money -- I plan to make change by finding the forgotten truth and assigning it to their legacy. TruthIsCurious (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TruthIsCurious. Thank you for talking with me. I'm going to leave another message with some information in the "Introduction to contentious topics" section of your talk page which was previously created by User:ToBeFree -- the information I'm leaving there is just a heads-up about a special set of rules which applies to post-1992 US politics and isn't intended to indicate there's anything wrong with your editing.

I wanted to let you know that what you're describing might be considered "tendentious editing" on Wikipedia. Specifically, it sounds like you are here to right great wrongs, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

You might find these links interesting to understand why tendentious editing doesn't work here:

This page tells us why we cannot use Wikipedia for advocacy
Wikipedia policy, specifically this one, tells us we cannot use Wikipedia as a soapbox

I also need to check with you about the LLM (aka AI) usage you mentioned. Some of the references which were added to the page Bill Roemer come back to 404 errors and I cannot readily verify that the sources exist. In fact, I've tried for a few minutes to find something on the internet to verify the text that he received over $200,000 in contributions linked to political action committees and donors that were directly or indirectly funded by FirstEnergy during the period surrounding the passage and defense of HB6, but I cannot find anything that literally and directly says that. It looks like none of the secondary sources in the "First Energy Scandal" section have working links -- they all 404. The "roll call" and brief interview remarks appear to be primary sources, which aren't appropriate to support a section like that one. If you're not able to find archived versions of those references, or other reliable, secondary sources to support the information in the section, then the information in that section may need to be removed while those sources are located.

In this edit to Emilia Sykes, references were added for the Ohio Capital Journal, Washington Post, Beacon Journal, and NY Times, but I cannot prove that any of the links ever existed because none of them work. Are you able to find archived copies of these, or any evidence that they are real?

On the whole, the changes made to only Bill Roemer so far appear to include what we call source synthesis and original research -- that is, the changes present much of the information in a way which draws a conclusion that no single provided source supports. The changes appear to be true to the descriptions you've provided here on your talk page, but unfortunately it appears they're mostly introducing non-neutral synthesis of information in pursuit of righting great wrongs. There are many websites on the interent where activism is allowed or encouraged, but Wikipedia isn't one of those places. --tony 16:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TonySt above regarding righting great wrongs. Please don't. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. Let me adjust accordingly. TruthIsCurious (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going back through the abortion section allowed me to adjust my headset to becoming a better story-teller of history. I'm going to do a better job of showing why the bills are notable and the results. I will only include passing legislation that had a notable effect. I think adding this context around these votes will leave a better record for the history books. I would add this only to those who already have a wiki page, and not create new ones. I appreciate the mentorship and am open to feedback. TruthIsCurious (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TruthIsCurious. Thank you for being willing to take feedback -- it's probably the most valuable thing any of us can do here. I took a peek at the Bill Roemer article again since I had some time, and I ended up removing a pretty significant portion of it because it was mostly source synthesis (where multiple sources are used to support a statement that none of the original sources say on their own) and undue weight (there were large swaths of the article explaining why each of those things is bad, even though none of the sources used were directly talking about Roemer, which padded out individual issues into taking up a ton of real estate on the page).

None of that is too bad, though -- it takes time to get used to those concepts. But the real problem was that I needed to remove fourteen hallucinated sources, along with all of the content that was solely supported by those sources. This is a byproduct of the LLM usage, and it seems like you might be pasting information from your LLM into Wikipedia without verifying the content. I recommend this page for information on why we don't use LLMs this way on Wikipedia.

Would you be willing to go through all of the edits you've made to other articles to check for hallucinated sources and remove them (and the content they support) if you find any? And would you be willing to discontinue using LLMs for Wikipedia? --tony 01:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already on my todo list. TruthIsCurious (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the mentorship. TruthIsCurious (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I appreciate your rewrites showing me how I should frame these in the future. TruthIsCurious (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to enter the heartbeat material onto that page. Can I assume that is the appropriate place for that well-sourced story? TruthIsCurious (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way that you can program Wikipedia to verify a link is at least valid before accepting it for publication? TruthIsCurious (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking I shouldn't have been able to do that. TruthIsCurious (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Eklund (Ohio politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Generation Now. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rita Darrow (October 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NPOL.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rita Darrow and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TruthIsCurious! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear bribery scandal additions

Hi, you've added this information to too many articles for me to look at, but many of these new sections need a major trim of extraneous details not related to the article subject. I've modified only three of the articles in question here: [1][2][3]. I would really appreciate if you took that into consideration for your future edits in general. Wikipedia doesn't need to include such a great amount of detail on these developments, even if there is reliable sourcing that can back them up. Thank you. Bridget (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I will evaluate my material and keep this in mind for the future. TruthIsCurious (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bridget that you are adding far too much detail about tangentially related topics. For example, here. Can you trim this down considerably to only include information directly about Husted? Marquardtika (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here to say that I unfortunately had to revert your addition to Jon Husted's page. This isn't to say that Wikipedia shouldn't cover his role in the scandal, but you added an UNDUE amount of content. If you would still like the scandal to be mentioned in the article, you may try again, but please try to keep the amount of content to a single paragraph, maybe two if you consider it really necessary. Also, make sure to focus on Husted's specific role in the controversy, and avoid adding too much detail that isn't directly related to him. Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM use

Hi @TruthIsCurious, I see you have been asked by other editors about LLM use and have disclosed that you use those tools. Can you please explain how you are using LLMs as a part of your editing process? NicheSports (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I used LLM tools earlier on without realizing the problems they cause here. Once that was raised, I changed how I use them.

Now I only use them for drafting help or organizing material. All decisions about content, wording, and sources are mine, and I don’t use LLMs to add facts or generate citations. Every source is checked by me before it’s added. You will find I routinely recheck my work, references, etc. if you check my history logs. TruthIsCurious (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Demetriou

Hi there. So I've just spent the past 90 minutes learning a lot about the nuclear bribery scandal and trying to figure out why a new editor was trying to remove a bunch of stuff from Steve Demetriou's page. While I want to assume good faith as you can see from the discussion on the talk page, it does look a lot like someone trying to sanitize his page while he runs for Ohio State Senate. In doing so, I looked at the Internet Archive and couldn't find any record of him serving on the Public Utilities Committee, so I agree with your removal of that section. That said, I thought it quite suspect that he's part of a family business that appears to include his dad (or grandfather? from Sr. to III seems odd) who is on the board for FirstEnergy. I was trying to figure out if there was any connection that warranted including his family ties to FirstEnergy, but I couldn't find anything verifiable. Bottom line, based on your work, seems you're much more familiar with this than my 90 minutes of reasearch so dropping this here in case you think there's anything to it.--Policy Reformer (c) 19:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will look into that. TruthIsCurious (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Rita Darrow

Hello, TruthIsCurious. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rita Darrow, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rita Darrow

Hello, TruthIsCurious. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Rita Darrow".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bryan Hambley (April 8)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Reading Beans, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or criteria for politicians. Best,

Next steps

Edit Draft:Bryan Hambley to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]