User talk:Vomni

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Leopoldine Core, have removed content without a good reason to do so. Content on Wikipedia should not be removed just because you disagree with it or because you think it's wrong, unless the claim is not verifiable. Instead, you should consider expanding the article with noteworthy and verifiable information of your own, citing reliable sources when you do so. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ミラP@Miraclepine 02:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hi Vomni! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Leopoldine Core and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:33, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the timing of your edit (the first one in seven months) and a previous edit on that same page with an SPA, I'm inclined to believe there was canvassing involved. Where did you hear about this? ミラP@Miraclepine 02:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi miraclepine. I have no desire to get into an editing war with you as it seems that you are after here. I do not know why you are committed to continuously reverting changes, but I came across this wikipedia page after finishing Veronica Bench and found some of the information to be patently untrue. I hope this satisfies your curiosity. I hope that you can refrain from continue to revert good faith edits and refresh yourself on the living biographies rules. Vomni (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Douglas Says (June 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanilla Wizard was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vanilla Wizard. This is all my original content and ideas. I used a grammar check but I did this research and wrote over everything. Please let me know what else I can do to ensure this gets approved. Vomni (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Vomni! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Douglas Says (June 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bunnypranav was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
No significant changes since last decline.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all my original writing. Can you be more specific here? Vomni (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a blatant violation of Wikipedia:Promo and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Douglas Says (June 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Notcharizard were:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This contains a lot of promotional language typical of LLM. You have resubmitted the same article multiple times without making changes. Please do not do this. The article will not be accepted without significant changes to avoid promotional language. It will need to be rewritten without an LLMs assistance.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
-- NotCharizard 🗨 15:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]