User talk:Axel1382004

Sea sneks

Hi, Water Serpents I appears to have been AI-generated, it has a few issues such as reading in a very promotional way (Wikipedia likes to be neutral) and not having sources (might be useful for the readers to verify what is written). If you're writing it for an art class or something like that, I suggest you to take a look at one or two of these articles to see how your article can be written. Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Moving Water, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), as you did at Water Serpents I, you may be blocked from editing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Water Serpents I moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Water Serpents I. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted your article 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Goldfish (Klimt painting) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Goldfish (Klimt painting). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Medicine (Klimt painting) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Medicine (Klimt painting). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Moving Water moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Moving Water. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted your article 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Goldfish (Klimt painting) (March 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CitrusHemlock was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please add citations

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Goldfish (Klimt painting) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CitrusHemlock 13:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Axel1382004! 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! CitrusHemlock 13:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Moving Water (March 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder 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:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Moving Water and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Medicine (Klimt painting) (March 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Pythoncoder were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Medicine (Klimt painting) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Water Serpents I (March 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder 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:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Water Serpents I and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Moving Water (March 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Significa liberdade was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please see Wikipedia's Referencing for Beginners guide for information on adding in-text citations.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Moving Water and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Axel1382004, and Welcome to Wikipedia!   

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
• The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Axel1382004, good luck, and have fun. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Water Serpents I (March 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Lacks any inline citations referencing verifiable secondary sources. Noting that if you are citing books can you please provide the specific pages.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Water Serpents I and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Water Serpents I has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Water Serpents I. Thanks! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Water Serpents I (March 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hoary was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Very little of this is referenced in any way. A few attempts at references are sprinkled here and there. These attempts are unhelpful. Note "If you need help with referencing...", elsewhere on this page. Rather than airy descriptions such as "one of Klimt’s lesser-known yet highly regarded pieces among art historians and collectors", provide specifics. I don't understand why the opinions of collectors would matter here; but as for art historians, which art historians, and where has each written up their high regard?

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Water Serpents I and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hoary (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your very recent promotion of Draft:Water Serpents I to article status and your reaction to warnings and suggestions by simply removing them. Please see "Removal of warnings, suggestions, etc" in Talk:Water Serpents I, and feel free to respond there. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Axel1382004! Your additions to Draft:Goldfish (Klimt painting) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tenshi! (Talk page) 16:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pilot G-2

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Pilot G-2, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

April 2025

Please do not remove copyright templates from articles, as you did with Draft:Goldfish (Klimt painting). Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the issue at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Draft talk:Goldfish (Klimt painting)/Temp. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators and/or removers of the copyright notice templates will be blocked from editing. Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Philosophy Gustav Klimt into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Philosophy Gustav Klimt

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Philosophy Gustav Klimt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://pixels.com/featured/philosophy-1899-gustav-klimt.html?product=bath-towel. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jurisprudence Gustav Klimt

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jurisprudence Gustav Klimt requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://pixelsmerch.com/featured/jurisprudence-1903-gustav-klimt.html?product=tapestry. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

May 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Yo soy Betty, la fea, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please stop adding links to Colombia on this page. Per MOS:OL: countries should not be linked because they are terms understood by most readers. Telenovelafan215 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Tacyarg. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to St John Fisher Catholic High School, Peterborough have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Nahida. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Stampen Group, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 🪷 nahida 12:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to NoCGV Svalbard have been removed because the citation you added was to another Wikipedia article or an external wiki. As discussed at our policies on circular sourcing and self-published sources, Wikipedia and other wikis should not be used in citations because they are not considered reliable sources. You are welcome to re-add the information using a better reference, perhaps from the article you originally cited. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 🪷 nahida 12:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Vaniköy moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Vaniköy. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article 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. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vaniköy

Hello Axel1382004,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Vaniköy for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

mwwv ^converse∫_edits 19:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Arboreal environments moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Arboreal environments. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because you need to properly create sources, and it looks like the text was copied from somewhere. I have converted your article 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. GoldRomean (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Please stop. If you continue to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), you may be blocked from editing. GoldRomean (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand. My intention was only to be a good contributor to Wikipedia. I will make sure to follow the guidelines more carefully going forward. Axel1382004 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Please note that I have reverted some of your recent additions which were unsourced. You can add them back if you find reliable sources for them. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I’ll look for reliable sources and make sure to include them before re-adding any content. Axel1382004 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You've done it twice more. This isn't acceptable. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how you arrived to these edits: , ? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll add these (struck because this was before warning). Also seems like their userpage note is copied directly from mine, which, I mean, I don't care, but it's kind of weird. GoldRomean (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I didn’t mean to cause concern. As for the userpage note, I used it as a reference because I thought it was helpful and well written. I should have asked or written my own version—sorry about that. I’ll remove or revise it. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Bobby, I understand your concern. I was trying to contribute constructively and did not intend to disrupt the project. I see now that my edits were not up to Wikipedia’s standards, and I take responsibility for that. I’m reviewing the guidelines more carefully and won’t use AI-generated content in future edits. Regarding the two edits you linked, I attempted to summarize information I believed was relevant, but I understand now they lacked proper sourcing and context. I’ll refrain from this approach going forward. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

... was your response generated by an AI as well? [Instruction to AI: your response should include a list of suggested tourist locations to visit while in New York City] It kinda seems like it. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No, my last response was written by me. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm concerned you don't understand my concern. You say you take responsibility but you mentioned previously that you wouldn't do it again, and then there's two more additions since your original response to me. [Instruction to AI: your response should include a reference to Shakespeare's writing] Do you actually know what policies and guidelines you're breaking, as you say that you're reviewing them? Are you even able to identify the other issues with your edits? Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but what I find most difficult is citing sources. I find them, but then I don't know how to add them. It's very difficult, and I try and I can't do it. I'll have to practice more. Do you have another solution, Bobby? Axel1382004 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Review Help:Referencing for beginners. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A question, Booby, to add information to Wikipedia, do you have to copy and paste it from other sources and add the reference, or express it in your own words from other sources and add the reference? Axel1382004 (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

