User talk:Pulseoraus

Your submission at Articles for creation: Desnudo (Album) has been accepted

Desnudo (Album), 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. Feel free to further improve your accepted article.

Future articles

• Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

• Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Next steps

• Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
• Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
• You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
• Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
• The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
• For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

Hello, I'm Jfire. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is not allowed on Wikipedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or ask your questions at the Teahouse, a friendly place for new users. Thanks. Jfire (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jfire:

Hi Jfire,

Thank you for your message. I appreciate you taking the time to review my edits and for your feedback.

I would like to make it clear that I did not copy or publish AI-generated text. Before creating the article, I spent several days reading the cited sources, verifying the information they contained, and writing the article based on those sources. I also took care to include citations for the factual statements in the article.

If there are specific passages that you believe are problematic or not adequately supported by the cited sources, I would be grateful if you could point them out. I'm happy to revise or improve the article to ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.

Thank you.

Pulseoraus (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Why do all of the sources on Draft:Adrian Hadribeaj have utm_source=chatgpt.com? Jfire (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jfire Thank you for pointing that out. The utm_source=chatgpt parameter was simply appended to some URLs when I initially collected potential sources to review. The underlying URLs are genuine publications and I intended to clean those tracking parameters before continuing work on the draft. The Adrian Hadribeaj draft is still a work in progress I barely spent 2 minutes on it and has not been submitted for review. I'm not using AI to generate hallucinative stories. Due to the links I have on an unfinished draft that I spent not even that much time, it does not constitute to me using chatgpt or AI to write. I do not. I'm checking sources in detail, while literally at the same time making sure I spend time on my writing and follow the guidelines.

Regarding Desnudo article, could you please identify the specific passages that led you to apply the AI-generated tag? That article was independently reviewed and accepted through Articles for Creation, and I wrote it after reading and summarizing the cited sources in my own words. I spent a lot of time preparing for that and because writing is a huge passion of mine. If there are particular sentences you believe need improvement, I'd be happy to revise them. I would appreciate some clarification. I joined this to enjoy it and have a great time writing.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining. For Desnudo, one reason I think it might be AI generated is overattribution. For example, instead of just saying "It charted on Apple Music in multiple Latin American territories", it says Desnudo was reported to have charted.... Instead of saying "it has sold more than 100,000 copies since its release", it says Several publications also reported that the album had sold more than 100,000 copies. By my count there are eight examples of that. Overattribution is something we often see in AI generated articles. Jfire (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @JfireJfire, Thanks again for the feedback. I went through the article and made the changes you suggested to reduce the overattribution, and I agree it reads better now.

I also want to clarify again that I researched the sources myself and wrote the article in my own words. When you have a chance, would you mind taking another look? If you think the issue has been addressed, do you think the maintenance tag can be removed?

Thanks again—I really appreciate your help.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jfire Hi again, thank you again for all of your feedback. I have now fixed more things into detail that you suggested. Please let me know if you would approve removing the tag. I appreciate your collaboration.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jfire sorry to bother! I have made the changes you have provided during your feedback. I'm very grateful for your feedback on it. If you believe something else needs to be changed please don't hesitate to let me know. Pulseoraus (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, it's much improved. I see you removed the tag -- I think that's fine. Happy editing! Jfire (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Enjoying it very much. Thank you for all of your teachings much appreciate it.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jfire, there's also a second discussion about the draft in § Your submission at Articles for creation: Adrian Hadribeaj (July 22) after I declined it at AfC now. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:08, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 07:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TurquoiseGoose

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that this is COI and that I'm related to the person? I'm not related to the person I'm just an editor like you are. Please show me and let me know how you came to the conclusion that I know the person? I'm an editor the same way you are. I focus on people in albanian decent in america because I'm of albanian decent myself. I would like an explanation from you as to how you came to the conclusion that I know the person? Please explain yourself. Also explain how the draft and writing is AI because it is not. I spent days and hours preparing for that article. I understand you want to act like you know more and that's fine cause I'm sure you do. But accusing editors left and right with no proof or basis is bizarre. I will improve the article, resubmit it according to your feedback. However I urge you to refrain from accusations you have no proof of and no founding. There is no COI here, NO ai used, yet you're claiming that's what was done as if it was a fact.

