Welcome!

Hello, XICO, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grão Pará and Maranhão Company (December 27)

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

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Grão Pará and Maranhão Company and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Grão Pará and Maranhão Company, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ChicoBuarque! Having an article 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! The Mirror Cracked (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grão Pará and Maranhão Company (December 27)

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

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 organizations and companies). 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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

needs more sources.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Grão Pará and Maranhão Company and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Grão Pará and Maranhão Company, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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) 18:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grão Pará and Maranhão Company has been accepted

Grão Pará and Maranhão Company, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Attention needed at username change request

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi XICO,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to watch our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 22:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Your addition to Social ecology (Bookchin) 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic confederalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internationalist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic confederalism, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Equality and Profit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Algeria Arabic moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Eastern Algeria Arabic, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Samba 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. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 16:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Latin music invitation

You are invited to join invite to join the WikiProject Latin music, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and languages of Ibero-America. Simply click here to accept! Or, if you're interested in reading more on Latin music, you may want to check out the Latin music portal.

I've noticed your edits on samba-related articles and thought you might be interested. There's also a Brazilian arts task force as well if you're interested. Erick (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samba-enredo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Bossa nova

I like what you added to bossa nova, but it contains many English grammar errors. I could try to fix it, but it would be mostly guesswork. Can you go back and review your changes please, or find someone who can help you? Viriditas (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beitar Jerusalem F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Islam.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Eastern Algeria Arabic

Hello, XICO. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eastern Algeria Arabic".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion request

Hi XICO,

I saw that you edited Çukurova Arabic in the past.

We have an ongoing debate about the content of the summary and the infobox of Levantine Arabic. Especially about the use of Levantine dialects in Turkey. You can find the debate on the talk page. As you have some knowledge of the region, it would be great to have your opinion.

Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Comparative law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil law.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of LeadStory

A tag has been placed on LeadStory, 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. ~ lovkal (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Hello XICO. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:XICO. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=XICO|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Seraphimblade. This accusation of "undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic" is utterly absurd. Based on what? The "nature of [my] your edits' related to politics or sports? You're an administrator. You should exercise more responsibility in your judgments and interpretations before making such a serious accusation. Serious, but entirely ludicrous regarding my edits. Seriously. You could have simply deleted the topic. And it would have been okay. Now, accusing me of having an "undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic" was ridiculous and unfortunate. I merely created a topic about a news broadcast streaming whose existence I discovered today! I searched for information about it, but found none, and thus, I thought it would be a good idea to create a simple topic, as it seemed to meet notability criteria. I made a voluntary edit like all the others I've made! Zero interest in promoting a topic. If the said topic doesn't meet notability criteria, that's perfectly fine. Now, I am surprised by the lack of care from an administrator, who should be experienced enough to discern between a 'paid advocate' and an ordinary editor like myself. XICO (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly pretty good at seeing when it's a possibility. I can't read minds, of course, so I can never tell with certainty, but when I see marketese junk like With a focus on individualized video news, LeadStory ensures users stay informed while enjoying a personalized viewing experience. Additionally, LeadStory operates as a personalized news streaming platform aimed at optimizing returns for publishers by delivering their quality content directly to consumers., there's a pretty strong possibility somebody got paid to write that kind of "copy". Though now that I take another look, I'm pretty sure I see the actual problem—it looks like that text was generated by a chatbot. Please ensure that you do not ever again use a chatbot to write any article content; it should be in your own words. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Seraphimblade. Upon rereading, I acknowledge that you are entirely correct in pointing out that the majority of the text was marketing jargon. Indeed, it was generated by OpenAI's artificial intelligence - out of sheer laziness and haste, without the slightest care to review and identify that, in fact, the result was a mess that truly seemed to be paid work. I read very quickly, without taking the slightest care to identify that it had become pure marketing - terrible, by the way - and I feel completely ashamed for not having reviewed the text as Wikipedia deserved. I apologize to the entire community, and the lesson for me is to refrain from using AI-generated text. I apologize for the tone of indignation in my previous response. I hope you understand that it was nothing personal; I was merely disappointed by the accusation. Yours sincerely, XICO (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2000 FIFA Club World Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ISL.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Campeonato Sul-Mato-Grossense Série C