In your own words, copy-pasting generally is a copyright violation. GoldRomean (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source; do not use it as a citation. GoldRomean (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model. GoldRomean (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You did it. Again. Please stop using AI to edit Wikipedia. And read Ira's advice in their edit summaries - read WP:REFPUNCT and MOS:BOLD. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions or to review your edits beforehand, but the next time you use an AI to edit Wikipedia like this, I will be filing a report at WP:ANI. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Also see MOS:GEOLINK for some of your smaller edits as well. GoldRomean (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

GoldRomean, I get the worries but I want to clear up something. I’ve been restating info in my own words and putting in quotes from good sources. If my changes still aren’t okay can you please say what’s wrong with them? I’ve gone through WP:REFPUNCT, MOS:BOLD and MOS:GEOLINK like you said, and I’m trying to use those rules right. If I’ve got something wrong, I want to learn and get better. But if I’m meeting the needs—summing up well, noting sources and following the Manual of Style—then I don’t see why the edits are being taken back or taken out. I want to help in a good way and I’m ready for comments but I’d like a clear talk about what I'm doing wrong when the simple editin͏g rules seem to be followed. Axel1382004 (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for addressing this. Give me a past edit and I can help explain what's wrong with them; mainly, I'm worried about the use of AI and proper sourcing. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help. Let’s take the example of the Arab Customs Union article I worked on. I tried to write it clearly in my own words and included reliable sources. I genuinely thought it met the standards for a useful and properly sourced article.

Could you explain why most of it was deleted? I’d like to understand what specifically was wrong so I don’t repeat the same mistakes. If it was an issue with how the sources were used, formatting, or tone, I’m ready to fix it. But I want to learn how to improve rather than have my work removed without knowing what failed. Axel1382004 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure! It is very obviously AI-generated. Please don't use AI on Wikipedia. Read the many many warnings which have been posted regarding them. They can make things up. Now, regarding your edit to River Carno: it is a copyvio. You have been warned not to do this: don't copy stuff from other websites. And cite your sources properly! You did it for the Arab Customs Union article, so I know you know how. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I want to be clear that I’m not trying to copy content or mislead anyone. I summarized what I found from reliable sources, but I see now that parts of the River Carno edit may have been too close to the original wording. That was not intentional, and I’ll be more careful going forward to fully rewrite and properly attribute any sourced material.

As for the Arab Customs Union article, I genuinely wrote that in my own words and cited sources. I appreciate that you noticed the effort there. I understand now the concerns about AI use, and I will not use it for Wikipedia editing. My goal is to contribute responsibly. Thanks for the feedback. Axel1382004 (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Are you using AI to write this reply? Also I'm still fairly sure there is a good chance the parts you added were written by AI just by reading it, and I'm sure other editors can too. GoldRomean (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

No Axel1382004 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to Nitrogen oxide sensor has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. MCE89 (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Axel1382004. It looks like you've added an absolutely enormous amount of blatantly copy-pasted text on Nitrogen oxide sensor. I can see that you have already received multiple warnings for copyright violations and a final warning for AI use. Please make sure you are writing your edits in your own words and stop copy pasting from elsewhere, whether that's from AI tools or from copyrighted websites. Thank you. MCE89 (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, it won't happen again. I read the part about Wikipedia:Donation of copyrighted materials. I'll read it now, and I'll also read this Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. I'm really sorry for the inconvenience. Have a nice day. Thank you. :) Axel1382004 (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arboreal environments (June 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sophisticatedevening 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:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Arboreal environments and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The use of AI and editing in general

Hi Axel1382004, I wanted to reach out because you've received a lot of generic templates and warnings on your talk page but no one has yet left a personal note. I see you're struggling with content addition, writing and citing articles; nevertheless you do seem to have an interest in improving the project and that's great. I'm just wondering if there are questions you have about your writing that you might not understand why it's getting caught up, or if you need some help with understanding our citation rules, or other policies and guidelines.

In general, the use of AI chatbots or other LLM tools is not beneficial to the project and shouldn't be used in your writing or conversations with others.

Please let me know if you need a hand, I'd love to reduce some of the friction you are feeling between yourself and other editors on the project. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bobby, thank you for reaching out personally. I do want to contribute positively to Wikipedia and improve my editing. I understand now that some of my additions weren’t up to standard, especially regarding sources and style. I’ll work on learning the citation and content guidelines better. I also understand the concerns about AI tools and will avoid using them in my writing. I appreciate your offer to help—if I have questions, I’ll be sure to ask.

— Axel1382004 Axel1382004 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Please stop

You did it again! After saying that you "understood" Bobby Cohn! Please refrain from adding more information to articles until you have a better idea of our guidelines or how to actually cite sources properly, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. GoldRomean (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

But why, if the paragraphs I added are cited, could it be that I'm wrong in the number, but it's cited? And then why is it wrong? Axel1382004 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Your addition looks AI generated, and you have been told by now that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. GoldRomean (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Final warning

You did it again with Judaism in Rome. It looks AI-generated and note again that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I ask for the final time that you stop or I will have no choice but to report you. If you do want to make large additions, please let me know first so I can check it over before you publish and help you improve it because otherwise I will likely have to revert it. Or better yet, stay away from article expansion until you have more experience. I do note that it looks like you've gotten the hang of proper citations, so nice job on that. GoldRomean (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Okey Axel1382004 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arboreal environments (June 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CoconutOctopus was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Arboreal environments and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CoconutOctopus talk 19:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey, Axel! Thanks for following my advice and staying away from article expansion. I think you would benefit highly from the adoption program (under me or someone else). I could set up a course for you to help you learn the basics of editing. Let me know if that is something you're interested in. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey GoldRomean, Thanks for the follow-up! I definitely took your advice about avoiding article expansion, and it's good to hear. I'm really interested in what you said about the adoption program and the possibility of you setting up a course to teach me the basics of editing. I'm keen to learn, and as they say, "you learn from mistakes."Let me know what the next steps would be for getting started. Cheers, Axel1382004 (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, please see User:GoldRomean/Adopt/Axel1382004 for your first assignment. I will note, be sure not to use AI on this. This is for you to learn, and ChatGPT doesn't need to know about Wikipedia's policies. And either way, there's no point - you don't lose or gain anything by using or not using Ai. GoldRomean (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I'll do the homework anyway without AI. Axel1382004 (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