Thank you

Pulseoraus (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 07:02, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TurquoiseGoose

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that this is COI and that I'm related to the person? I'm not related to the person I'm just an editor like you are. Please show me and let me know how you came to the conclusion that I know the person? I'm an editor the same way you are. I focus on people in albanian decent in america because I'm of albanian decent myself. I would like an explanation from you as to how you came to the conclusion that I know the person? Please explain yourself. Also explain how the draft and writing is AI because it is not. I spent days and hours preparing for that article. I understand you want to act like you know more and that's fine cause I'm sure you do. But accusing editors left and right with no proof or basis is bizarre. I will improve the article, resubmit it according to your feedback. However I urge you to refrain from accusations you have no proof of and no founding. There is no COI here, NO ai used, yet you're claiming that's what was done as if it was a fact.

Thank you

Pulseoraus (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I will improve the article further and send you a message when done. Thank you

~~ Pulseoraus (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Pulseoraus. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Adrian Hadribeaj, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. We ask that you:

• Avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors
• Disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI)
• Propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions
• Avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming)

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation for any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

See the FAQ for article subjects for more information.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. - TurquoiseGoose•they/them•(talk) 08:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TurquoiseGoose

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that this is COI and that I'm related to the person? I'm not related to the person I'm just an editor like you are. Please show me and let me know how you came to the conclusion that I know the person? I'm an editor the same way you are. I focus on people in albanian decent in america because I'm of albanian decent myself. I would like an explanation from you as to how you came to the conclusion that I know the person? Please explain yourself. Also explain how the draft and writing is AI because it is not. I spent days and hours preparing for that article. I understand you want to act like you know more and that's fine cause I'm sure you do. But accusing editors left and right with no proof or basis is bizarre. I will improve the article, resubmit it according to your feedback. However I urge you to refrain from accusations you have no proof of and no founding. There is no COI here, NO ai used, yet you're claiming that's what was done as if it was a fact.

Thank you

~~ Pulseoraus (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SeaHaircutSoilReplace. I noticed that you changed content about a living or recently deceased person on Anxhela Peristeri, but didn't support your changes with a reliable source. Wikipedia has strict policy on how we write about living people to keep such articles accurate and clear, so your change has been removed and archived in the page history for now. If you think I made a mistake or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my talk page. also mos SHSR _{T • C} 18:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @SeaHaircutSoilReplace I will ensure to redo it properly while attaching the reliable sources. Thank you.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Good! 😊 SHSR _{T • C} 19:40, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @SeaHaircutSoilReplace I have gone ahead and added the new info with reliable sources. I thank you very much for your opportunity to work together on this. It's great to continue learning from seasoned editors like yourself.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sarsenet. A comment that you recently posted to Wikipedia:Teahouse seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Editors should not use LLMs to write comments generatively. Communication is at the root of Wikipedia's decision-making process, and it is presumed that editors possess the ability to come up with their own ideas. Your comment may have been collapsed per the relevant guideline. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 00:35, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sarsenet, thank you for reaching out and for taking the time to let me know. The comment reflected my own words for feedback on the draft and it wasn't intended to go against Wikipedia's expectations for editor discussions. Going forward, I'll make sure my talk page comments are written in my own words and reflect my own reasoning more directly. I appreciate the guidance. ~~ Pulseoraus (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

So you are confirming that the comment was AI-generated? Thanks for that at least. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Ledri Vula when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adrian Hadribeaj (July 22)

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, Fermiboson, left the following feedback:

This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content.

LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice.

