User talk:82.27.252.215

Your submission at Articles for creation: L-H transition (November 9)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Compusolus was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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:L-H transition 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:L-H_transition Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Compusolus&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:L-H_transition reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Compusolus (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

July 2023
Hello, I'm CodeTalker. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hallucination (artificial intelligence) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CodeTalker (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for attempting to improve Wikipedia; however, to clarify, Wikipedia's purpose is to summarize what reliable sources have previously published (see WP:V and WP:RS). Ars Technica is considered a reliable source (see WP:RSP). So if you believe the source is incorrect, you must either find another reliable source that has published your viewpoint, or convince Ars Technica to retract their previous statement. A single editor cannot unilaterally declare a reliable source to be incorrect, even if they are correct in doing so. This would lead to chaos, as no one would have any way to verify that any particular statement in Wikipedia is true or not. CodeTalker (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)