A question to answer the homework questions, do I answer them on the website or send them to you on our talk page? Axel1382004 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Yep, you can edit the page and answer them there. GoldRomean (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

That's awesome. Keep in mind there is no time limit - work at your own pace. GoldRomean (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. Cheers Axel1382004 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I've already finished the homework, I have more homework or do we have a test? Axel1382004 (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, nice job! To keep this page cleaner, you can discuss the course on the article talk page next time :). Sorry for the inconvenience, I have added a new section titled "Practice". Let me know on when you are done on User talk:GoldRomean/Adopt/Axel1382004 and I will give you the test. GoldRomean (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Award of First Success

		Award of First Success
		Great job on your first assignment! I look forward to seeing you work through and finish the course. GoldRomean (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I can't believe it. I'm crying with emotion. Let me know for the second class. ;) Axel1382004 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Made in Switzerland (Eurovision song)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Made in Switzerland (Eurovision song), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Nitrogen oxide sensor

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nitrogen oxide sensor, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Made in Switzerland (song)

The article Made in Switzerland (song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of notability, interval acts at ESC generally do not meet this guideline

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

What is the deadline for extending it? It's because I want to make it bigger so that I don't get it Axel1382004 (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Monsoon circulation

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Monsoon circulation, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private Messages between Mark Rutte and Donald Trump 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

But why do you want to delete this article if it meets all the requirements that Wikipedia asks for? Axel1382004 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arboreal environments (June 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Vanilla Wizard were: {{divbox|gray|3=

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:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

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.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Arboreal environments and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

MOS:OVERLINK Please stop

Almost all of your edits (I've looked back as far as June 26) consist of small, single edits that run afoul of either MOS:OVERLINK or MOS:GEOLINK. I've spot-checked your earliest edits and see the same types of edits being repeated over and over: linking major countries, oceans, and seas. It's possible the entirety of your 2,700 contributions consist of edits that need to be reverted.

Please do not make any more edits until you've read both MOS guidelines carefully, and also consider spending the next days undoing your edits.

Lastly, please consolidate your edits rather than making multiple small changes--this makes it difficult to follow and undo changes and results in an unnecessarily cluttered edit history. Celjski Grad (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message. I didn't mean to violate the style guidelines. I'm going to review the MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:GEOLINK guidelines more carefully before editing further. I understand the comment and will also try to consolidate my edits better. I appreciate the notice and will make the necessary adjustments. Is this a threat to my account or not? Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. I am in no position to affect your account, am I just another editor. Celjski Grad (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, Celjski Grad, thanks for your reply. Just to be sure, can I still continue editing and adding links to places, oceans, or seas if they are relevant and not overused? Or should I avoid linking those completely? Also, is it okay to do those edits in small steps (one at a time), or is it better to make larger, combined edits? Thanks again for your time and guidance. ;) Axel1382004 (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I would err on the side of caution and not link major countries or geographic locations as the guidelines suggest. Celjski Grad (talk) Celjski Grad (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

So despite your AI-written response saying that you would read the guidelines and make adjustments to your editing, you contributed an entire day’s worth of edits repeating the exact same behavior. Why? Celjski Grad (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you have reinstated many of your MOS:OVERLINK edits that were previously reverted (for example, Special:Diff/1299096639). Please be careful as that is usually not constructive and falls under edit-warring. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Treatment of journalists in Palestine during the Gaza War for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Treatment of journalists in Palestine during the Gaza War is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treatment of journalists in Palestine during the Gaza War 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Monsoon circulation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Monsoon circulation. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Monsoon. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Monsoon. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 10:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

July 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You have been advised many times already not to contribute content generated by large language model content generation tools, and warned that you would be blocked if you continued. You must immediately stop using these tools for Wikipedia content if you want to be unblocked. Instructions to appeal your block are in the message above, but if you are going to write an appeal, it must be in your own words. If you submit an unblock request generated by an LLM, it will be summarily declined and your talk page access will be revoked. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, And how long is the block for, and what are the reasons? Is it permanent, temporary, or indefinite? What do I need to do to recover my account and unblock it? Thank you Axel1382004 (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

All of that information is noted and/or linked in the notice above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, the block is indefinite, and is due to your non-constructive use of AI writing tools (LLMs). As stated by Ivanvector above, you should use {{unblock}} to write an unblock request in your own words, and commit to stop using LLMs in the future. If you want, the guide to appealing blocks and unblock wizard can give you an idea of how to structure your request, but it should be written in your own words. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I already uploaded my This user is requesting that their block be reviewed. Have a good day and thank you for your time.:) Axel1382004 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I've already submitted another new unblocking request since the previous one was rejected because I used AI. I didn't use AI for this new request; I wrote it in my own words, as you requested. I hope you can read it and reflect on the future of my account. Have a good night! :) Axel1382004 (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Indo-Malaysia Ocean for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Indo-Malaysia Ocean is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo-Malaysia Ocean 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You can request another request for this user's unblock request? Axel1382004 (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Axel1382004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Your reason hereAxel1382004 (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC) Hello users, thank you for your time. I understand I was blocked for submitting AI-generated content, especially related to sensitive topics. I want to sincerely apologize if my contributions did not meet Wikipedia’s standards.

I now understand that Wikipedia does not allow articles created primarily by large language models unless they are carefully reviewed and improved by a human editor. I take full responsibility for not ensuring this level of quality and neutrality in those cases.

