User talk:OpticExplorer

September 2025

Hello, I'm Criticize. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Etropole Waterfall because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Criticize (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Etropole Waterfall. Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Frost 14:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI

Hi, was wondering -- are you using AI tools for your edits here? If so, can you mention:

• What tools you are using, and which versions
• How you are using them - what prompts, features, etc
• What review you are doing of the output

Thank you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Gaspar van elmbt

Hello OpticExplorer,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Gaspar van elmbt for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, 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.

TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaspar van elmbt moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Gaspar van elmbt. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gaspar van Elmbt (October 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 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:Gaspar van Elmbt 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) 08:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OpticExplorer! 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! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 08:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gaspar van elmbt (October 29)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 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:Gaspar van elmbt 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Gaspar van elmbt has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gaspar van elmbt. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]