User talk:RealSpaceOddity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
It appears you may have used a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, in your edits. While LLMs are powerful, machine-generated text often contains serious flaws. They may introduce bias, errors, plagiarism, libel, or even hoaxes. Specifically asking an LLM to "write a Wikipedia article" can sometimes cause the output to be outright fabrication, complete with fictitious references. Editors must verify all LLM-generated text before using it in an article. Completely LLM-generated articles may be quickly deleted. If you are unsure about your wording, an alternative is to suggest it on the talk page for another volunteer to look at it. If you are creating a new article, you may use the Articles for Creation process to get feedback on your work.
As you get started editing Wikipedia, you may find the pages below to be helpful:
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can , and someone will be along to answer it shortly. In your messages, please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. Happy editing! jlwoodwa (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for your obviously ai generated message. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- This template was human-written, not AI-generated; you can check the history for yourself. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- @RealSpaceOddity, you also used an LLM to create this talk section. Please refrain from doing that, use your own words. BugGhost 🦗👻 06:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I would avoid making accusations that you can’t back up with evidence. Engage with the actual arguments instead of continuing to deface articles out of personal and political grievances. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Jonathan Blow
Hi - do you have any relationship to Jonathan Blow or his related companies or products? If you do, you are required to disclose this infornation as explained at WP:UPE. Thanks. BugGhost 🦗👻 23:17, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
- No RealSpaceOddity (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for clarifying. BugGhost 🦗👻 06:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- But so far you have not made a single edit outside the topic area of Jonathan Blow (i.e. Jonathan Blow, Order of the Sinking Star and Jai (programming language)). Nakonana (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Jonathan Blow Reversions
Hi RealSpaceOddity! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version of an article. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Also, the continued aspersions in this edit summary "
Suspected sock puppet behavior. Refrain from further defacement to maintain disputed editorializing content
" are completely out of line. BugGhost 🦗👻 19:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)- The dispute is “resolved” by another account within minutes, and the third party didn’t even bother to engage on substantive grounds and refuses to agree to revert to a stable version before the disputed content was added. This is clear motivated actions either in coordination, or sock puppet behavior.
- The continued existence of undue editorial content that is arguably defamatory is a blot on the credibility of Wikipedia.
- Coordinated politically motivated attacks should be condemned, not rewarded. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- I see it's now set to be discussed at the BLP noticeboard. If sockpuppetry is found, it will be dealt with, but Wikipedians are also encouraged to assume good faith Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- Please remind BugGhost of good faith. They have repeatedly accused me of being a bot or using ai.
- Oddly, they unilaterally made their multiple editorializing edits without creating a Talk thread, and those editorials are now the live version of a BLP.
- There has been no good faith from them. RealSpaceOddity (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- You have used AI - this is very obvious. It was pointed out by Jlwoodwa in a talk section above, before you and I first interacted. You've then made at least two AI talk page comments about Blow, this one (which uses markdown, despite you previously apparently being aware of how to format very elaboate wikitext), and this one (which uses en-dashes, hit a 100% score on GPTZero, and makes no sense).
- I "unilaterally" made edits without making a talk page section first because that is exactly what you are meant to do, and when we started reverting each other I discussed it with you at length on the talk page. This is normal WP:BRD stuff.
- For the record, I am assuming good faith - I do think you are attempting to improve the page - I just think you are completely incorrect about your interpretation of what counts as an "improvement". However - if you continue to use AI to litigate content disputes, or if you continue to baselessly accuse anyone of sockpuppetting, I will take you to WP:ANI. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- This is getting bizarre. En dash use is literally in the Wiki style guide. See MOS:DASH, and markdown is standard in virtually every notes app. Are you writing long replies inside the wiki editor on mobile? Good luck! 😂
- Not familiarizing yourself with the style guide is fine. I know it’s super secret, but holding down the dash key in iOS to select the proper dash is not magic.
- This line of personal attack is clearly a deflection tactic that avoids addressing the actual policy concerns raised repeatedly: WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:RECENTISM, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:COATRACK. Also, accusing another editor of secretly using AI, combined with threats of ANI, violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:ASPERSIONS.
- You have repeatedly avoided any substantive discussion on the merits, because you assume (correctly) that the Wikipedia editors will rubber stamp any intentionally inflammatory editorials as long as they dislike the subject. This is already evident on the thread opened by another editor. (Screenshotted) It is embarrassing behavior, and is against the fundamental principles that we are supposed to follow.
- If you actually thought I was trying to improve the article, you would have engaged with more than flippant, “it’s relevant… it stays…” but you haven’t. The only time you put any thought into responses is when you’re trying to insult and attack me personally.
- - – — – - RealSpaceOddity (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- As someone who also regularly uses en-dashes (I even have a custom keyboard shortcut on my PC!) – it is clear that many of your messages have been AI generated, and avoiding or deflecting the question is not helpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
- I see it's now set to be discussed at the BLP noticeboard. If sockpuppetry is found, it will be dealt with, but Wikipedians are also encouraged to assume good faith Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
March 2026
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)- LOL 😂 RealSpaceOddity (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)