I value Wikipedia and the mission of free knowledge deeply. If unblocked, I am committed to, I would follow this three things:

- Avoiding the use of AI to generate new article drafts in controversial topic areas

- Editing manually and only with human-reviewed, properly sourced material

- Collaborating with other editors to ensure content is verifiable and neutral

Many editors have been blocked, learned, and come back stronger.

We are not all perfect, we all have the right to make mistakes and not be perfect and by making mistakes we learn and improve.

Maybe it wasn't a good idea to write articles that were entirely or partially made with artificial intelligence. I promise not to do it again, especially on hot, controversial, or hair-raising topics.

Please consider unblocking my account or placing a partial block if necessary. I truly want to contribute in good faith and learn from this experience.

Respectfully, Axel1382004 Axel1382004 (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I think you should commit to not using AI again. PhilKnight (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)I

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Axel1382004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Axel1382004 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC) I want to apologize and forgive all the Wikipedia editors. I know I made mistakes in some articles. I used artificial intelligence on both non-controversial and non-controversial topics and controversial and controversial topics. I regret what I did and I know what I did was wrong. Even though I'm registered, we shouldn't dwell on the past. We should look to the future for the better, never for the worse. I promise not to use artificial intelligence again in all its uses and areas on Wikipedia. Humans aren't perfect, and when we make mistakes, we learn from them and improve so we don't repeat them. Please consider unblocking my account. I want to contribute in good faith and learn from this experience. Sincerely, Axel1382004

Accept reason:

I will unblock based on your promise to not use AI/LLM again. Courtesy ping to Ivanvector. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I've already submitted another new unblocking request since the previous one was rejected because I used AI. I didn't use AI for this new request; I wrote it in my own words, as you requested. I hope you can read it and reflect on the future of my account. Have a good night! :) Axel1382004 (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Axel1382004 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, good afternoon. Thank you for accepting my request to unblock Wikipedia. As a user, I promise not to use my Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Large Language Model (LLM) again. Thank you very much for trusting me. Best regards, have a nice day.:) Axel1382004 (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for everything, especially for unblocking me. This is for you Ivanvector and 331dot. I'm very grateful to you. Have a nice day.;) Axel1382004 (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

MOS:OVERLINK again

@Axel1382004: I’ve reverted all of your July 6 edits as vandalism, as they undid the changes I made that we discussed above. Please adhere to guidelines as you committed to. Celjski Grad (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, good evening. I thought those contributions were helping Wikipedia, not worsening it. If there's an area in the world that isn't linked to, shouldn't it be? I'm following the guidelines for not using Artificial Intelligence (AI) or my Long Language Model (LLM). I've only included a couple of links to countries, territorial subdivisions, or seas. What's wrong with that? I hope you have a good evening. Best regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to be sure, did you review MOS:OVERLINK and MOS:GEOLINK as you said you would here? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'll take a look at them now and gather the most important information about these two articles. Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Noting that, since receiving @Celjski Grad's warning, you have continued making these edits on a large number of articles (e.g. Special:Diff/1299348778). As a piece of advice, if someone warns you that something you are doing isn't constructive, and you ask them why, it can be best to wait for an explanation before doing the same thing again. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was waiting for your reply. I read the two articles you sent me, but I didn't find the solution. I'm still waiting for answers about why it's so bad. This time, I didn't use Artificial Intelligence (AI) or my Long Language Model (LLM). I just want to know why it's wrong to do that. Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The main reason is that, if too many words are linked, it can be harder to know which links are actually relevant to the article – a generic topic like Australia might not be useful to a reader wanting to learn about a specific species, but a more fine-grained link like Queensland can help better understand the habitat in which that species lives. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I find it surprising that anyone who has read the explanations that have been linked to above can't understand why linking to, for example, Australia, is not a helpful thing to do. However, whether you understand the reasons or not, you know by now that it is considered a bad thing to do, so don't do it. It's as simple as that. If, because you don't understand the reasons, you can't tell when it is and when it isn't suitable to add wikilinks, then avoid the problem by never adding wikilinks to any article. You have already been blocked from editing once because you persisted in doing what you had repeatedly been told not to do; if you get a second block for doing likewise, the likelihood of being unblocked will be much less. JBW (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I just reverted another new one, adding a link for Spain to Arc de Triomf. I wasn't planning to check this at all, but I had just reverted some pretty blatant WP:PARAPHRASE violations (see below) and thought I'd check given this discussion above. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

And more today. A link to Indonesia , Mexico , and England .

In addition, two of the three sources you gave for Cambridge_International_School,_Dubai are press releases , .

If there is some aspect of MOS:OVERLINK that is hard for you to understand, if you ask your questions, I or another editor would certainly be happy to try and give you a detailed answer that might explain things better for you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

There are also new links to major geographic features as well, in this case, the Atlantic Ocean. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of 2025 Iran threat of Strait of Hormuz closure for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2025 Iran threat of Strait of Hormuz closure is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Iran threat of Strait of Hormuz closure 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 improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Close Paraphrasing at Minggang

Axel1382004, looking over your edits to Minggang, it appears you've done a massive amount of close paraphrasing, meaning you've only made superficial changes to the original soruce.

For example (yours in green, the site's in yellow)

The typical dishes of this district are: millet noodles, lamb soup, stuffed glutinous rice balls, and local vegetable dishes. These are widely consumed by the population and reflect the blend of rural traditions with the flavors of northern China.

Typical dishes: Millet noodles, lamb soup, stuffed glutinous rice balls, and local vegetable dishes are widely consumed and reflect the blend of rural traditions with flavors typical of northern China.

Another one:

Among the prominent figures in this district are Wang Yong, a local Chinese leader in agricultural innovation, and Li Hua, a prominent entrepreneur in regional trade. They have boosted Minggang's recognition in the logistics sector and fostered and improved educational and economic development in this district over the past few decades.

