User talk:Omniking2100

Hello, I'm 45dogs. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, WorldBox, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at WorldBox, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at WorldBox, you may be blocked from editing. tony 23:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@TonySt I'm sorry I was gonna add sources after I updated it, I thought I was gonna go step by step updating and adding new Info about worldbox Omniking2100 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Omniking2100 the sources you are adding are not reliable. Youtube is user generated, reviews of a game shouldn't be used, Reddit shouldn't be used. Fandom should also not be used. Please review WP:reliable sources. In addition, your edits contain a promotional tone; see WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:PUFFERY. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Omniking2100, again, the sources you are adding are not reliable. Please see WP:RELIABILITY. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@45dogs okay thanks for your feedback. I have removed content citing unreliable sources such as Reddit, Fandom wikis, and YouTube, and replaced them with information supported only by reliable, official sites and independent reports. Please let me know if any further improvements are needed. Omniking2100 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reception section is far too puffery of the game, and you probably shouldn't use app store reviews as a source (besides just saying it has this number of stars). A neutral tone is what you are supposed to aim for. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 02:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page WorldBox has been reverted.
Your edit here to WorldBox was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline (see also this list of frequently-discussed sources). The reference(s) you added or changed (https://the-official-worldbox-wiki.fandom.com/wiki/Developers_and_Contributors) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Omniking2100. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page WorldBox, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• 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;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

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

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. tony 02:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sarsenet. An edit that you recently made to Elon Musk and South Africa seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, 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. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 13:25, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

hello I really understand your concern but I do wanna point out when drafting this I didn't use any Ai to write for me, the only Ai I could say I used was grammarly which is on my phone and fix spelling mistakes, other Ai I did use like claude or perplexity were for searching the right news citations and even that I was the one who went to the site and took the link and wrote the stuff. This article I made was already in my notes app, prior I was drafting it and refining I only uploaded it yesterday adding new relevant stuff on the context of the topic as I went on, I get the idea I did use an Ai is because of the language and structure, I was trying to sound really neutral and avoid such accussary terms considering it's a topic political related, I think that's just that, I had to use words that were big and in order to pass certain points, I don't think the idea I should write on my own words would work for this particular or similar topics on Wikipedia, I avoided that understanding that this was a sensitive topic and I would get banned or something. But I really understand your concern, but I definitely think there was a mistake in this, I do have experience in writing and I won't say I don't use Ai, but I definitely never use it to write my pages on Wikipedia as I'm well aware of the guidelines. Omniking2100 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

... I used was grammarly ...

That is not allowed, the WP:NOLLM specifically mentions Grammarly.

..., I don't think the idea I should write on my own words would work for this particular or similar topics on Wikipedia, ...
— User:Omniking2100

You should not edit topics which you know that you lack the WP:COMPETENCY to edit. You always have to use your own words, there are no exceptions to this. If you can't write it yourself, then don't edit that topic. --Gurkubondinn 22:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to List of common misconceptions about political terminology. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it violates WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and likely WP:NEWLLM. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Omniking, comparing the writing style of the (presumably written by you) talk page responses to your mainspace contributions, I find it implausible that you are just using AI to "fix spelling mistakes", as you say above. Note that Wikipedia policy prohibits the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of common misconceptions about political terminology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions about political terminology until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

~ A412 ^talk! 14:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, Omniking2100, your message here gives me hope that advice will reach listening ears, so I'll volunteer some.

• First, I'd respond substantively to my and other editors' concerns that you're using an LLM to write articles. Why does your comment writing style appear completely different than your article writing style? How are you writing your articles?
• Second, slow down. Publishing your articles comes with the downside that they'll be immediately scrutinized by the community. I'd recommend creating them as drafts and using Articles for Creation. I tried to help you with this by moving your article to draftspace, which you immediately reverted. Why?
• Third, learn the ropes of Wikipedia. Creating articles is notoriously hard, especially large-scope articles like the ones you've been working on. There are a lot of minutae of policy that take time to learn, and this type of article will run into many of them. For an example of something you're missing about how this place works, if you want other editors to read your messages, you need to post on the AFD page, not its talk page, as you've been doing.