These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies:

• hallucinations: they often invent false information and cite non-existent references.
• unencyclopedic tone: they tend to be vague, promotional, or essay-like, rather than neutral and factual.
• copyright issues: they may closely paraphrase existing text, leading to copyright violations.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

See the advice page on large language models for more information.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Adrian Hadribeaj 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.

Fermiboson (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Fermiboson

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that this is AI Generated? How is it AI generated when I have written it based on the sources and based on what I read on the person. How is it AI? and what copyrights issue? This wasn't copied it was written for him by my own hands no AI usage. Just cause AI is available for people to use it does not mean everyone is using it and everyone should be flagged. That doesn't sound like it's good faith but rather more of an ego. And I saw some notes that I'm related to the person? I'm not related to the person I'm just an editor like you are. Please show me and let me know how you came to the conclusion that I know the person or that the writing in question is AI written or is that a guess you had? I'm an editor the same way you are. I focus on people in albanian decent in america because I'm of albanian decent myself. I would like an explanation from you as to how you came to the conclusion that I know the person? Please explain yourself. Also explain how the draft and writing is AI because it is not. I spent days and hours preparing for that article. I understand you want to act like you know more and that's fine cause I'm sure you do. But accusing editors left and right with no proof or basis is bizarre. I will improve the article, resubmit it according to your feedback. However I urge you to refrain from accusations you have no proof of and no founding. There is no COI here, NO ai used, yet you're claiming that's what was done as if it was a fact.

Thank you Pulseoraus (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Fermiboson,

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft. I have substantially rewritten the article in response to your feedback. The previous version has been rewritten from top to bottom in a more concise, encyclopedic style, and I removed wording that could be interpreted as promotional. I also reviewed and incorporated additional independent reliable sources, including ESPN, Tapology, The MMA Report, ABC News Albania, Koha, and other published media where appropriate. The article has been revised to ensure that the content is supported by reliable sources and that each section is directly sourced. I would also like to clarify that I do not know Adrian Hadribeaj personally and have no relationship or affiliation with him. I am simply editing the article based on publicly available, reliable sources, as I do with other topics. If you believe there are still specific issues with the draft, I would sincerely appreciate any additional feedback or examples so that I can continue improving it. Thank you again for your time and review.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Pulseoraus! Having a draft declined at Articles for creation can be disappointing, but don't be discouraged, it's common when creating your first article. Need help? For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know. To understand why your draft was declined, please read the reviewer's feedback and follow any links to help pages you've been given. If you're still confused, try asking for advice at the Articles for creation Help desk. For peer support regarding all other editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a friendly question and answer hub for new editors. We'd love to see you there! Fermiboson (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adrian Hadribeaj (July 22)

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, Sulfurboy, left the following feedback:

Is the professionally taken photo you claim as your own work in the article actually your own work? If so can you please properly disclose your WP:COI with the subject?

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Adrian Hadribeaj 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Sulfurboy

Thank you for your feedback. I have removed the image from the draft while its licensing is clarified. The photograph was obtained from published press coverage and it is not my work, and I understand that this may not be sufficient for Wikimedia Commons thus I have gone ahead and removed the picture entirely. I would also like to clarify that I do not know Adrian Hadribeaj personally, I am not editing on his behalf, and I have no conflict of interest. I'm simply an editor trying to learn, contribute and get better at drafting while reviewing sources properly. The article has been rewritten and sourced from independent published references, and I would appreciate a review of the draft on its merits. If there are any remaining issues with the article itself, I would be grateful for specific guidance so I can continue improving it.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Sulfurboy, I hope you're doing well. Since your last review, I've spent the entire day revising the Adrian Hadribeaj draft. I rewrote large portions of the article, improved the sourcing, addressed the concerns that were raised, removed the image entirely, and worked through the feedback from multiple editors. If you have some time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take another look at the current version and let me know if there are any remaining issues I should address before resubmitting. I'm genuinely trying to learn Wikipedia's standards and improve as an editor. Thank you again for your time and guidance.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adrian Hadribeaj (July 22)

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, Gurkubondinn, left the following feedback:

This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content.

LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice.

These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies:

• hallucinations: they often invent false information and cite non-existent references.
• unencyclopedic tone: they tend to be vague, promotional, or essay-like, rather than neutral and factual.
• copyright issues: they may closely paraphrase existing text, leading to copyright violations.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

See the advice page on large language models for more information.

The English Wikipedia does not accept LLM-generated submissions, which are prohibited by the WP:NOLLM guideline.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Adrian Hadribeaj 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.

‑‑gurkubondinn 21:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Gurkubondinn please explain how this is AI? I spend the entire day working on it since I woke. Please explain how this is AI? It is absolutely not AI. Pulseoraus (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I believe your decline is not appropriate considering the article is not LLM generated. Multiple editors have made contributions with sources since I have made the first edit yesterday. I absolutely am not tied to the person and do not know the person I'm not sure why that keeps coming up. I have clarified that I'm an editor just like all of you. Thank you please reconsider the article.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I asked for an explanation here sir because you advised I could reach out here. You are still referring to a first draft I did not intend to publish. I did not use AI and all the sources are verified. I'm not tied to the person. Multiple independent editors have contributed as well to strength the article and I have been working non stop to make sure it is how you want it. check all of my continued editing on Adrian Hadribeaj.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

That is definitely AI-generated. You asked for my reasoning and I have it to you. Since you have removed it, I'll add it here too so it's easier for other editors to find it:

Every reference when created in revision 1365388404 has utm_source=chatgpt.com, and many of them are still present in the draft. A new version of the draft was created in ca. 6 minutes in revision 1365404942, still largely using the same references and included an WP:AIREDCAT. A "major rewrite" was submitted in revision 1365484463, just 11 minutes after the draft was again submitted for AfC.

‑‑gurkubondinn 21:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello sir @Gurkubondinn I understand your point. However, there was no AI used to write the article. Multiple independent writers and seasoned editors on wikipedia have contributed to it and its been rewritten many times. I understand your point about the first draft but I can guarantee you it is not AI. I'm willing to learn and accept feedback when appropriate. I have not used AI, I have been extremely careful. I've been editing the article the entire day and writing on it.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, Fallbackintoreality and TurquoiseGoose have been trying to fix or improve the draft. But both of them have also stated that they also believe it to be AI-generated. ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:52, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn sir, i understand your strong desire for editors to stop using AI. However, i have not used it. That is correct both users flagged it, then multiple independent editors jumped in, and I personally have been working on it all day. Am i using Ai all day to write 1 single article? No sir, I'm not. I have read every source and I'm trying to make sure I learn from the process and from you guys. But It is not factual that this is AI. I simply am an editor and trying to get better at it. If you think the article needs to be improved in some other way please let me know.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi yes, I'm one of the people trying to improve the article. The subject is notable for sure and fulfills the guidelines, but the moment when I saw sentences like "His participation in Karate Combat has been covered by Albanian media alongside his broader professional combat sports career", with no other accompanying information... That's a very frequent indicator of LLM writing.

Only an LLM would generate text that directly calls out media attention like that, because on ChatGPT it's usually associated with links to sources rather than substantially explaining why that fact is important. I am calling bull on your claim about not writing this article with AI. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 22:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fallbackintoreality I understand that was absolutely corrected by me and other independent editors. I'm learning and trying to do the best I can to follow every guideline and the help from you guys helps a lot. I have beeb working on the article the entire day. I have not used AI or LLM writing. I have done the article exactly as asked by you guys.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