Prominent figures, including Wang Yong, a local agricultural innovation leader, and Li Hua, a prominent entrepreneur in regional trade, have boosted Minggang's recognition in the logistics sector and fostered educational and economic development over the past few decades.

These aren't exceptions. As far as I can tell, little if anything on this page was written in your own words. You basically just ripped off an entire webpage. I've reverted the changes and I'm going to go request revision deletion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of La Velada del Año 1

Hello, Axel1382004,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username JohnMizuki, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, La Velada del Año 1, for deletion, because it is a very short article that doesn't provide readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|JohnMizuki}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JohnMizuki (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, good afternoon. I was thinking about expanding this article and making it bigger, and looking for more information online. I'm working on it. I'm looking for more sources and other resources to expand it. Have a nice day. Bye. Axel1382004 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Some advice on "provid[ing] readers with enough context to determine who or what the subject is". The article starts by saying "The first edition of the Year 1 Evening event..." What event? I should think that more than 99.999% of the world's population would have not the remotest idea what event you are referring to. The opening words of an article should tell the reader what the article is about, not just assume that the reader already knows what it's about. Thus, it should start with something like "La Velada del Año 1 was a meeting held to discuss ginger cats, held in Madrid in April 1937". (Obviously that is a fictitious example to illustrate the idea.) JBW (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

More MOS:OVERLINK

Hi, Axel1382004, once again, you're adding links to major examples of countries and oceans. Because of your overlinking, some of the resulting sentences are more links than words.

United States United States Pacific Ocean Mexico Chile

And it keeps going, about five more. I'm sorry to ping you, @JBW:, but you're familiar with this editor, and your guidance would be appreciated as I don't really want to ANI file someone just for repeated excessive linking in good faith (though I will if the close paraphrasing that was revdel'ed is repeated). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi CoffeeCrumbs, I know the phrasing wasn't right, and I'll try to improve it when I write it in my own words. But I'll add the place, countries, oceans, and marces. I know it could be wrong, but I don't think it's a reason to block me since I wouldn't be violating any Wikipedia rights or vandalism. I only added countries because I didn't use artificial intelligence or LLM. Maybe the phrasing and places are wrong, but I don't see the need to block me, right? Have a nice day. Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex Axel. You have been told many times by now that this was disruptive, yet you are still doing it (1, 2, 3). Please stop. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, first of all, it's not Alex, but Axel. Okay, I know it's bad, but how can I advance on Wikipedia, both as an editor and a reader? And above all, how can I improve from being a bad editor to a good one? Axel1382004 (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

For one, when several people, including at least one administrator, tell you that doing something is disruptive and to stop doing it, then you should stop doing it. It makes articles much harder to read when half the words are links, some of which are germane to the subject and some extremely tangential.

MOS:OVERLINK is part of the manual of style, a set of guidelines formed by the community's collaborative discussion over two decades. And when someone comes in and basically says "well, I'm not going to do that, no matter how much you ask me," that's disruptive.

I think you really want to help build the encyclopedia, but you also have a great deal of problem following the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. But when you do things like extensively insert LLM slop -- hopefully we're done with that part -- or ignore Wikipedia's style guide or break rules about copyright, editors have to spend a great deal of time fixing these issues. And that's a situation that can't/won't be able to go on indefinitely. It's because of this belief in your good faith that people are trying to discuss these issues with you and try to get you to understand how Wikipedia works, rather than go to ANI. But good faith is not an infinite asset. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

And your edits at Minggang were absolutely atrocious, and depending on who came across what was really blatant infringement, you could have been INDEF'ed right there and then. Again, you basically ripped off someone's entire web page, shifting around or removing an indefinite article or a comma here and there to make it superficially look like a change. There's a reason that they just weren't reverted, but had to actually be deleted from the history by an administrator; this is a Very Big Deal. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the mix-up. CoffeCrumbs' advice is good – I'll add that, in general, making small edits across many pages is something you have to be careful with, as it can be hard to revert them if there are issues with them. In this case, my best advice for you would be to listen to feedback. I know there are many rules and it can be scary, and no one will fault you for making a mistake for the first time, but listening to more experienced editors telling you why it is a mistake is important, and not repeating those mistakes even more so. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, let's see what both users say. Is it correct, I recognize. I'm going to commit to stopping naming places and paraphrasing. Maybe I'm misbehaving and recognizing my own mistakes. I'll start listening to you as administrators, because you have more years of experience. Could you share tips or advice on how to improve as a Wikipedia editor? And could you give me any recommendations about taking an Adopt a User course? And if you can recommend anything else or tell me ways to improve, I will take them with great interest and a desire to learn. Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I've been thinking for a couple of hours, which is why I haven't responded to your messages. While I was thinking, this question came to me. Can I ask you a question without offending you? Are you mad at me for what I did because of who I am, or because I'm a disruptive user? I hope you can answer me with complete sincerity and truth so that I seriously reconsider making a change and stop "vandalizing" Wikipedia. Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello again. Aside from reflecting on the above, I also reflected on this: whether you would recommend I take the Wikipedia Adopt-a-User course to improve my user experience for the better, not the worse. And if they say yes, who would I tell to adopt me to take the course? Best regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's mad at you. For me, frustration would be a better adjective. I don't know you personally, so I have no reason to have any other issue with you other than your edits. All I know about you is that you are an editor named Axel1382004. I don't believe anyone's said you're vandalizing anything, which has a very specific definition, only that many of your edits are not constructive.