~ A412 ^talk! 06:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

If you "don't want to loose it after making it", you can always make a copy in your user space, or save the wikitext source in a text file on your computer. But imo this isn't up to snuff for inclusion in article space. But you can still keep a copy for yourself if you want to. --Gurkubondinn 04:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

dude I'm just answering the questions, I wouldn't polish my structure for that, besides it's a very intense moment to look back and fix stuff. When I'm writing the articles, I spend a lot of time in one paragraph anyway, so I have lots of time to polish it's structure. Yeah I get you reverted it, I thought it was about the references part and I fixed that, I didn't know why you did, in fact I even double checked the sources when you did maybe one did sound right or something, I added the reference part and checked the language. On the AfD it's cause I can't post long texts atleast I don't know how to, idk about other people like the person who took my message there, I tried multiple times, it says you can't post long text doesn't say but the send button gets faded out. Yeah I already have this stuff on my txt file anyway so I won't need to copy it also copying as I tried takes everything even the edit messages. Nah I do get it, this not a democracy, I read these policies, it's not about your opinion sounding right, but if it doesn't meet the criteria of a certain policy it won't work, like the syth, you can't really go around that, cause ist very specific. There's no way I can denounce the Ai claims, only Ai you could say I use is grammarly for like fixing my grammar, nothing else, I know what Ai generating is, before I joined Wikipedia I learned this or what it takes to be an editor on wikepedia, the auto correct on laptop can be useless, even that the grammarly is on my phone not on the laptop, also if you look when citing Washington post, sometimes it does return nothing cute not found for some reason idk which when cite I go to the page and copy on the share on chrome button that's the citations, idk how you guys do it that's how I do it. I don't even know how you guys determine someone using Ai, like we are required to already sound like robots, how would you know a clean polished language is Ai, on the sources I can definitely say I checked each and every last of them, when I was publishing this I was auto stopped cause some sources were on the banned list or something and I had to manually remove as I put them and had to clean those areas, didn't even know about the black list on Wikipedia. That's all I have to say on this, I'll just see what the verdict is and maybe later restructure this article and try again. Omniking2100 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Let's do a randomly selected section, which I've reproduced below for convenience. I'm relatively unconcerned about accuracy here and mainly focused on WP:SYNTH.

Paragraph up to the first two cites: Neither source actually makes the claim that Cold War-era propaganda systematically fused capitalism and democracy or found them inherently inseparable. The best they offer is concerned with promoting liberal democratic culture and free‑market capitalism, and with exploiting the mechanisms and apparatus of both from the first source. The second source does not mention democracy in the context of capitalism.

Up to the next: By embedding this equation in popular consciousness before the Cold War had even begun - what does this even mean? In any case, the source does not discuss NAM's actions in the context of the Cold War, only in the context of the 1935-1940 period and the time before it.

Up to the last: The historical record, however, directly contradicts the equation of capitalism with democracy - This is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew built one of the most successful and open capitalist economies in the world under sustained authoritarian single-party governance. Both cases are widely cited by political scientists as definitive historical evidence that capitalism and democracy operate on separate axes and carry no necessary relationship to one another. - The source does not mention Singapore, so neither statement here could plausibly be cited to the source.