Hello, I saw your nomination for deletion of the article, created by me a few years ago, and it really was a one-off edit that never happened again. I changed from deletion to redirection to Campeonato Sul-Mato-Grossense Série B, where I placed the third level in one session. I imagine it was coherent like this, if you have any questions, just get in touch. Svartner (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daniel Vorcaro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alepocephaliformes, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Talismania was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antifascist United Front (Brazil), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partido Trabalhista Brasileiro was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Sudan

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

• A ISBN error. References show this error when the ISBN value or formatting is invalid. Please edit the article to ensure the value is correct, that only one ISBN is used, that the proper optional separators are used, and that no other text is included. (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) 01:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

East Darfur

added links pointing to Yassin, Kosti and Adila

South Darfur

added a link pointing to Al Salam

Sudan

added a link pointing to Darfur genocide

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Farouk Osman Hamadallah when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Joseph Garang when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:17, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

East Darfur

added a link pointing to Adila

Sudan

added a link pointing to Wau

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

AI cleanup noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/Noticeboard regarding an AI cleanup investigation which may be related to you. The thread is XICO. — Newslinger talk 23:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article) and Draft) for unreviewed LLM use after a previous promise to stop doing it.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, I'd like to appeal my block.

First of all, when concerns were first raised on the AI noticeboard about the pacing and volume of my edits, my immediate reaction was to defend my legitimate offline research. I was actively thinking about extensive articles I'd recently worked on, so I answered based on my standard, human methodology, completely overlooking a terrible mistake I'd made shortly before. Shortly after posting that defense, I couldn't check WP again due to family health matters and work travel, so I didn't see the follow-up comments until recently.

Looking at the diffs pointed out by Newslinger and Chaotic Enby, I fully acknowledge my mistake. In early 2026, I used an AI translator on a strictly for four marine biology articles (Alepocephaliformes, Trachichthyiformes, Scombriformes, Carangiformes). I wanted to expand the EN articles using the German Wikipedia (de:Alepocephaliformes, de:Trachichthyiformes, de:Scombriforme, de:Stachelmakrelenverwandte). I honestly thought I could rely on it to translate and expand the text. But I don't speak German, and I trusted the output without spotting the subtle scientific hallucinations. It was a foolish naive and negligent decision. As soon as I realized my mistake back then, I stopped using it entirely and went back to my normal, because I realized that they are completely unnecessary. It made no sense at all to deal with matters I know nothing about.

However, coming back here after four months, I realized that a large part of my past, purely human work got reverted under presumptive removal because of this incident. It's heartbreaking to see years of hard work and dedication dismissed as AI hallucination. I understand the community's reaction, but please, take a look at the reality of my contributions.

For the article about Sudan (and related ones), I spent weeks reading physical books and pdfs. This is a subject I already know well because I studied contemporary African matters for professional reasons and have my own personal notes on it. I decided to contribute and enrich the page. I read, wrote, reread, and double-checked everything to avoid mistakes. The consecutive edits in my history show a process of expanding, reading again, and correcting gaps. Regarding the Yugoslav First League article, the basis of my research was the physical book The Politics of Football in Yugoslavia, which I read last January. I wrote the text carefully to stay faithful to the specialist's work.

Even my older, meticulously sourced articles were swept up in this. Take Fernando Sarney as an example. The reversion ignored explicit verifications from The Guardian and Brazilian media. The same applies to my translation of the Brazilian Communist Party (1922) from Portuguese, which requires deep historical context to differentiate it from the 1996 party, and theTio Patinhas article (translated from here, fully anchored in books, academic papers, and historical newspapers retrieved from the National Library of Brazil). Think about all the research, fact-checking, reading, writing, and wikification required for that. I checked multiple sources to make sure every claim was properly backed by reliable online sources, which has always been a core guideline in my edits, And my English is good enough to ensure the translation accurately reflects the original content.