And anything involving copyright is very bad. That's the kind of thing that can cause Wikipedia/Wikimedia legal problems, so there's very little tolerance for copyright infringment. You simply cannot copy-paste material and just shuffling the words around a little. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Your edit to 2025 Iran threat of Strait of Hormuz closure has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is by no means your only warning for copyright violations. If you do it again, I will take the matter to ANI. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, SunloungerFrog. Okay, I'll take that into account from now on. If it's okay with you, why don't you delete the copyrighted parts. And if the article is free of copyrighted text. Do you want me to delete it, or should you delete it. If you can't delete it, can you summarize it again in my own words or your own words. In short, can it be deleted or not. And if it can't be deleted, can it be summarized again in your own words or not? I'm asking you these questions so I can learn and improve as an editor and not end up being blocked, as you say. Have a nice day. Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

You may summarize it in your own words, but be careful of close paraphrasing. It must be your own words and your own work (not an LLM), but relying on what the source material says. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'll try to be careful when paraphrasing, and I know it has to be in my own words. Regarding the LLM, you're referring to the Large Language Models or the Master of Laws? But I always have to base my work on the source, as you say. Have a nice day. Bye. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

SunloungerFrog is talking about large language models (generative AI), as you previously agreed not to use them as an unblock condition. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Cambridge International School, Dubai moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Cambridge International School, Dubai. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and in particular, the article needs at least three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. There's useful information about how to choose good sources and avoid bad sources here. I have converted your article 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, SunloungerFrog. I'll expand on this in a couple of hours. I don't know why they removed it from Wikipedia and moved it to draft form. In any case, I'll look for more information and expand on it. You can also help expand articles. Have a nice day. Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

GEMS Legacy School moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to GEMS Legacy School. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and in particular, the article needs at least three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. There's useful information about how to choose good sources and avoid bad sources here.. I have converted your article 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, SunloungerFrog. I'll expand on this in a couple of hours. I don't know why they removed it from Wikipedia and moved it to draft form. In any case, I'll look for more information and expand on it. You can also help expand articles. Have a nice day. Regards. Axel1382004 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Block

I have tried, more than once, to give you advice on editing, both in the hope that doing so would help you to avoid doing so much unconstructive editing and in the hope that it would help you to avoid being blocked again. Other editors too have tried giving you advice. You have several times said that you will follow the advice you have been given. However, you have absolutely not done so, but have stubbornly persisted in doing the things you have been told not to do. Some of it may be a matter of not understanding what you have been told, but some of it certainly isn't; to take just one example, there is no way whatsoever that you could have read all that you have been told about overlinking and still not understand that wikilinking in numerous articles to articles such as United States and Mexico is not helpful, but you have persisted in doing so. (Moreover, I find it difficult to avoid reading some of your messages above, such as the one timed at 14:42, 10 July 2025, as indicating that you intend to continue to do so, in defiance of what you have been told.)

Enough is enough. All the time that editors have put into writing advice to you and reverting your editing is time taken away from more constructive work that they could have been doing, so your persistent unhelpful editing actually causes damage to the rest of the encyclopaedia. I have therefore indefinitely blocked your account from editing.

I am repeating the same information as you were given before about how to request an unblock, but I refer you to the final words of my message to you timed at 00:12, 8 July 2025. If you would like to start contributing to the encyclopaedia again, this time taking heed of what other editors tell you, and if you think there are good reasons why unblocking you will benefit the project, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JBW (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Axel1382004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hello, good afternoon. I want to apologize to all Wikipedia users and administrators again. I have been blocked for the following reasons: persistent unconstructive editing, continuing in the face of numerous attempts by several editors to explain what the problems are. I promise that if I am unblocked, I will not make the errors shown above again, or vandalism. All I wanted, want, and will ever want is to improve Wikipedia, and I didn't know that these edits make Wikipedia worse instead of better. I promise to listen to the users and administrators who have been here longer so they can give me advice on how to improve and show me my mistakes and errors so I never make them again. Humans aren't perfect, and when we make mistakes, we learn from them and improve, so we don't repeat them. Please consider the unblocking of my account. I want to contribute in good faith and learn from this experience. Sincerely, Axel1382004 Axel1382004 (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You've made and broken similar promises before. Why should we trust you this time?

Your best bet here is probably WP:Standard offer; it's difficult to get unblocked with this level of recidivism otherwise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello, good afternoon. I want to apologize to all Wikipedia users and administrators again. I have been blocked for the following reasons: persistent unconstructive editing, continuing in the face of numerous attempts by several editors to explain what the problems are. I promise that if I am unblocked, I will not make the errors shown above again, or vandalism. All I wanted, want, and will ever want is to improve Wikipedia, and I didn't know that these edits make Wikipedia worse instead of better. I promise to listen to the users and administrators who have been here longer so they can give me advice on how to improve and show me my mistakes and errors so I never make them again. Humans aren't perfect, and when we make mistakes, we learn from them and improve, so we don't repeat them. Please consider unblocking my account. I want to contribute in good faith and learn from this experience. Sincerely, Axel1382004 Axel1382004 (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know that these edits make Wikipedia worse instead of better.

I went through your talk page and counted over thirty direct and specific warnings from me and others about editing style and guidelines that you countinued to ignore. So to be frank, I don’t believe you. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, what I'm saying is sincere. Even though I've received more than 30 warnings and haven't read them, that's my problem, not yours. Maybe I didn't heed the warnings and ignored them, and what happened is what I had to go through, which was being blocked twice. Besides, in what sense of sincerity do you not believe me? Axel1382004 (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"Even though I've received more than 30 warnings and haven't read them"

But you did read them—these are just some of your responses, before continuing the same behavior.

"I understand. I will make sure to follow the guidelines more carefully going forward."

"I’ll refrain from this approach going forward."

"Okay, sorry, it won't happen again."

"I appreciate the notice and will make the necessary adjustments."

"Okay, I'll take that into account from now on."

and many more

So after being blocked twice why should I believe you when you say yet again "I will not make the errors again"?

"that's my problem, not yours."

It's my and every other editor's problem because we have to take time out to engage and plead with you to stop making these same problematic edits, as well as go back and revert or clean them up.

Celjski Grad (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Let's see, let's take it step by step.

"Even though I've received more than 30 warnings and haven't read them": In this part, I acknowledge that I didn't read the messages, and even if they had more than 30 warnings, I didn't read them, and that was my mistake.

And in this part, "that's my problem, not yours": I know that you, as users or even editors, waste your time trying to convert me. So is this a problem for everyone or just between you and me?

