User talk:Asukite

Deaths in 2026

Please undo your page move immediately. Per long-standing custom, Deaths in 2026 contains the current month, and its contents are moved to Deaths in (month) 2026 in the beginning of the next month. Marbe166 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

@Marbe166 done, thanks. I had no idea that was a norm. I did fix several redirects, a couple of which I may need to alter (although several of them were pointed at the wrong targets) ASUKITE 17:30, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this never should have been moved without a full discussion. It's linked from the Main Page and regularly falls in the Top 10 monthly page view report. There's a very specific page move schedule and referencing system in place in order to keep the whole thing running smoothly. Thank you for undoing the move so quickly.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate being informed, I was trying to focus on some easier tasks today as I am a bit distracted and failed to look into that. I've undone my redirect changes as well, save for the July/March redirects which were pointed at Deaths in 2026 instead of their respective months. ASUKITE 17:36, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this back, sorry if i came across rather stern in contesting the move. i was taken by surprise, mostly. tomasz. 18:18, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, it's okay. I fully deserve being trouted for that. If I'd just checked the logs I would never have moved it. (my usual first check is a history search for "moved page" as move logs are less helpful for that, but the full page logs there clearly show there has been activity, and of course a page that has 22 thousand revisions won't surface much activity in the last 500 alone). ASUKITE 18:19, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

User talk:GeorgeWBushLarper

May need their TPA revoked, as they keep on violating WP:NPA after being blocked, despite being warned not to do that earlier by me. Diffs Special:Diff/prev/1379384971, Special:Diff/prev/1379384959, Special:Diff/prev/1379384946, etc. (For my own reference, WP:TPA states that editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, which I think is a category the user's edits fall under. Do you agree?) In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:56, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's appropriate and have done so. Thanks, I'm away from my PC at the moment and will edit the tag when I get a chance. ASUKITE 19:18, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

New cross-language page link: Clouded tiger cat

A new page Leopardus pardinoides on the Italian Wikipedia has been linked to the page Clouded tiger cat, which you created, via Wikidata (Q124399735).

You will not be notified about future links to pages you created. To opt in to these notifications, follow the opt-in instructions.

NervousBot (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Mohammed bin Faisal Al Qassimi: new draft before I recreate

Hello Asukite. I saw that an earlier draft with this title was deleted on 20 September 2026 under G15. I understand the concerns: unverifiable references, an invalid ISBN and promotional tone.

Before recreating the page, I wanted to tell you what has changed. I have written a new draft from scratch, and I am not reusing any text from the deleted version. I opened and checked every cited source by hand against the sentence it supports, removed every reference I could not verify (including the books with wrong ISBNs), and cut the promotional content. I did use AI tools to help with drafting and fact-checking, but I have reviewed each line and source myself.

I am a paid editor working for a client, and my disclosure is on my user page. I will also add the paid-contributor template to the draft's talk page and submit through Articles for Creation, so it will go through normal review.

If you see anything in the approach that concerns you, please let me know before I submit. Thank you Nileshmalpure567 (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

@Nileshmalpure567 any use of AI-generated text itself is problematic. Technically, using AI to assist with research is not against the rules, and it's good you declared that. So long as you aren't copying and pasting anything (including sources) directly from an AI you should be okay in that department.

When it comes to sources, I recommend using the built-in auto cite tool in the visual editor, or you can manually fill the fields in either the VE or source editor; alternatively you can use a tool like Citer, starting with a verified URL/DOI/ISBN/etc instead of manually fixing AI citations, that will save you a lot of trouble and it's a better workflow to get used to.

AfC with a disclosure is the way to go, unfortunately it can take a while for such drafts to be reviewed.

Thanks for asking! ASUKITE 16:55, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Asukite. Thanks for the guidance. I followed the same while drafting the article. I built every citation with Citer from URLs I opened myself, checked each title and date against the page, and wrote and edited it myself rather than pasting anything from an AI tool. The draft is now submitted through AfC at Draft:Mohammed bin Faisal Al Qassimi, and my paid-editing disclosure is on my user page and the draft’s talk page.

Please let me know if apart from this anything else to be done. Nileshmalpure567 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

About your block of Stan and Anne Rice

Just so you know, that's likely a sock.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought so too but did not look for similar edits. ASUKITE 14:41, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Somasekhar Sundaresan - new draft

Hello asukite. I hope you are doing well. I had this Draft deleted because even though I wrote the content myself, I used an LLM to convert it to source code and used that to generate the page. I have decided to move ahead with the visual editor now. My question is - 1) Can I use the original content I wrote myself in this new draft (reuse text from old deleted draft) ? I understand it was rejected due to LLM involvement of turning it into source code, but the original text is written by me. Will that be fine? Excuzi (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

From what I could tell, the first two copies were rejected as being obvious LLM output, and the full draft was deleted as the third was similar enough to the first two, even if it lacked the obvious signs. If what you're saying is that you have a human-written version that we have not yet seen, and it is indeed free of any signs of LLM use (including sources failing verification, which is something that will likely be checked closely), then there should be no problem in resubmitting it, and you don't need my permission to do so.

If it does turn out that you are repeatedly using an LLM to generate article or draft content, however, that might result in a block, so I would use caution. Any LLM tools, including most translation software, Grammarly, etc can generate problematic text which might include copyright violations or hallucinations. Even using it for copyediting is something you should use caution with — if you do, I recommend asking the LLM for advice, and inputting the suggestions manually, limiting yourself only to small grammar, punctuation, and other similar copyediting tasks like layout and flow. Ultimately, it is best to learn how to perform these tasks yourself, as it is much easier, less expensive, and more rewarding.

Hope that helps. ASUKITE 14:57, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Going to proceed with caution Excuzi (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

WTF

who are you and why did you delete my texts about Walter Schellenberg??? ~2026-54854-45 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-54854-45 they were lacking in citations to reliable sources, and I may not have even noticed if it hadn't been for (P.S: Don't you dare delete this "Obenritter"! You know it's true and it's not vandalism. Stop with the lies!!!) (I am certain another editor would have eventually reverted that anyways, however.) ASUKITE 17:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)