~ A412 ^talk! 20:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not gonna lie this is some extremely good criticism, I'll start with the last one, I really can't defend that one you're right on it, the Exeter article doesn't mention Singapore, the structural context of this one on my part was highly focused on debunking rather than full engagement cause I don't how I missed that, which is bias and wrong per policy and misinformation, I should gave more sources the article itself is one sided leaning on one claim and I did ignore the other claim I put in my mind I gave the reader the assumption by now we should be expect it to be a misconception, I'm definitely wrong on this one, I see no correction whatsoever. The first one. The historical claim is true, I know that, but you're right on the claim made by the article itself, the article never really doesn't say systemically fused and even if I defended this word as an implication to a fact following the overall context, it still break rule, cause that was praised as a statement in which on Wikipedia you need a citation for and the citation didn't make that statement. The article though does contain the Rosenberg quote which American values, capital, products, goods, and ideas all had to circulate together which would be a possible conflation and in my earlier mind is what I determined the source was even claiming, but I didn't engage with that, I instead used a very specific word and statement. You're right the second article or source is the one most concerned about cause that's really just a bunch of whataboutism, cause that's very much irrelevant or to the specific topic on this, I really can't defend this one at all. And it doesn't get better from here cause the critique 2 is where it's jarring me. The line of course does mean popular thinking which support the idea these are misconceptions and why we believe them, the Nam is interesting, in the passage I wasn't really claiming the Nam was was thinking about the cold war, I was just making the historical claim the campaign of 1940 did successfully make the whole idea capitalism equals freedom equation popular in American thinking and media and the cold WAr era propaganda did make this hard to question cause you've got the numbers and public fear, can't really tell people how to think in these context when it's in front of their eyes, so I was basing thing as cold war didn't make it but some already existing thinking. But the fact is this is misleading, by the entire citation I gave to argue this which is misleading misinformation, I really can't argue against this. In fact this whole capitalism equals democracy has been me meeky weak and as I sobely review it's obvious it's problematic, even the other line "ugusto Pinochet's Chile implemented radically free-market capitalist economic policies". This is weak statement considering I gave no relevant citations to support this claim compared to how in my other Elon and South Africa article I giving citation every line, this is a high implication on me that the users or readers by now should be following where I'm at and that's just wrong I really can't save this whole line, I'll definitely take it down cause even if now I did try and find good sourcing for them, that's dishonest the first and last could be saved by sources in which I highly sus I probably had and did something, the last just needs 2-3 sources it still supports the claims, the second is a lost cause, the first looking at my drafts I did see, I gave another citation that was gonna be for the second line it's substack, it's nor a reliable source on Wikipedia it's why I flagged it, I think I missed the important context on why it even mattered and even if I was hurried in this line cause I should not have went the cold war way, without giving space to each, cause fused you'll never see a source on that, they require individual sources in which it was something I was doing reading like that, but I failed to put all relevant sources. When I was making this I was told 2 sources are not allowed , but I don't think it's this one, I just ignored this one for some reason to check. I definitely should have gave 2 sources on the 3rd one, the second and first are just lost causes now that I see it. I really admit this error and definitely Wil delete this section in capitalism equals democracy. Ngl you came in very very strong, idk, I'll see what else you can send me if you have, in which I hope you don't, before I just call it quits. Yeah this is breaking the SYNTH policy in which I'm admitting, of course admitting on these particular lines only, idk about other stuff bruh which I still defend highly. Omniking2100 (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

the overall mistake I see is that I relied too much on the Cambridge citation for my democracy claims, of course it does in large talk about the overall context of the whole section but still doesn't address my specifications claims and statement which were substantially my own opinion without a relevant citations specific on each statement. Just adding to the top Omniking2100 (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@A412: thank you for going through the effort of writing up this analysis, it is very well done. --Gurkubondinn 21:57, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let's put the articles at AfD aside for now, and let's say that I take you at your word and assume that you wrote those articles yourself. Have you ever used an AI for editing on Wikipedia? When did you start, and when did you stop using it? Why did you stop?

