User talk:Asukite

Thanks for cleaning up my referencing. I'm afraid I find the use of some of the cite templates confusing, and I was very unsure of the proper way of doing it. JBW (talk) 09:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for adding the citation there, you got to it before I could. In the case of that one I just used the auto cite tool in VE, which is pretty good at expanding DOIs. Citer is pretty handy too. I almost never fully write citations, it's either VE, Citer or I build them using one of the forms on the editors (VE especially introduces a lot of errors if left unchecked). ASUKITE 11:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

My main aim was to get the article well enough referenced to squash the speedy deletion nomination, quickly, so getting the reference there, in any form, was the priority. JBW (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

That's exactly the sort of thing I do all the time, I tend to act quickly and come back later to double-check what I did. ADHD doesn't help, in my case. By the way, another editor fixed my fix of that citation, as I incorrectly used cite web (another issue with the VE auto-expand is it tends to favor that template). ASUKITE 22:47, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's nothing you can tell me about attention deficit disorder that I don't already know all too well, except that in my case the hyperactivity aspect is absent. JBW (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Omniking2100 (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2026 (UTC) Hi, I can see you've slapped the LLM label on my article. I'm genuinely interested in your specific reasons for the doubt. On the punctuation point — I'm not sure what you mean. Is there a misspelled word, or are you saying the punctuation style itself reads as AI-generated? On the language artifacts point specifically, I'd appreciate it if you could quote the exact passages you're referring to. The previous accusations ended without any tangible proof it's AI, but they still penalized me — I lost my other article. On the AfD we did attempt to tackle the accusations but again it went nowhere, you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_422 if you're interested. AI accusations are very baseless in my opinion but their impact is devastating. The other accusations were sus with no basis, the Elon article is the one accused of AI and I wasn't able to disprove it because of this exact issue I'm trying to avoid — lack of specifics. So please be specific about what makes this read as AI to you, so I know what I'm up against.

The main tells for me were the use of spaced EM dashes, which is a common one, as well as the citation errors (the red notices such as the one under Segregationist campaigns), and the reuse of citations on the page. I haven't fully analyzed the prose and I apologize if this feels baseless. Analyzing AI text is not a particular specialty of mine. The writing style of the lead "feels" like AI writing to me, but that can be hard to break down, so I will apologize if it just so happens that your writing style happens to be similar to that of an LLM.

I left the tag to enable a deeper analysis, and I can try to go over some of the items at WP:AISIGNS later when I have a moment. ASUKITE 16:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Omniking2100 (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The items I've spotted so far:

• Undue emphasis on significance, legacy, and broader trends: "Widely celebrated as..." this phrasing may not be factually incorrect but is unnecessary.
• Avoidance of basic copulatives ("is"/"are" phrases): "held a range of views", "drew direct rebukes from..." - not specifically is/are phrases but these fit the style of AI writing described at AISIGNS
• Overuse of em dashes
• Skipping heading levels: several sections go straight from level 2 to level 3 headings. This isn't always a problem but can be a sign. "Views on white colonial authority" contains only one subheading, which is unusual
• The statement "some of his supporters say that Gandhi in his later age had evolved past his racial views and ceased using racial slurs towards Africans" maps to the included source, but that was only said by one individual, as far as I can tell.

ASUKITE 17:52, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

actually the netgeo citation doesn't even say what I just said it said, cause father of India is an irrelevant whataboutism to the context since It didn't say father of India but independence and non violance. Omniking2100 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

omg it does say what I say it said omg just some random hallucination Omniking2100 (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that. The thing is I don't manually type each `</ref>`, I already have something saved like `</ref>......ref/>` and I just put the source inside, so it's automatic, doing it manually would take ages, I have no idea how others do it. The ref name thing though. I'll be real I've been loose about it because I've seen bots auto-name refs I leave empty, and as long as the citation is correct it really seems to not matter, for example it auto names to auto 3 or something. even had "omniman" as a ref name in my other article and nobody touched it — that's the kind of thing that makes you think the name doesn't matter. But I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'll remove it, just trying to understand where you're coming from. Of course you must put other things like access date, and when and stuff, but that after process. It seems like some pretentious feigned understanding cause ngl, I don't understand what you actually mean about em dashes or citation errors fully, so I'm giving you what I think you mean. On reusing citations — that's intentional. I learned from losing my misconceptions article that SYNTH is serious, so if a source supports multiple things I'm saying I'll use it again and again rather than stretch it. Every line I cite is directly supported by that source. SYNTH is about combing to make a conclusion, so I avoid that, if the source doesn't say I won't use it, but in some like incidents part, I put sources below cause I was describing and it was essentially one thing. Yeah I read that article on how to spot Ai, I see where you're coming from with words like "notably" or "commented" do some like some Ai, Ai talks in this liberal soft neutral way. But these words are very good. Cause when English is your second language you don't think these things. When you wanna find a word that means this In a correct way, you go to Google, Google will give you an acedemic word to use and you use that word. Cause this is how we think native English speakers speak, they use these words. So you see these types of words in our writing, big words. And I get why it comes off as Ai, I've seen Ai it talks like this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniking2100 (talk • contribs)

When I referred to reusing citations, I mean that they are duplicated in the source. You posted this article using mobile edits, which means you likely used the source editor. Repeatedly copying/pasting in ref tags from a mobile device would be challenging. It would be easier to name the refs and use the named references. I used a tool to combine several a while ago. I recommend keeping your replies concise if you want a helpful dialogue.