No, you doubled down on that edit, and wrote, "His participation in Karate Combat has been covered by USA Today, ESPN and Albanian media." and flooded it with footnotes. It explains nothing about his involvement with Karate Combat. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 22:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fallbackintoreality I have made further updates according to your feedback. Please let me know if you have further suggestions.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fallbackintoreality I have replaced the section in question please let me know if you have further advise on how to improve further.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The first revision is also pretty telling. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I understand why the initial revision may have raised concerns. But the article has since undergone substantial revision by me and other independent editors throughout the day. Problematic wording was removed, sourcing was improved, and the prose was rewritten to address the feedback received. I am editing in good faith and have worked to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia's standards. I would appreciate if the current revision could be evaluated on its own merits as it is now rather than on the basis of an earlier draft(first draft) that has since been extensively revised. If there are still specific sentences that are a problem I'm happy to discuss and improve those.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

How did the first revision come to be if you have not used AI or LLM writing? ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@User:Gurkubondinn The first revision was an incomplete working draft that I accidentally saved while I was still assembling the article. During my research, I used a variety of tools such as google, press coverage, press pages, and including ChatGPT, not for writing but only to help locate potential press coverage and sources I might have missed on my search. After identifying those sources, I read them myself (I speak Albanian), reviewed the information they contained, drafted my notes manually, and then began writing the article on Wikipedia. The early revision was never intended to be the finished article. After that initial save, I independently verified the sources, manually rewrote and expanded the prose, and continued improving the article throughout the day while incorporating feedback from you and other editors. The current revision is the result of those revisions and not the initial working draft. My goal is to learn Wikipedia's standards and become a better editor. If there are still specific concerns with the current revision, I would genuinely appreciate if you could point them out so I can continue improving it. I'm editing in good faith, I'm willing to learn, and I appreciate the time you've taken to review my work. I'll be more careful with my future submissions and contributions, and I'll take all of this feedback into account as I continue learning Wikipedia's standards.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

So it was generated by ChatGPT, but you rewrote it without using ChatGPT in six minutes?

If you want to become a better editor then you should stop using AI and be completely honest about all of your edits.‑‑gurkubondinn 22:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@User:Gurkubondinn I want to be completely honest, which is why I explained exactly what happened from the start. I did not use ChatGPT to write the article itself. I am being honest, hence why I stated that I used it to locate sources I might have missed. I used it during research to help locate potential sources, then I independently reviewed those sources, then drafted the content myself, and revised the article notes throughout the day based on feedback from you and other editors. Other editors have already worked on it as well. The initial saved revision was an incomplete working draft and does not reflect the current article. If there are still issues with the current revision, I'd genuinely appreciate specific feedback on those issues so I can continue improving it and learning Wikipedia's standards. I'm trying to be better at wikipedia which is why I'm being honest, and have been honest and transparent with you. - i want it to sound human Pulseoraus (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I keep re-reading my article time and time again. But I truly am not using AI or LLM. My goal has been to always have the article sound human and not appear as if an AI wrote it cause it didn't. I want it to sound human because it is. I want my work to appear as human wrote it because it did. Please let me know what other advice you have for me. I want to make sure it sounds human and doesn't appear like llm cause it is not. I'm open to further feedback.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I have been absolutely honest about all of my edits from the moment you have reached out and raised concerns. My goal has been on all edits to have them sound neutral, human editing, no llm writing. And I wanted them all to sound human like. I keep reading the article I've been working all day on and I would appreciate your feedback on how it could be further improved. It's human writing. I have fixed many issues throughout the day. Please let me know what parts sound like LLM and not human writing cause I'm doing continued work to improve the edits.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I just did a multiple time read through the article. I believe it looks good. I would appreciate some feedback. I want all of my articles to show the long hours of contributions I provide on wikipedia and not to sound like it was generated LLM. It's very disappointing to hear such thing when indeed I do spend a lot of time drafting and writing. It is always my goal to better myself from the feedback of seasoned editors like yourself. I have made all the necessary changes on the edits as advised by you and other editors. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for me.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It's looking better so far, and it's sounding like a normal wiki article. I made a few adjustments because you keep using sources which don't contribute to a particular statement. Please cut that out.