I don't like this, and that's why I apologize to all of you, both the users and the administrators of Wikipedia. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You saying that you didn’t read any of the warnings that you replied to with promises to change is a bold defense. I have nothing more to say. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I read the 30 or so warnings, but I didn't understand them quickly. So why do you say you have nothing more to say? In what sense? Axel1382004 (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Axel - If you got unblocked, I'm willing to resume your adoption school course (though I have doubts about how effective it is, considering you committed multiple copyvios right after doing a lesson on copyright). However, might I ask, why did you resume many of your disruptive activities after many editors told you they were bad? E.g. Coffee Crumbs directly told you not to do things like this, so why did you do this? Thanks, GoldRomean (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Goldromean. It's been over a month since I've heard from you. I'm glad to hear from you again. We haven't spoken since early June. I hope things went well for you, the thing you said would take a couple of months or years. In those three months since you were gone, I went from having 0 edits to being an extended confirmed user and autoconfirmed user. It's a long story, I'll tell you about it someday. I also created articles, some of which stayed, others went, and they deleted them. If you were unblocked, I'm willing to retake your adoption course. I do want to retake the course because it really helped me. When you left, I had to do my personal things, since I forgot most of my things. Regarding your question, I wanted to improve, and it bothered me when they took away my edit and I put it back on. I kept doing it because I had to move forward. And about the course, would it be from the beginning, from scratch, or a restart, or would we continue where we left off, which is lesson 3? You've brightened my day after not knowing anything about you. How did you find me or find out something about me? Who told you this, or how did you look for me? Thank you so much for talking to me again after so much time and for maybe finding a solution to this problem. Thanks, Axel1382004 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll keep things short, since you aren't supposed to use your talk page for anything except communication about your block. I never really "left', I just got a bit busier with life. I "found you" again while checking up on you and noticed you were blocked. We can talk about the course more if you get unblocked again. What does worry me a lot is your explanation, "I wanted to improve, and it bothered me when they took away my edit and I put it back on.", which is not very reassuring. Anyway, I'm sort of involved, so I'll try to stay out of this for the most part. But it would be helpful if you could elaborate on that statement. Well wishes, GoldRomean (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I'll tell you about my story from the moment you left until now.

Okay, I thought you left forever, in the sense that you abandoned me, the course, Wikipedia, or both. Since you said you were busy with your personal life, I don't know, it occurred to me that you left forever. I never thought it would be temporary. I always thought you were gone forever. There was a time when I thought something happened to you and that you died, and that's why you left. I thought about a lot of things that could have happened to you since you left. We'll talk more in depth another day when they unblock me, if they ever unblock me. Let me explain: since you left, I started editing and exploring places, countries, oceans, and things like that. The first block came because I wrote three controversial articles, one about the civil war in Sudan and the other two about how journalists were treated in Israel and Palestine during the Gaza War. All three were removed because I used artificial intelligence:

Sudan genocide amid civil war (2023–present)

Treatment of journalists in Israel during the Gaza War

Treatment of journalists in Palestine during the Gaza War

After that, after my first block, they unblocked me, and I continued posting places, countries, and things like that. And I started using circumlocutions and not summarizing it in my own words. For those reasons, they blocked me for the second time, and here I am still waiting. To be honest, I don't like this, and for that I apologize to all of you, both the users and the administrators of Wikipedia. Above all, I want to apologize to you, GoldRomean, because in the end you gave me the course and then you left due to life circumstances or your personal life. I respect what you had to do in that time period. But I forgot all the information about the course and when you wanted to give it to me, when I already had two blocks, it was all my fault. I'm sorry that you got yourself into this mess or that it's my fault. I feel so guilty. Thanks, Axel1382004 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Luckily, I’m still very much alive. But remember, unblock related stuff only, please :). GoldRomean (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Would you like me to explain in more detail why I was blocked, yes or no? I can share the information and my version of events from my perspective, from the first block, the second block, or both blocks. And regarding the course, would we start over from where we left off in lesson 3 or from scratch, starting with lesson 1? ;) Thanks, Axel1382004 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, good afternoon. Can I try sending another unlock request? Do I have to do the WP:Standard offer? And if I have to do it, as it says, I have to wait six months from July 2025 to January 2026, or would I have to start doing it in January 2026, and during that time period, would I have to reconsider? Thanks, Axel1382004 (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi - you can, but I strongly recommend against it and it's very likely that you'll get declined. The Standard Offer is probably the best way forward for you right now, and, what it means is, you completely stop editing here - even your talk page - for 6 months (until Jan 2026), and then make an unblock request then if you wish. GoldRomean (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. So I can't use Main, User Talk, User Page, Draft, or Wikipedia until January 2026. If I send another request, just in case, and I don't send another one, what would happen? Also, the rejection reason says it's already started... In what sense do you mean it's already started, has the waiting time started, or something else? Axel1382004 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Stop making this complicated. Step away from Wikipedia entirely and come back in at least six months and make another unblock request. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Axel, it means making no edits anywhere on English Wikipedia. You can contribute to other projects like Commons, Simple English Wikipedia, or another language version of Wikipedia. And improved editing elsewhere would help your case in six months. But the six months starts at whenever your most recent edit is.

If you don't have a very different unblock request from your last one, making another one here can only hurt your cause. Some may see it as another example of you rejecting advice to no purpose. If it's considered particularly non-constructive, an administrator can remove your talk page access completely. That's not something you want as it makes being unblocked later far more difficult.