See MOS:DASH, em dashes are the longer dashes — like this. en dashes are shorter: –. Per our manual of style, em dashes should not be spaced. ASUKITE 17:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Omniking2100 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

On the first point, if you go to the Mandela article, 4th paragraph you'll see "Globally regarded as an..." and on the geographic page where I got this citation it literally says "Often called the 'father of India'..." idk how am I supposed to say that without using a word like "widely." It's highly appropriate, in fact I did the same thing in the Elon article saying he's a founder of this and that. It's an introduction, also I think it's good especially when the article is part of a category of someone who's already talked about. Your second point is really about WP:POV. You may not have noticed but I changed the title from "Controversial views of Mahatma" to "Controversies surrounding Mahatma Gandhi" specifically because of the word "views." Views is a hard thing to prove, I can't make it the title because I'd be thinking for him, saying he views things like this, which isn't true because later some of those views had evolved. Those words I use like "drew criticism" are me describing, documenting what other people said about what he said. I can't say Gandhi viewed black people as this unless I'm talking about what he directly said, which I was doing most of the time. But these words also just cover more meaning without dragging it out — touches my earlier point about searching Google for the appropriate word to use. On the em dashes — yeah these ones I won't defend, I use them. As much as I personally use commas more, when you go professional it helps not make it messy. I also have no idea how to respond to this specific accusation ngl. Also autocorrect can do that automatically, not AI you type and it auto fixes, I've rarely seen it do that though, I mostly do it myself. On the heading levels this is honestly how I do all my sections, check my previous articles. I used to think on Wikipedia you used asterisks like ***Word*** for bolding, so headings serve that purpose for me, the reader should know what this section means. See the protest one, under it are names of countries with subheadings too — it helps when an editor is trying to add something, they don't have to scroll from the beginning, they can fix directly on that paragraph. Also I'm not fully sure what you mean so I'm answering what I think you mean. On the one individual yeah that was me attempting to add nuance and balance, I did debate it. But you're right, only one guy in that one source is named defending him. Nothing I can't fix with some more sources or naming people specifically. Also I'm taking longer to respond cause I think of your response first, so I do see it and am still enganged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omniking2100 (talk • contribs)

See WP:AINB#User:Omniking2100 As I am not an expert at analyzing AI output, I opened a case to see if we can get a second opinion, hopefully that will alleviate any concerns. Thanks. ASUKITE 18:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misreading it, but your post at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Neutral,_mixed,_or_other seems to be missing a word at the end. You may want to check that for clarity. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I was trimming a redundant bit and got distracted. ASUKITE 14:45, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Asukite, hope you're doing fine. As the admin who blocked this user, I think you should extend this user's block to indef on the basis of WP:DUCK - they seem to be pretty obviously the same user as blocked TAs ~2026-32326-28 and ~2026-29703-39 based on contribution histories: they try to make the same sort of edits adding the same Geometry Dash related content to articles and disambiguation pages (see Supersonic (disambiguation) and Future Funk's revision histories for example), and when they get blocked they all within minutes make similar unblock requests with a tone seemingly generated by AI. Please also tell me if it would be a good idea to take this to WP:SPI. Thanks in advance, ☾⟣✦Inzessin✦⟢☽^(talk) 00:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Having sampled a number of both TAs' edits, I agree, and went ahead and modified the block. Thanks! I don't have a ton of experience at SPI yet, but that may be worthwhile, especially if it helps to document future attempts at block evasion, which may be likely, since those TAs were blocked nearly a month ago. ASUKITE 00:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Final Fantasy VII Revelation logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I went to edit RAF event pages and noticed deletion. I read the sock puppet investigation and understand the users ban but is there anyway these pages can be restored? The banned users page creations have been very helpful in the updating of athletes records. Between this users page deletions and Pehlivanmeydani user contribution deletions for unrelated matters the freestyle wrestling wikipedia world have been turned upside down and I am staring down an insurmountable battle to attempt to bring it back. Thank you. Brosenow (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Brosenow, I'm sorry but as CSD G5 (pages created in violation of a block or ban) is not listed as a valid criterion at WP:REFUND (see the collapsed green box near the submission box titled "Applicable speedy deletion criteria"), I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to restore those. With those articles, I only deleted the ones that were already tagged by another editor. I think there was one RAF-related article that had not been tagged yet that was left up, but I can't say if that will be deleted by another admin.

I took a minute to go over the first few dozen archive hits for "G5" at the REFUND archive to find some exceptions, and the only restorations were mostly errors on the part of the deleting admin, a GA that was deleted, a user who was later unblocked requesting a refund, and in one case a request to restore a version of a page that was previously deleted for a reason other than G5. That said, nothing is stopping you from going over to WP:REFUND, but your mileage may vary.ASUKITE 21:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me and for your time. Brosenow (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me about my mistake, heres a kitten 4 u Elderlyman2005 (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)