User talk:Oroboros74

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Research and Dialogue (FIIRD) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Research and Dialogue (FIIRD) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://popespeaks.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/address-to-the-foundation-for-interreligious-and-intercultural-research-and-dialogue-1-february-2007/) 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) 11:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Fokontany. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. 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. ACROM12 [TALK] 12:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to find some sources. In the meantime, is it possible to publish some parts, like the more descriptive parts like "what it is", just so there's something to read for the pages that are linked to this? Oroboros74 (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 16:02, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing this. The page was deleted en masse by @Gnomingstuff with no explanation besides "AI Slop" and the user (bot?) instantaneously undoes any edits.

The edits to the wikipage have been documented in talks and a notice to the user has been sent to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gnomingstuff#Stop_deleting_text_in_mass_with_the_rationale_of_%22AI_slop%22

It should be noted that a lot of time and effort was put into researching and writing this wikipage, with all facts referenced and sources cited.

How can I protect the page at this point? Oroboros74 (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The page does not need protection. Pages only get protected when there is sufficient vandalism.

The reversions by Gnomingstuff are policy based. AI content simply isn't preferred here as it has a lot of problems. I suggest you ask him how best to move forward. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 16:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The page was deleted in bulk by @Gnomingstuff with the rationale “AI slop.”

Regardless of the means of drafting, the removed content consisted of verifiable, factual statements supported by reliable, independent sources that were explicitly cited. A lot of time and effort was put into this project, searching dissertations and master's theses around a little documented subject. All facts have been documented and references, and references cited. All edits during the writing process have been documented in the edits and in talk. Wikipedia policy evaluates contributions based on verifiability, sourcing, and encyclopedic value, not on whether AI tools were used in the writing process.

As the material met core content policies, its wholesale removal on the basis cited should not be allowed, and the reverted text should be assessed on its merits rather than on the method of composition.

Whether the user is a bot or a real user, an entire wikipage - with references, sources, facts - cannot and should not be deleted willy nilly. If there is something factually incorrect, feel free to edit, but contribute positively to the wikipage - not censuring it on the blanket basis of "AI slop".

As you see, I wrote the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gnomingstuff#Stop_deleting_text_in_mass_with_the_rationale_of_%22AI_slop%22 and many other wiki users have the same issue.

At this point, after I tried to engage the first and second time with the user, and they continue to revert with no meaningful discussion, I would suggest something needs to be done about them - not me trying to protect my writing.

How would you suggest we proceeed? Oroboros74 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Oroboros74, the WP:ONUS policy states, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." As there was no consensus for including your recent additions to the article Nasandratrony, it was not appropriate for you to repeatedly reinstate your edits against the objections of other editors. In the discussion at Talk:Nasandratrony § First major update, most editors seem to agree that your content additions were both LLM-generated and not verifiable to reliable sources.

"Large language models should not be used to generate new Wikipedia articles from scratch", per the WP:NEWLLM guideline, which means that you need to completely change your approach to editing if you would like to continue participating on Wikipedia. Please also see WP:LLMCOMM in regard to talk page comments. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 00:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, please revert your edit on the Nasandratrony article here, otherwise it gives the impression that you are edit warring. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 17:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

EDIT: I reverted it per wikipedia's AI policy myself, but please do not re add this back until you gain consensus. You are currently in a discussion on Gnomingstuff's talk page about your AI additions, I think that should finish first before you move any further. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 17:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Nasandratrony map.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) 18:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)