Hello, Sys64wiki! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages.

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Discord server • IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sys64wiki! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Galilean invariance several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Galilean invariance, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Galilean invariance came before Einsteinian relativity. It has nothing to do with gravity, speed of light being the same for all observers, etc.. Constant314 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Constant314 the revert was done because I essentially put the wrong description from different topic (because of multitasking). If I mistakenly forced revert then any person is free to choose that description which is better than me. Good for all is good for me. Sys64wiki (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should never be personal. Constant314 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Special relativity, 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. DVdm (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, i already stated that I would add citations as I would. Sys64wiki (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences, 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. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Grammar. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Wolfwolfnuke (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "structural rules of language" into structural framework governing linguistic syntax and morphology does not look like vandalism. I am a old user and editor for broader perceptive. Wikipedia is not for a single person and if an edit is wrong then it must be chosen by majority. Stop throwing unnecessary words at me. It is not a vandalism, it's a opportunity to add ideas. Sys64wiki (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the definition in the lead of Grammar. You need a source for what you insert there. And since several editors have undone your edits, per WP:BRD, you need to discuss your case on the talk page and reach consensus before proceeding.—Anita5192 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not think your approach to editing is really helping so far. You're frankly mangling article leads, which are meant to be summaries of the article bodies, and clearly making them worse both style- and diction-wise. I strongly recommend you consider another approach for contributing to the encyclopedia for the moment until you acquire some more experience with how to write encyclopedic prose and our Manual of Style. Remsense ‥ 论 09:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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:The Ailing Planet: the Green Movement 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

jlwoodwa (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sys64wiki! 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! jlwoodwa (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:The Ailing Planet: the Green Movement 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 04:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sys64wiki! Your additions to Couple (mechanics) 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. Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Star Engine (CIG) 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/Star Engine (CIG) 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.

JFHJr (㊟) 21:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Perception limit. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. MimirIsSmart (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please help edit in the article in that way instead of forcing me to maintain it. I am a student and often goes by the complex terms in the article and I am very new and inexperienced in the wiki. I would help as much as my can, already done by creating an important article. I hope you contribute to help me understand how to 'write' more simpler article. thank you. Sys64wiki (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And for unusual terms, nonstandard and inappropriate, the scientific topics often seems complex by non-Wikipedia sense but as i stated, i need some more time to get on with Wikipedia writing style. Sys64wiki (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns. I would recommende consulting more experienced users at WP:TEAHOUSE who can help you on your issues better than I ever can. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciated that. Have a nice day. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to Talk:Perception limit, you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restart the issue on the mainpage, but do not edit an archived thread. DotesConks (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that I have declined your G11 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:MahaKavi Pothana Colony. Although the article has a promotional tone, it does not contain blatant advertising. Especially when articles are in the draftspace, I recommend refraining from nominating articles for G11 speedy deletion unless they contain unambiguous advertising. Editors using the draftspace are much more likely to be new editors who may not fully understand Wikipedia's policies regarding tone--not to mention that learning how to successfully write in a neutral point of view is challenging! As such, I suggest practicing restrain when coming across promotional content in the draftspace as nominating a new editor's first edits for speedy deletion can be very bitey.

My only caveat would be to check the username. For example, many new users will start by creating an autobiography. If that's the case, welcome them with {{welcome-auto}}. If there's a possibility that the user is editing on behalf of a company, welcome them with {{welcome-COI}} and consider reporting to WP:UAA. Otherwise, our goal is to help editors feel welcomed into the community. I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions, comments, and/or concerns on the matter. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user was trying to write an article about their residential colony, but it doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s notability standards. This colony, located in India, does not have any historical, cultural, or geographical significance warranting inclusion. Additionally, the user did not provide reliable sources or any WP:GEOL (Geographical/Geological) justification for its inclusion.

Since there’s no real way this could meet Wikipedia’s criteria for publication, I stepped in to prevent it from being submitted unnecessarily. Sys64wiki (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, as well as your intent to keep Wikipedia's standards high. However, the draftspace is explicitly meant as a learning space where users can receive feedback on their work. Sometimes, drafts are so blatantly promotional that they should be deleted. In those cases, G11 is appropriate.

In cases like this, where the main issue is notability or the absence of reliable sources, it's better to focus on those concerns rather than the draft's tone. In this particular case, experienced editors have already informed the article creator that the draft needs reliable sources to help establish notability. If an experienced editor determines that the topic is not suitable for Wikipedia, they will inform the editor. Otherwise, allowing the editor to continue working on the article in draft space is best practice in most cases because it doesn't cause any harm to the encyclopedia and it provides a safe space for new editors to learn about editing.

I hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any follow-up questions, comments, and/or concerns on the matter. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your word for now but if the user shows inspection signs, I think I would have to once again discuss. Thank you Significa liberdade for discussing. Sys64wiki (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is not something you slap on an article just because you don't like it. After @Significa liberdade: declined your G11, you've now tagged it as G3 for vandalism. In what possible way is this vandalism or an obvious hoax? -- Whpq (talk) 03:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes but this editor is behaving inappropriately, writing about an non-notable irrelevant colony he is leaving in, on top of that he is using Facebook (a complete nonsense source) and google search as source. I thought if he keep requesting publish even after warnings he is supposed to both blocked and his draft removed. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been explained to you in this very thread, those are not grounds for deleting a draft, and the editor should be allowed to fix the draft. It is the very reason we have draft space. I see no acknowledgement in your reply that you made a mistake, nor do I see anything in your response on how you will avoid making this same mistake again. -- Whpq (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sys64wiki! 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

-- 05:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sys64wiki,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged BIIIIG Changes for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want BIIIIG Changes to be deleted, you can , but 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.

SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what? i am sorry its a draft and a work on process. I dont think you can delete a draft. However i am interested to discuss. Sys64wiki (talk) 06:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because: This is a newborn draft, barely half an hour old, and already under attack by words, edits, and deletion threats. Before it even gets a chance to take its first steps into the Wikipedia world, it's facing judgment! All it asks for is a fair trial—justice for drafts! Let it grow, evolve, and prove its worth before being erased from existence Sys64wiki (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been tagged for deletion because it is a redirect from mainspace to draftspace. Your article is still at Draft:BIIIIG Changes and will remain there after the redirect is deleted. For more information, see WP:R2. SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I wanted to let you know that I have declined your A3 speedy deletion nomination of Bastioides as A3 only applies to articles without any content. It does not apply to very short articles or even articles that only have an infobox. I hope that makes sense! Let me know if you have any further questions, comments, and/or concerns regarding this decline. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Belbury. An edit that you recently made to Perception limit seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Belbury (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. Actually I wrote the whole article myself and I have used AI just to refine some point that I felt incapable to do. But actually it was just a refine not anything else backed by citations. I checked your revert and i actually didn't found out what you reverted. I don't think I need sandbox after making 200 more edits. Sys64wiki (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet reverted anything, but I've flagged the article as incorporating text from a large language model.

Any amount of AI manipulation of article text risks introducing inaccuracies. If you have been using AI to "refine" a first draft where you felt that your level of written English wasn't good enough, and even if you are making sure that it introduces no additional factual claims, you may not be able to recognise when the AI had misinterpreted your grammar or misunderstood your point. Belbury (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI manipulation also risks the introduction of plagiarism, as AI pulls information indiscriminately from the internet.—Anita5192 (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I mentioned AI as a grammar assistant, I was referring to using LLMs to refine wording, not generate entire articles. For example, if I ask it to improve "I think he actually likes Wikipedia," it might refine it to "He seems to like Wikipedia." But if I ask, "How many people on Earth like Wikipedia?" it would provide factual data. The difference is clear—one is improving language, while the other is generating content.

This seems to be a recurring issue on Wikipedia, where AI use is judged based on personal preferences rather than policy. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia does not outright ban LLMs as long as they don’t interfere with the integrity of the material. If there's a strict policy against AI-assisted edits that follow guidelines, I’d like to see where it's stated. Otherwise, rejecting AI contributions just because they come from an LLM seems more like an individual choice than an actual rule. Sys64wiki (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd direct you to Wikipedia:Large language models, in particular the risks and relevant policies and usage sections, and the note that specific competence is required:

LLMs are assistive tools, and cannot replace human judgment. Careful judgment is needed to determine whether such tools fit a given purpose. Editors using LLMs are expected to familiarize themselves with a given LLM's inherent limitations and then must overcome these limitations, to ensure that their edits comply with relevant guidelines and policies. To this end, prior to using an LLM, editors should have gained substantial experience doing the same or a more advanced task without LLM assistance.

Some editors are competent at making unassisted edits but repeatedly make inappropriate LLM-assisted edits despite a sincere effort to contribute. Such editors are assumed to lack competence in this specific sense. They may be unaware of the risks and inherent limitations or be aware but not be able to overcome them to ensure policy-compliance. In such a case, an editor may be banned from aiding themselves with such tools (i.e., restricted to only making unassisted edits). This is a specific type of limited ban. Alternatively, or in addition, they may be partially blocked from a certain namespace or namespaces.

SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right but i use it more of a grammar assistant, it is good at that. And i actually check the points before publishing to see if it did not twisted my main intentions. But i will feel responsible for this because making Wikipedia reliable and concise is my first priority more than anything else. Thanks Belbury for you commitments Sys64wiki (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The material you added included verbatim copying of the description for Idiopathic hyperlactation. That is a very clear copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sys64wiki, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:MahaKavi Pothana Colony, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes but this editor is behaving inappropriately, writing about an non-notable irrelevant colony he is leaving in, on top of that he is using Facebook (a complete nonsense source) and google search as source. I thought if he keep requesting publish even after warnings he is supposed to both blocked and his draft removed. Sys64wiki (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits 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.

The articles in question are Breast milk oversupply and Perception limit. I will say that I suspect there to be further copyright violations in both articles, but do not have the time to investigate further right now, though I will do so later. Please take the initiative yourself to remove any direct copying or close paraphrasing. I see that Diannaa has already warned you about copyright violations: please respect copyright when you contribute to Wikipedia. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sys64wiki, I want to politely recommend you slow down with Teahouse answers until you've been around Wikipedia for a little while. I understand you may be eager to help out, but answers such as Avoid to prove yourself throught multiple editing without logic. Try to visit WK:RSM or WK:Help desk. If the discussion is about some sensitive matter try out Wikipedia Administration page (seen here) are not helpful or easily understandable. Additionally, adminstrative noticeboards are seen as a 'last resort' and shouldn't be recommended as a first place to go for help. Thanks, Sarsenet (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is still a method and i think he did not stated what kind of controversy he had to face, i liked to provide him with all the alternatives according to the necessity. And please 'avoid to prove yourself....' was not a part stated directly to user but slight 'cheeky' reminder. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't believe your responses there and on other Teahouse questions were very helpful, especially considering some of them had already been answered fully by other editors. Also, your response here comes off as very WP:BITEy- not kind to newcomers. Sarsenet (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D**n! "unhelpful", even though i used a sincere wording with all possible way to explain? Wow! I think i feel a discouragement. Thank you Sys64wiki (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Sarsenet – this example is particularly unhelpful. Please see the list of WP:SHORTCUTS and note the standard WP prefix (not WK).

1. Why did you add the WK:RSM label to the link to WP:RSN?
2. You could have linked to the help desk instead of dropping in an unlinked, incorrect shortcut label WK:Help desk.
3. Why would you suggest a newcomer go to WP:ANI? That's not just any Administration page, it can be a stressful experience even for long-term editors. Please read the banner at the top of AN/I to understand what belongs there.

Please realise that you are very much a newcomer yourself, and your talk page already has plenty of warnings which suggest you're not familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines yet. I would advise spending a few more months working on uncontroversial edits and watching how others provide advice at the Teahouse and Help desk first.

Finally, Wikipedia is not censored and you are allowed to curse here, as long as you follow our general civility guidelines. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 23:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitey? because i warned an filmmaker to not promote its product on wiki? that is also a thankful thought. Appreciated that. Sys64wiki (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an existing article, like Hyperlactation syndrome you should add to that, not create your own version and usurp the existing article for a redirect. I have turned your page into a redirect and restored the original article. If you have improvements to make, please add to that article. Thank you. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I feel like this was handled unfairly. I created the article after seeing it on the request page, and I only realized later that a stub version already existed. My version was broader, more flexible, and included more details on types, causes, and medications. Instead of outright redirecting it, why not merge the additional content or improve the existing article?

If the issue is about AI/LLM-generated content or a journal 'copyright' you found, then that should be discussed separately instead of removing useful information outright. Can we talk about the best way to handle this rather than just overriding my work? Sys64wiki (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the best way to handle this is for you to improve the existing article by adding properly referenced text that does not infringe copyright. Not to turn an existing article into a redirect to your own page. On the copyvio point, you are correct that I am concerned about your apparent use of LLMs to generate text that seems to violate others' copyright. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. I did not use LLM to create any article (and stop claiming this), i used it as a grammar (it is allowed according to WP:Large language model, assistant if that make sense to you. I used journal through research and it contained some same words due to my mistakes. I think you are trying to say i ask LLM to create a pre-article for me? well then No, LLM does not work that way and it will never provide a source for this. Have you ever asked me to edit my problem or you apply bitey method? Maybe you did not show my reason, the. page. was. requested. at. wiki. requested. articles. and. i. created. it. before. checking. the. actual. source. Also did you found any actual error in my more broad wiki? I think the bitey behavior of editor is issue here at Wikipedia that discourages me and many other new editors. Sys64wiki (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel discouraged about this. However, respecting copyright is really important at Wikipedia, as is respecting existing articles, improving them where you can, rather than turning them into redirects.