I'm not providing these links to litigate content or demand restorations. I'm providing them to demonstrate my long-standing dedication to factual accuracy. I have almost a 20-year editing history with Wikipedia. Judging my entire history based on the recent, foolish misuse of an AI tool which I fully acknowledge was a stupid mistake feels like a very harsh punishment.

Finally, please consider my research on amateur football in São Paulo (Campeonato Paulista de Futebol Amador do Estado and Campeonato de Futebol Amador de São Paulo, translated from this and this), which I originally published in 2019 and expanded over time. (I suppose) LLMs didn't even exist back then. This was 100% human work involving in-person visits to physical libraries. The same goes for the Samba article (translated from here in 2020!), a topic I've been studying exhaustively for over a decade.

I want to make it clear that my block is entirely my own fault, and I fully understand why the community took this action. I've reflected on the seriousness of my actions and I know I disappointed the community twice by failing to disclose my isolated use of AI. And these were two stupid and unnecessary situations I should never have gotten myself into (a post about a company I saw on TV, and content on marine biology, a subject I'm not knowledgeable about). This last has been a painful learning experience that fills me with shame and regret. I never want to get involved in topics I'm not familiar with again.

I offer my sincere apologies to the community and the administrators, and I ask that you please reconsider my block. I'm fully prepared to cooperate and strictly comply with all AI policies. Before preparing this appeal, I reread the recent guidelines about LLM and I fully agree with the community's concerns about the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of these automation tools. If I'm granted one last chance, I intend to work in the collaborative spirit that has characterized my regular contributions to this encyclopedia, a project I've always enjoyed contributing to in my spare time over the years. XICO (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hi, I'd like to appeal my block. First of all, when concerns were first raised on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#c-Gnomingstuff-20260406194800-XICO the AI noticeboard] about the pacing and volume of my edits, my immediate reaction was to defend my legitimate offline research. I was actively thinking about extensive articles I'd recently worked on, so I answered based on my standard, human methodology, completely overlooking a terrible mistake I'd made shortly before. Shortly after posting that defense, I couldn't check WP again due to family health matters and work travel, so I didn't see the follow-up comments until recently. Looking at the diffs pointed out by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#c-Newslinger-20260407152900-XICO-20260407071700 Newslinger] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#c-Chaotic_Enby-20260408002900-Newslinger-20260407152900 Chaotic Enby], I fully acknowledge my mistake. In early 2026, I used an AI translator on a strictly for four marine biology articles (Alepocephaliformes, Trachichthyiformes, Scombriformes, Carangiformes). I wanted to expand the EN articles using the German Wikipedia ([[:de:Alepocephaliformes]], [[:de:Trachichthyiformes]], [[:de:Scombriforme]], [[:de:Stachelmakrelenverwandte]]). I honestly thought I could rely on it to translate and expand the text. But I don't speak German, and I trusted the output without spotting the subtle scientific hallucinations. It was a foolish naive and negligent decision. As soon as I realized my mistake back then, I stopped using it entirely and went back to my normal, because I realized that they are completely unnecessary. It made no sense at all to deal with matters I know nothing about. However, coming back here after four months, I realized that a large part of my past, purely human work got reverted under presumptive removal because of this incident. It's heartbreaking to see years of hard work and dedication dismissed as AI hallucination. I understand the community's reaction, but please, take a look at the reality of my contributions. For the article about Sudan (and related ones), I spent weeks reading physical books and pdfs. This is a subject I already know well because I studied contemporary African matters for professional reasons and have my own personal notes on it. I decided to contribute and enrich the page. I read, wrote, reread, and double-checked everything to avoid mistakes. The consecutive edits in my history show a process of expanding, reading again, and correcting gaps. Regarding the Yugoslav First League article, the basis of my research was the physical book ''The Politics of Football in Yugoslavia'', which I read last January. I wrote the text carefully to stay faithful to the specialist's work. Even my older, meticulously sourced articles were swept up in this. Take Fernando Sarney as an example. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Sarney&diff=1347449289&oldid=1290629325 reversion ignored] explicit verifications from The Guardian and Brazilian media. The same applies to my translation of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Communist_Party_(1922)?action=edit&redlink=1 Brazilian Communist Party (1922)] from [[:pt:Partido_Comunista_Brasileiro_(1922)|Portuguese]], which requires deep historical context [[:pt:Partido_Comunista_do_Brasil_(desambiguação)|to differentiate it from the 1996 party]], and the[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tio_Patinhas?action=edit&redlink=1 Tio Patinhas] article (translated [[:pt:Tio_Patinhas_(bicheiro)|from here]], fully anchored in books, academic papers, and historical newspapers retrieved from the National Library of Brazil). Think about all the research, fact-checking, reading, writing, and wikification required for that. I checked multiple sources to make sure every claim was properly backed by reliable online sources, which has always been a core guideline in my edits, And my English is good enough to ensure the translation accurately reflects the original content. I'm not providing these links to litigate content or demand restorations. I'm providing them to demonstrate my long-standing dedication to factual accuracy. I have almost a 20-year editing history with Wikipedia. Judging my entire history based on the recent, foolish misuse of an AI tool which I fully acknowledge was a stupid mistake feels like a very harsh punishment. Finally, please consider my research on amateur football in São Paulo ([[Campeonato Paulista de Futebol Amador do Estado]] and [[Campeonato de Futebol Amador de São Paulo]], translated from [[:pt:Campeonato Paulista de Futebol Amador do Estado|this]] and [[:pt:Campeonato Municipal de Futebol Amador de S%C3%A3o Paulo|this]]), which I originally published in [https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Municipal_de_Futebol_Amador_de_S%C3%A3o_Paulo&oldid=56951721 2019] and expanded over time. (I suppose) LLMs didn't even exist back then. This was 100% human work involving in-person visits to physical libraries. The same goes for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samba&diff=978957762&oldid=977961055 Samba article] (translated from [https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samba&diff=58983083&oldid=58975012 here] in 2020!), a topic I've been studying exhaustively for over a decade. I want to make it clear that my block is entirely my own fault, and I fully understand why the community took this action. I've reflected on the seriousness of my actions and I know I disappointed the community twice by failing to disclose my isolated use of AI. And these were two stupid and unnecessary situations I should never have gotten myself into (a post about a company I saw on TV, and content on marine biology, a subject I'm not knowledgeable about). This last has been a painful learning experience that fills me with shame and regret. I never want to get involved in topics I'm not familiar with again. I offer my sincere apologies to the community and the administrators, and I ask that you please reconsider my block. I'm fully prepared to cooperate and strictly comply with all AI policies. Before preparing this appeal, I reread the recent guidelines about LLM and I fully agree with the community's concerns about the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of these automation tools. If I'm granted one last chance, I intend to work in the collaborative spirit that has characterized my regular contributions to this encyclopedia, a project I've always enjoyed contributing to in my spare time over the years. [[User:XICO|XICO]] ([[User talk:XICO#top|talk]]) 15:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hi, I'd like to appeal my block. First of all, when concerns were first raised on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#c-Gnomingstuff-20260406194800-XICO the AI noticeboard] about the pacing and volume of my edits, my immediate reaction was to defend my legitimate offline research. I was actively thinking about extensive articles I'd recently worked on, so I answered based on my standard, human methodology, completely overlooking a terrible mistake I'd made shortly before. Shortly after posting that defense, I couldn't check WP again due to family health matters and work travel, so I didn't see the follow-up comments until recently. Looking at the diffs pointed out by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#c-Newslinger-20260407152900-XICO-20260407071700 Newslinger] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#c-Chaotic_Enby-20260408002900-Newslinger-20260407152900 Chaotic Enby], I fully acknowledge my mistake. In early 2026, I used an AI translator on a strictly for four marine biology articles (Alepocephaliformes, Trachichthyiformes, Scombriformes, Carangiformes). I wanted to expand the EN articles using the German Wikipedia ([[:de:Alepocephaliformes]], [[:de:Trachichthyiformes]], [[:de:Scombriforme]], [[:de:Stachelmakrelenverwandte]]). I honestly thought I could rely on it to translate and expand the text. But I don't speak German, and I trusted the output without spotting the subtle scientific hallucinations. It was a foolish naive and negligent decision. As soon as I realized my mistake back then, I stopped using it entirely and went back to my normal, because I realized that they are completely unnecessary. It made no sense at all to deal with matters I know nothing about. However, coming back here after four months, I realized that a large part of my past, purely human work got reverted under presumptive removal because of this incident. It's heartbreaking to see years of hard work and dedication dismissed as AI hallucination. I understand the community's reaction, but please, take a look at the reality of my contributions. For the article about Sudan (and related ones), I spent weeks reading physical books and pdfs. This is a subject I already know well because I studied contemporary African matters for professional reasons and have my own personal notes on it. I decided to contribute and enrich the page. I read, wrote, reread, and double-checked everything to avoid mistakes. The consecutive edits in my history show a process of expanding, reading again, and correcting gaps. Regarding the Yugoslav First League article, the basis of my research was the physical book ''The Politics of Football in Yugoslavia'', which I read last January. I wrote the text carefully to stay faithful to the specialist's work. Even my older, meticulously sourced articles were swept up in this. Take Fernando Sarney as an example. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Sarney&diff=1347449289&oldid=1290629325 reversion ignored] explicit verifications from The Guardian and Brazilian media. The same applies to my translation of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Communist_Party_(1922)?action=edit&redlink=1 Brazilian Communist Party (1922)] from [[:pt:Partido_Comunista_Brasileiro_(1922)|Portuguese]], which requires deep historical context [[:pt:Partido_Comunista_do_Brasil_(desambiguação)|to differentiate it from the 1996 party]], and the[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tio_Patinhas?action=edit&redlink=1 Tio Patinhas] article (translated [[:pt:Tio_Patinhas_(bicheiro)|from here]], fully anchored in books, academic papers, and historical newspapers retrieved from the National Library of Brazil). Think about all the research, fact-checking, reading, writing, and wikification required for that. I checked multiple sources to make sure every claim was properly backed by reliable online sources, which has always been a core guideline in my edits, And my English is good enough to ensure the translation accurately reflects the original content. I'm not providing these links to litigate content or demand restorations. I'm providing them to demonstrate my long-standing dedication to factual accuracy. I have almost a 20-year editing history with Wikipedia. Judging my entire history based on the recent, foolish misuse of an AI tool which I fully acknowledge was a stupid mistake feels like a very harsh punishment. Finally, please consider my research on amateur football in São Paulo ([[Campeonato Paulista de Futebol Amador do Estado]] and [[Campeonato de Futebol Amador de São Paulo]], translated from [[:pt:Campeonato Paulista de Futebol Amador do Estado|this]] and [[:pt:Campeonato Municipal de Futebol Amador de S%C3%A3o Paulo|this]]), which I originally published in [https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Municipal_de_Futebol_Amador_de_S%C3%A3o_Paulo&oldid=56951721 2019] and expanded over time. (I suppose) LLMs didn't even exist back then. This was 100% human work involving in-person visits to physical libraries. The same goes for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samba&diff=978957762&oldid=977961055 Samba article] (translated from [https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samba&diff=58983083&oldid=58975012 here] in 2020!), a topic I've been studying exhaustively for over a decade. I want to make it clear that my block is entirely my own fault, and I fully understand why the community took this action. I've reflected on the seriousness of my actions and I know I disappointed the community twice by failing to disclose my isolated use of AI. And these were two stupid and unnecessary situations I should never have gotten myself into (a post about a company I saw on TV, and content on marine biology, a subject I'm not knowledgeable about). This last has been a painful learning experience that fills me with shame and regret. I never want to get involved in topics I'm not familiar with again. I offer my sincere apologies to the community and the administrators, and I ask that you please reconsider my block. I'm fully prepared to cooperate and strictly comply with all AI policies. Before preparing this appeal, I reread the recent guidelines about LLM and I fully agree with the community's concerns about the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of these automation tools. If I'm granted one last chance, I intend to work in the collaborative spirit that has characterized my regular contributions to this encyclopedia, a project I've always enjoyed contributing to in my spare time over the years. [[User:XICO|XICO]] ([[User talk:XICO#top|talk]]) 15:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hi, I'd like to appeal my block. First of all, when concerns were first raised on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#c-Gnomingstuff-20260406194800-XICO the AI noticeboard] about the pacing and volume of my edits, my immediate reaction was to defend my legitimate offline research. I was actively thinking about extensive articles I'd recently worked on, so I answered based on my standard, human methodology, completely overlooking a terrible mistake I'd made shortly before. Shortly after posting that defense, I couldn't check WP again due to family health matters and work travel, so I didn't see the follow-up comments until recently. Looking at the diffs pointed out by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#c-Newslinger-20260407152900-XICO-20260407071700 Newslinger] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard/Archive_7#c-Chaotic_Enby-20260408002900-Newslinger-20260407152900 Chaotic Enby], I fully acknowledge my mistake. In early 2026, I used an AI translator on a strictly for four marine biology articles (Alepocephaliformes, Trachichthyiformes, Scombriformes, Carangiformes). I wanted to expand the EN articles using the German Wikipedia ([[:de:Alepocephaliformes]], [[:de:Trachichthyiformes]], [[:de:Scombriforme]], [[:de:Stachelmakrelenverwandte]]). I honestly thought I could rely on it to translate and expand the text. But I don't speak German, and I trusted the output without