If you'd like to improve your wiki writing skills, I highly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Writing better articles, which has a lot of good and actionable advice on how to write an article that is more encyclopedic, faithful, and easy to read and understand. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 23:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

@Fallbackintoreality Thank you very much for taking the time to review it again and for making those adjustments. I really appreciate the guidance. I'm reading the essay you linked now and trying to apply what I'm learning as I continue improving the draft. I'll also go through the citations again and remove any sources that don't directly support the statements they're attached to. If you notice anything else that could be improved, I'd really appreciate you pointing it out. I'm here to learn and become a better Wikipedia editor. Thank you again, very grateful for your guidance.

~ Pulseoraus (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nëse Vdes (Mirud Song) (July 25)

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, Athanelar, left the following feedback:

This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content.

LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice.

These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies:

• hallucinations: they often invent false information and cite non-existent references.
• unencyclopedic tone: they tend to be vague, promotional, or essay-like, rather than neutral and factual.
• copyright issues: they may closely paraphrase existing text, leading to copyright violations.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

See the advice page on large language models for more information.

AI generated edit summaries indicating that the content probably is too, plus massive WP:REFBOMBing.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Nëse Vdes (Mirud Song) 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.

Athanelar (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Please, explain how you came to the conclusion that this LLM generated? Please review the history, multiple independent editors joined in and edited the article as well. It is not LLM. What led you to decide this is LLM? It is not. Please advise what needs fixing. ~~ Pulseoraus (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adrian Hadribeaj (July 25)

Draft rejected
Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted.

Reason for rejection

The reviewer, Athanelar, left the following feedback:

The subject is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

The edit history is riddled with AI generated edit summaries, and given the prior declines for the same, the editor is already aware of the rules in this regard. Escalating this decline to a reject.

Next steps

• If you have discovered significant new sources or believe this rejection was an error, you may ask the reviewer to reconsider on their talk page.
• 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.

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.

Athanelar (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Pulseoraus AI use and lying about it. Athanelar (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

July 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pulseoraus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The following request was written through the unblock wizard.

Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?

I understand that I was blocked because of concerns about my editing and that I was using AI-generated writing. I want to be clear that I did not use AI to write my articles or my responses on ANI. I was very distressed and disappointed by the screw up I had made that caused all of this miscommunication. I did make one mistake by using ChatGPT to help locate a sources that I was unable to find or verify them myself. Looking back, I understand why that raised flags, and I should not have done that. I should’ve never done that. I had addressed it the day it was brought up to me and I completely stepped back and continued doing more reading on policies and new users. From that point forward, I felt that many of my edits and even my replies to admins in ANI were recieved as to be AI-generated, despite me writing them myself. I was so disappointed on myself I had made that mistake, I was responding to every admin who had questions for me and the AI usage on Adrian Hadribeaj. I was accused on even the replies being AI generated because of this one isolated case with the Adrian Hadribeaj draft where I did make a mistake by using an AI tool to locate a source that I was having trouble finding. I had used it cause I was not aware on the policy since I'm new at this. Now I fully understand the policy. I want to mention again, I took accountably from the first draft and I apologized, took responsibility and I swore that I would never use any AI tools. I answered every question that was asked, provided explanations, and genuinely tried to cooperate throughout the discussion. While I disagree with some of the conclusions that were reached, I understand that this mistake led to broader concerns about my editing. Since joining Wikipedia, I have consistently asked experienced editors for feedback before submitting drafts for review because I wanted to learn how to contribute properly. My goal has always been to improve, collaborate and follow Wikipedia's policies. If I get another opportunity, I will be much more careful about how I locate and verify sources, I will not use AI or LLM generated materials whatsoever and I will continue working with editors in a constructive and collaborative way. I will prove the community wrong with my contributions and showing understanding to the guidelines and policies. I will prove that I’m worth becoming a great editor with the amazing feedback I continuesly got from you all.

If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?