I use is grammarly
— User:Omniking2100

Just so you know, Grammarly is an AI and it is specially mentioned in the WP:NOLLM guideline. --Gurkubondinn 22:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah technically it is, but I treat it like auto correct, isn't that like allowed, I mean it auto correct one word, a word I was gonna put anyway, I know it has a section of improving whole line, but I swear I never use that, which I know is sus that I do mention it, but I'm mentioning cause I don't wanna play dumb. I have never used Ai. On the searching for a citation, ngl, on my drafts, before I even put a word, I must find a source that will talk exactly what I'm taking so I can get points there. So I do use claude Ai, chatgpt hallucinates and it's useless, but claude does go. So example I say, find all sources that talk about A, and it gives me, I go to all the sources, I read, and if I find this very close to what I'll write, I take the sources, take out laptop and write on that, the sources are on my phone, so I'm writing looking at my phone and what. When I do pull the text file to my phone and slap on noted app, grammarly does that pop thing where it gives me each and every word mispronouncing, sometimes laptop auto correct is useless especially when writing fast. Then I fix the words, words only, not lines not paragraph or anything like that, I do yes write manually on the phone this is where I polish each paragraph. The thing is I don't add the citations on the laptop, that's hard, if need to write manually, cause on phone I copy each citations and just pin, in order, so I know this paragraph goes to that citations so when it's on my notes app, I just slap on the paragraph or line manually lol, and I do check if they are relevant all of them, again very hard stuff each of them, not gonna say it's clean, cause at this point I'm not really checking the contents as I did earlier I'm checking foes it say what's said, and yes the bias can be I check only title which ice seen is bad and cost me, do yeah laziness did cost me on this one. That's the whole process before I send to Wikipedia and stuff I got turned back 2 times and stuff cause some citations apparently banned forgot their names. That's how it works no Ai, I mean yes Ai in that specific one. I do remember I was told this previously on my Elon I had used Ai and nervous it was my first page and stuff and tried to explain never really understood of it work or not never got a reply, cause that page has been there for months and I added the citations and checked and stuff. Idk what constitute as using Ai, do I use Ai to discuss the certain topic yes, do I use grammarly to auto correct my words yes, it doesn't improve them corrects, I know which words are necessary but I'm not good at word Grammer as in how it's pronounced as much, but I do not use it to improve or write me a whole thing, Ai can't do this Ai as far as I know is useless whentit comes to writing large texts it's hallucinates chatgpt can barley give me a source of the thing it just told me, it makes stuff up to fill a Gap.i can't disapprove using Ai, cause how would I do that, but the grammarly being an Ai, yes it definitely is, but as you've probably see I barely use it when writing these replies cause tapping them is not as fun also it can distort thr actually message if you do too fast and it auto changes the word to something that makes no sense cause it couldn't guess the other word meant. Yeah that's all I have to say, I have to Ai but not in the context of Wikipedia, specifically on letting it write or improve anything for me, other than individual words, one word, lol, just one word it improves individually. Omniking2100 (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

just wanted to say as much as yes it's conflicting, I do appreciate your strong push back and critism. Ngl I did come off as lazy on this, after your first critism I saw the flaw in th articles, of course now I tried to fix those flaws. But my point is, I genuinely wouldn't have known really if I didn't get pulled down to earth ngl especially on the (NPOV) and SYNTH, reworking this made shock cause I really didn't know it was that bad. Plus when you aid let's start randomly I thought it was just word play, I'm every familiar with word play, and thought maybe you'd just went through and couldn't debunk, so found a specific. Point is, I did come off as bit emotionally defensive, ngl cause yes other critism I can take lol but the idea all that time wasted was all on Ai, but it's good it did. We might treat that as diversity in opinion between us, but the other critism were all accurate and on point. Your earlier draft, I took for granted, ngl I've neve used a draft ever, atleast not this one on Wikipedia, this is where I just get turned back for a certain citation or something, definitely gonna use that in potential future next time. I'm reminded we are not adverseries here, and everyone is just doing their part and stuff. All I wanted to say. Omniking2100 (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elon Musk and South Africa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk and South Africa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

–Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the article List of common misconceptions about political terminology. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up, I've definitely noted, reading this I didn't know earlier that sites like encyclopedia.com were considered mirrors. I'm gonna be working on it. Omniking2100 (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

wanna say that came off as pretentious feigned understanding, now I understand what you meant it's about the Wikipedia citations not the encyclopedia, noted for that. And I already fixed those. Omniking2100 (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Elon Musk and South Africa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk and South Africa. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah okay I noted, I think it's a misunderstanding cause I did fix the core issues that were raised if the afd, definitely not a G4, but I did request it be undeleted just now. Omniking2100 (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Omniking2100, I am sorry that the Wikipedia community has decided to delete the Elon Musk and South Africa article. Just some advice, it is best to abide by decisions made at Articles for deletion votes. If you want to recreate articles, it is best to put them in draft format (for example Draft:Elon Musk and South Africa). Before moving the article into mainspace, it is best to seek feedback from other Wikipedians on whether the project is viable. I appreciate your efforts not to use Grammarly but you still need to learn how things are done in Wikipedia. Sometimes, it is best to move on and find another topic rather than banging on the wrong door. Let me know if you help and advice. Kind regards. Andykatib 00:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah okay, thanks for the advice I'll definitely consider that next time. Omniking2100 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is surprising that they didn't respond to your undeletion request but good on recreating the draft. Would be good to get feedback before moving it into mainspace. I could see if I could get my Wikipedia friends to give some feedback and advice. Cheers. Andykatib (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, it might also be a good idea to create a user page so that other users get to know a bit about you. It doesn't have to be too long or fancy. Just something about who you are and what your interests are. Also most users don't disclose their real identities but do mention the country they live, gender or occupation. No pressure but just a helpful suggestion. Andykatib (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

okay thanks for the advice I'll do that. And I appreciate your contribution to this article, ngl your enthusiasm is appealing, in regard to this article of course. Omniking2100 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome. Happy to help. Andykatib (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages. It is not official policy but is a helpful guide to understand Wikipedia's policy around recreating pages that have been deleted. Andykatib (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Omniking2100. Thank you for your work on Mob justice in South Africa. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Nice start!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei ✦ ^{reach out 🕊️} 13:12, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:48, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) to Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies, as LLM-generated content is prohibited on Wikipedia. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Omniking2100,

This is not the first time that you have been told that you are not permitted to use LLMs on the English Wikipedia. I have even told you about WP:NOLLM myself several times, including here on your talk page. Multiple people have taken the time to give you advice and guidance, but you are choosing to deliberately ignore all of them and continue anyway.

You need to stop using these tools right now, and you need to stop before you find yourself on ANI over it. You know about the guideline, you know our rules, and we know this -- so you cannot claim ignorance if you end up there. I do not want you to be blocked, but I am afraid that you will get blocked if you continue like this.

‑‑gurkubondinn 23:11, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I really appreciate your concerns but that's just not true. The homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies is not llm at all. I think we have conflicting time zones, cause I didn't even get a chance to respond to those deletion. Please revert the homosexuality in pre-colonial African societies, I've been working on that a lot, if you think it's llm, you should tell me which parts. This is definitely not policy based, it's one of my tightest Wikipedia articles ever, I even switched to using actually books as sources and citation, I even made an archive about a book in 1920, which is free domain but couldn't be found, so users can trace to it. This is extremely unfair. There is no lllm, repeatedly I've argued this. The Elon Musk and South Africa article has gone massive change improvements, I even made all the sentences ahd words sound as humanly as possible. This is not G4. Please revert back my articles. Omniking2100 (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi anyway I did take this case to the Ai notice board, so feel free to contribute your own evidence there. [] Omniking2100 (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

you're right, my mistake. It's not you who deleted the Elon Musk and South Africa article, I directed at wrong person. Omniking2100 (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Elon Musk and South Africa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. splains (💬/📝) 22:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DocArchitect26: more AI lying/sealioning. Hi, the thread isn't about you, I just referred to the AINB report and thought I should notify you of that. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)