spotting the subtle scientific hallucinations. It was a foolish naive and negligent decision. As soon as I realized my mistake back then, I stopped using it entirely and went back to my normal, because I realized that they are completely unnecessary. It made no sense at all to deal with matters I know nothing about. However, coming back here after four months, I realized that a large part of my past, purely human work got reverted under presumptive removal because of this incident. It's heartbreaking to see years of hard work and dedication dismissed as AI hallucination. I understand the community's reaction, but please, take a look at the reality of my contributions. For the article about Sudan (and related ones), I spent weeks reading physical books and pdfs. This is a subject I already know well because I studied contemporary African matters for professional reasons and have my own personal notes on it. I decided to contribute and enrich the page. I read, wrote, reread, and double-checked everything to avoid mistakes. The consecutive edits in my history show a process of expanding, reading again, and correcting gaps. Regarding the Yugoslav First League article, the basis of my research was the physical book ''The Politics of Football in Yugoslavia'', which I read last January. I wrote the text carefully to stay faithful to the specialist's work. Even my older, meticulously sourced articles were swept up in this. Take Fernando Sarney as an example. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Sarney&diff=1347449289&oldid=1290629325 reversion ignored] explicit verifications from The Guardian and Brazilian media. The same applies to my translation of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Communist_Party_(1922)?action=edit&redlink=1 Brazilian Communist Party (1922)] from [[:pt:Partido_Comunista_Brasileiro_(1922)|Portuguese]], which requires deep historical context [[:pt:Partido_Comunista_do_Brasil_(desambiguação)|to differentiate it from the 1996 party]], and the[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tio_Patinhas?action=edit&redlink=1 Tio Patinhas] article (translated [[:pt:Tio_Patinhas_(bicheiro)|from here]], fully anchored in books, academic papers, and historical newspapers retrieved from the National Library of Brazil). Think about all the research, fact-checking, reading, writing, and wikification required for that. I checked multiple sources to make sure every claim was properly backed by reliable online sources, which has always been a core guideline in my edits, And my English is good enough to ensure the translation accurately reflects the original content. I'm not providing these links to litigate content or demand restorations. I'm providing them to demonstrate my long-standing dedication to factual accuracy. I have almost a 20-year editing history with Wikipedia. Judging my entire history based on the recent, foolish misuse of an AI tool which I fully acknowledge was a stupid mistake feels like a very harsh punishment. Finally, please consider my research on amateur football in São Paulo ([[Campeonato Paulista de Futebol Amador do Estado]] and [[Campeonato de Futebol Amador de São Paulo]], translated from [[:pt:Campeonato Paulista de Futebol Amador do Estado|this]] and [[:pt:Campeonato Municipal de Futebol Amador de S%C3%A3o Paulo|this]]), which I originally published in [https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Municipal_de_Futebol_Amador_de_S%C3%A3o_Paulo&oldid=56951721 2019] and expanded over time. (I suppose) LLMs didn't even exist back then. This was 100% human work involving in-person visits to physical libraries. The same goes for the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samba&diff=978957762&oldid=977961055 Samba article] (translated from [https://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Samba&diff=58983083&oldid=58975012 here] in 2020!), a topic I've been studying exhaustively for over a decade. I want to make it clear that my block is entirely my own fault, and I fully understand why the community took this action. I've reflected on the seriousness of my actions and I know I disappointed the community twice by failing to disclose my isolated use of AI. And these were two stupid and unnecessary situations I should never have gotten myself into (a post about a company I saw on TV, and content on marine biology, a subject I'm not knowledgeable about). This last has been a painful learning experience that fills me with shame and regret. I never want to get involved in topics I'm not familiar with again. I offer my sincere apologies to the community and the administrators, and I ask that you please reconsider my block. I'm fully prepared to cooperate and strictly comply with all AI policies. Before preparing this appeal, I reread the recent guidelines about LLM and I fully agree with the community's concerns about the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of these automation tools. If I'm granted one last chance, I intend to work in the collaborative spirit that has characterized my regular contributions to this encyclopedia, a project I've always enjoyed contributing to in my spare time over the years. [[User:XICO|XICO]] ([[User talk:XICO#top|talk]]) 15:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Chaotic Enby, any input as blocking admin? I would be inclined to give this editor another chance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like to trust them, although I'm disappointed that the previous 2024 edits (and subsequent promises) went unmentioned here. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 14:28, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

