User talk:Mussia9897

July 2025

Hello, I'm Esolo5002, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) in Wikipedia pages without carefully reviewing them, such as those you made to GENIUS Act, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox.

Please do not re-insert LLM generated content when it has already been removed once already. An editor created the article GENIUS Act using LLM content. Another editor then had to stubify and entirely rewrite the article for accuracy, content, and style on July 7th. You reintroduced much of the same (and more) LLM content with your edit of July 18th. A SECOND editor then had to go through the article, removing unacceptable parts of the new LLM content and rewrite the article AGAIN see the edit summary. This wastes a lot of editor time.

In the future, please check the talk page and some recent prior edits before plopping 9,459 bytes (3,965 characters) of LLM content in an article. Both discussions at Talk:GENIUS_Act are about LLM (Gemini) usage in the article, and reflect concerns with it. FeralOink (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern

Hello. You appear to not know the difference between procedural votes and votes to pass legislation. Please do not use YouTube to cite the results of votes, where you are making mistakes. Please wait for a reliable source, The Hill/Axios/Politico/The Washington Post/Etc, to confirm your thinking. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Raging Twenties for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Raging Twenties 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/Raging Twenties until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 16:36, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Oatsandcream per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oatsandcream. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]