I don't know specifically how you use LLMs, just that your use of them seems to lead to potential copyright problems. I might suggest that you stop using LLMs for a while, and rely on your own expertise to improve or create articles, as suggested at WP:LLM, which says, LLMs can be used for certain tasks (like copyediting, summarization, and paraphrasing) if the editor has substantial prior experience in the intended task and rigorously scrutinizes the results before publishing them. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it seems like you made a decision without proper discussion and came to a conclusion too quickly. Have you actually started a discussion on the article's Talk Page before making this change?

Even with experience, Wikipedia encourages collaboration, not unilateral decisions. I believe editorship should be based on discussion and consensus, not just individual judgment. Can we have an open conversation about this before assuming what should stay or go? I think you are doing this for some AI/LLM issue you were talking about earlier. I am going to revert the change and discuss the issue. Sys64wiki (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, you made a unilateral decision to blank and redirect an existing page to your new page instead of starting a discussion on the article's talk page or attempting to improve the original article. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sys64wiki! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Perception limit, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from the sources referenced in the document, using close paraphrasing, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Perception limit and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Perception limit, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Perception limit. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Perception limit with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at Talk:Perception limit saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! SunloungerFrog (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might suggest to delete it and block me permanently but stop messaging me. Sys64wiki (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for three months from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Problems with your editing include copyright violations, disruptive use of LLMs, mangled prose, inappropriate use of the speedy deletion process, unhelpful answers at the Teahouse and improper usurpation of an article. You should spend the next three months improving your English language skills and studying Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and behavioral norms. Do not use LLMs. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know I will never agree on your terms of banning me. Sys64wiki (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think next time when I am unblocked I might start a discussion on useful applications of LLMs on wiki rather than outright ban of LLMs. World is changing towards LLMs and 2001 wikipedia might not be universal in 2077. Sys64wiki (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to know how to get a complete ban than a simple ban? Like if i harmed Jimmy Wales account? Why I want to ban mt account? I just don't think I wish to contribute to wiki anymore. Sys64wiki (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious and polite about it and if will have to delete this account i will do everything even harm wikipedia constantly. This is because some stupid, nonsense and rigid guidelines doesn't allow to delete account in wikipedia. Sys64wiki (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This makes little sense. If you do not wish to edit Wikipedia anymore, just stop. You are only blocked (not banned) for three months. If you wnat to leave Wikipedia, stop editing.Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No i want to leave the trash account from history. Stop telling me what I know already. Sys64wiki (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to your little make sense whatever. Because I am frustrated after contributing 12 hours for 2 days at wiki. Sys64wiki (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Perception limit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Highly problematic article with numerous MOS conflicts and plagiarism covered up by LLM use, leading to the necessity of revision deletion.

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. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again do not email me even if you like to launch nuke on my contributions, my conclusions are irrelevant and I am Bin Laden, and Bin Laden must be blocked not attributed. Look at my previous contributions and see if i am supposed be Bin Laden or deserve such method. Sys64wiki (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as Breast milk oversupply, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed I am banned and blocked and destroyed and still facing irrelevant email. At least after good faith contributions i faced this thing, leave me to still use wiki as a learning platform. Stop messaging me, delete it stop it or whatever you do with whatever i contributed to wiki. STOP MESSAGING ME!!!! Sys64wiki (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry it's not called email but message. Sys64wiki (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sys64wiki, people aren't notifying you to torment you, but because notifying the creator of a page that their article(s) are up for deletion is considered the proper things to do, and one of the popular tools to do this automatically does so. An editor's talk page is for Wikipedia business, and this is Wikipedia business, and while I'm not quite sure what you mean by "using" Wikipedia as a "learning platform," notifications don't have any effect on this goal, as far as I can tell. Best wishes to you. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 04:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can turn off notifications by email at Help:Notifications/FAQ if you feel they are inconvenient. It is not editors' nature to "harass" blocked users, but the notification of these deletion procedures are absolutely necessary, to keep you updated shall you decide to return after your 3-month block. MimirIsSmart (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]