XICO, care to comment on those edits? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:48, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Chaotic Enby, Rosguill, thank you for considering my appeal and for your input. Look, putting myself in your shoes, I'd also be very disappointed with an editor who had promised never to do something again and broke that word, even if just for a few edits. I confess I completely fooled myself about where the line was and in fact it's embarrassing to say, but for a brief moment, it crossed my mind that using AI to translate content from a language I don't speak would be different from generating text. I honestly thought it could be a harmless shortcut and it was different from the LeadStory test page back in May 2024 (which, if I remember correctly, was generated with ChatGPT). But it wasn't, I was completely wrong. And unlike that 2024 episode, I deeply regretted using these tools almost immediately after I posted those new marine biology edits translated from German WP. Unfortunately, the damage was already done. I was so aware of this that driven by guilt I pushed myself so hard in my later edits to make up for my failure with the community and get back to doing what I've always enjoyed, improving articles through high-quality, in-depth research. That's what I tried to do in the following weeks with topics on sports, betting, Brazilian politics, international relations from developing countries, topics I'm familiar with or know well. Obviously, I know this doesn't excuse anything, but I'm just trying to explain my mindset about this recent relapse with AI. I'm in no way trying to downplay the fact that I broke my previous word. I'm ashamed of myself. It was a terrible lack of judgment in both cases, regardless of my different motivations in May 2024 and early 2026. I can only apologize and take full responsibility for disappointing the community twice. Now I can understand the total lack of trust I created (and it is completely justified. I'd take the exact same stance as those who supported my permanent block. And I don't even need to mention that if I'm given this last chance, I'll honor my commitment to never use AI tools on WP again, and if I can, somehow help the community deal with this issue. Especially I fully aware now that how this fast uncontrolled advance of AI tools is causing real damage everywhere, flooding the internet with content (unverified, hallucination, fake) that is, many times, almost impossible to tell from reality in so many aspects of human life. And how research, interpretation, and human work are far more indispensable in this era. XICO (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Online gambling companies of Cyprus

A tag has been placed on Category:Online gambling companies of Cyprus indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. AusLondonder (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Tio Patinhas

The article Tio Patinhas has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kingdom (2025 TV series)

The article Kingdom (2025 TV series) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brazilian Communist Party (1922)

The article Brazilian Communist Party (1922) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Babikir al-Nur Osman

The article Babikir al-Nur Osman has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2026 (UTC)