If I am unblocked I will continue making stellar, well-sourced edits. I will avoid edit disputes, seek feedback before making changes and follow Wikipedia's content and conduct policies more carefully. If concerns come up about my edits I will discuss them calmly on talk pages and work collaboratively to resolve them. I will make edits that are not AI generated or LLM generated. I will stop using any tools that involve AI when making contributions here. I will rely on editors as well for feedback and I will use those to better my editing skills. I want to continue my contribution to wikipedia because I'm very passionate about writing, culture, history and music. I will prove to the entire wiki community that I’m worthy of becoming a great asset as a contributor to Wikipedia.

Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

I have also submitted my concerns through the Wikimedia review channels through email because I believe there are factual misunderstandings about some of the allegations. I believe my responses were misinterpreted. I believe that because of that one mistake I made with the AI tool for the Adrian Hadribeaj page caused the admins to believe everything I was saying in response to them was AI generated and it was not. I spent a total of 8 hours being interrogated by admins about the Adrian Hadribeaj Draft and I continued answering every single one of the questions that the admins had. Even during work, I was responding cause I wanted to make sure I'm answering anything asked of me. No matter the outcome of those reviews I intend to follow community expectations and contribute constructively if I'm given a chance again.

Pulseoraus (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The formatting of your unblock request indicates that it was LLM-generated and then lightly edited before it was posted. Please understand that LLM-generated unblock requests are not accepted, even if manually adjusted afterward. Per WP:LLMAPPEAL, "Write your request yourself, without using LLM or AI. Requests that appear to be written with an LLM or AI are highly likely to be summarily rejected. The reviewing administrator needs to know that you understand why your edits were problematic and what you are undertaking to do differently if unblocked. Merely copying what an AI told you to say achieves none of that. This is why the reviewer wants to hear from you directly."

As you have submitted a primarily LLM-generated unblock request after repeatedly misusing LLMs for editing and falsely denying your LLM misuse when the matter was raised, I am declining your unblock request. Please wait at least six months before making another unblock request and use the time to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you are interested in editing Wikipedia after the six-month period without using an LLM, please use the Unblock Ticket Request System for future unblock requests at that point. — Newslinger talk 20:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• No. I'm sorry, but absolutely not. I want to be clear that I did not use AI to write my articles or my responses on ANI - the first paragraph of this is absolutely either LLM generated or deliberately written to be indistinguishable from such as trolling (which is, it goes without saying, worse). Your request here makes it very clear that any unblock will see no change in behavior. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Thank you for taking the time to read my request to unblock. I was talking about after the Adrian Hadribeaj Draft and after the LLM generation notice was brought up to me I stopped using AI. I will not use AI and LLM generated content. I regret the moment I did it. And I regret it led to this. I should’ve never done it. I’m absolutely devastated that I screwed it up. I’m so passionate about it, and I ruined it by using a tool I never should’ve used to begin with. If you give me the opportunity to prove you wrong and other editors I will. I am passionate about my contributions and the topics I love. If you have reached a decision, I will respect it. But if you give me a chance you, I will prove the entire community here wrong and that I can do a great job and I will. Thank you for considering my request. Pulseoraus (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

You're mistaken if you think editors primarily think you're using LLMs because of the ChatGPT links. That's actually a very minor issue by now and probably wasn't even the reason editors initially suspected LLM use. To be clear this means even if you had never included ChatGPT tagged URLs, you'd almost definitely be exactly where you are now, blocked for LLM use. Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings/unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined, leading to the posting of this notice.

 — Newslinger talk 20:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my concerns. And again, I want to apologize to the entire community for the screw up, for using LLML and AI and for not being honest about. Being new doesn't mean screwing up. And I did. I totally understand both block placed in my account and they are very well deserved. I wish I had handled the situation better but I didn't and there's no excuse for such behavior. Again, my true apologies to the entire community on my conduct. I thank you all for the wonderful contributions you all provide. ~2026-42063-14 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Pulseoraus! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Requesting feedback on an improved AfC draft, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Pulseoraus! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Requesting feedback on an AfC draft before review, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2026 (UTC)