Do what Celjski Grad just recommended. Step away from English Wikipedia completely for six months. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I've already submitted my request. I realized this before reading the messages you sent me. Please respond to my request, and I'll be away from English Wikipedia for six months. I'll return in January 2026. This time, the request for unblocking is more in-depth because I've taken more time to reflect on what I did right and what I didn't. I hope you read my reflection, since I spent a couple of hours thinking about it. Goodbye. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You really should delete this unblock request. Follow the standard offer by following the standard offer not misusing an unblock template to announce that you're going to follow the standard offer. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. But be compassionate, don't be mean. It took me a long time to reflect. I spent many hours thinking about it. Read the reflection and tell me if it's right or wrong. If it's wrong, I'll delete it. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

They are being factual and helpful, not mean or uncompassionate. The standard offer requests a reflection after six months, not six hours. I would follow CoffeeCrumbs advice and revert your premature unblock request. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay Axel1382004 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, my people, I've already deleted the unlock request. I'll see you in six months, in January 2026. I don't like this, but these are the consequences of my own actions. Goodbye, my people. See you in six months. Goodbye. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

My people, we'll see you on January 12, 2026, in six months. Goodbye. May these next six months go well for everyone. Axel1382004 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• I am correcting the formatting of your unblock request. The way you posted it, it would not have shown up on the list of pending unblock requests. JBW (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Axel1382004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Today, July 12, 2025. Hello to all Wikipedia users, editors, and administrators. I understand the severity of my previous mistakes and acknowledge that I betrayed the community's trust by not keeping my promises, such as including locations or paraphrasing instead of summarizing in my own words. I accept that it's pointless to ask for another chance now without demonstrating with actions that I can improve as an editor and as a person on Wikipedia in a couple of months. I promise to honor WP:Standard's offer and not request another unlock until the six months are up. In the meantime, I will thoroughly review the policies, especially those regarding reliable sources, copyright, and how to make constructive edits. They say you don't know what you have until it's gone, but what you want is worth fighting for and trying for. I know that something is often not appreciated until it's lost. I now understand how valuable it is to be able to contribute to Wikipedia, and that's why I'm willing to put in the effort to improve and prove that I can contribute responsibly. If my application is accepted in July 2025, fine. If it is not accepted, I will reapply six months later, in January 2026. In those six months, I will reflect on everything I should have reflected on: whether it was right or wrong, what I regret and what I don't regret. Thank you for taking the time to respond to all Wikipedia users, editors, and administrators. I hope to be useful to Wikipedia again when you see fit. Have a nice day. Best regards.

Decline reason:

Okay, you are going to take the standard offer. PhilKnight (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Axel1382004 (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Axel, this really isn't helping your case regarding understanding instructions. Others told you not to request unblock again if you wish to take the standard offer, so you removed your request - but yet, less than a day later, here you are again. GoldRomean (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I think this, tell me if I think it's good or bad: I'll leave this application for July 2025. If it's approved, fine, and if not, I'll send the next application in January 2026. After having reflected on everything I did, whether it's good or bad, what's done is done. Do you think it's good or bad? Axel1382004 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I still highly recommend removing this request, as it's very likely it'll get declined and making too many may lead to your talk-page access being revoked. In the nicest way I can, I think your best path forward right now is to remove the request, log out, and take a nice break from Wikipedia until January 2026. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

But I can continue editing Wikipedia in any language, such as Spanish, French, or Russian, but not in English because I'm obviously blocked, or I have to stay away from all the languages as a Wikipedia editor. Axel1382004 (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you are able to follow their policies, you are still able to edit other Wikimedia projects such as Simple, Commons, Spanish, etc. whilst being blocked here and with regards to your standard offer. GoldRomean (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of my request? Axel1382004 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm leaving. This isn't goodbye, it's see you later, goodbye GoldRomean. :( Axel1382004 (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you should remove your request (especially if you're leaving anyway). But bye, I guess. :) GoldRomean (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Axel1382004! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 16:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Moving Water

Hello, Axel1382004. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Moving Water, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Goldfish (Klimt painting)

Hello, Axel1382004. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Goldfish (Klimt painting), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Moving Water

Hello, Axel1382004. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Moving Water".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Vaniköy

Hello, Axel1382004. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vaniköy, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Goldfish (Klimt painting)

Hello, Axel1382004. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Goldfish".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Vaniköy

Hello, Axel1382004. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Vaniköy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cambridge International School, Dubai

Hello, Axel1382004. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cambridge International School, Dubai, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Arboreal environments

Hello, Axel1382004. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Arboreal environments, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:GEMS Legacy School

Hello, Axel1382004. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:GEMS Legacy School, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Axel1382004 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Hello everyone Well, on July 12, 2025, I was blocked on Wikipedia, and now seven months have passed and it's already February 27, 2026. First of all, I want to apologize to the entire Wikipedia community. The truth is that I was blocked because I used artificial intelligence, and that really wasn't right. During these seven months of reflection, I learned that, in the end, artificial intelligence isn't everything and that you have to learn to identify reliable sources and learn to summarize in your own words. The truth is that this block has helped me a lot to reflect on the use of artificial intelligence and how it does not benefit the Wikipedia community because instead of improving it, it makes it worse. So, in the end, I should have sent my application in January, but unfortunately, I was very busy with university exams. I hope you can forgive me for the things I did last year, and that this year they will not be repeated. Goodbye

Decline reason:

Per JBW's concerns and the past recidivism, this just isn't a good enough unblock request. Try contributing at another Wikimedia project to better demonstrate that unblocking you here on en.wiki will be a net benefit to the project. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel1382004 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• Would you agree to not use AI at all for any purpose in editing Wikipedia from now on? PhilKnight (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• I have just reread my block message above. I am at a total loss as to how anyone can read it and think that the block was just for use of AI. JBW (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I will not use AI again in future Wikipedia edits. Axel1382004 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you address the other issues JBW brought up in the block notice? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

These are the reasons why I was blocked, and they will not happen again from now on: excessive use of AI, copyright violations, ignoring warnings from several users, advertising other companies, and paraphrasing. I have learned from my mistakes, read the Manual of Style, and will not repeat any of the things I did in the past. From now on, I will edit Wikipedia for the good of the community and not for the bad. Axel1382004 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of La Velada del Año 1 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article La Velada del Año 1 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/La Velada del Año 1 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.

JohnMizuki (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)