User talk:Subtleazn

I given up that "other" article because it is lacking notability. Instead, I decided to just merge it with this instead. I uploaded a new draft for this article. Subtleazn (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please refrain from adding categories to draft pages. These are purposefully being disabled per our policy WP:DRAFTNOCAT. Appropriate categories will be added and enabled if/when the draft is moved to the main article space. • Quinn (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand, its just offered to me when I am trying to edit the article for the first rejection. Next time I see it, I will not add categories again. Subtleazn (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon Hello, Subtleazn. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Can you disclose what your connection is to Nash Ang and his companies? grapesurgeon (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, I am affiliated with Nash Ang through his activities. Thats the reason I am putting conflict of interest tags. As much as possible I am trying to be neutral and defenitely I am not paid for these contributions. I understand COI guidelines and will make proposals via talk page rather than direct edits. Happy to discuss sourcing. Subtleazn (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Could you disclose it on your user page as well? [1] Like add that you're affiliated with Nash Ang and are not being paid.

Thanks for being upfront about all this, appreciated. grapesurgeon (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure, I just edited my page and wrote that. Thats the proper way correct? Subtleazn (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yup, that's fine, thank you! grapesurgeon (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Your welcome!^^ Subtleazn (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I will review and edit it again. If this applies to other articles that i have drafted, i will review it also and upload a new version. Subtleazn (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

A tag has been placed on Draft:OBRA Incorporated requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications is prohibited on Wikipedia. For further information, see section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, 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. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. guninvalid (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Additional reasoning: Multiple repeated red links, improper capitalization (Overseas Filipino Workers), tortured phrases (non-stock), inconsistent translation. guninvalid (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please dont delete. I will rewrite it again. I belive this is worthy to be published. Subtleazn (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

With all due respect. Please tell specifically what parts I need to change?

Your feedback is generic and lures someone to use an LLM to check if the article he is written is made by LLM which is counterproductive. I had manually double checked for hallucinations, unencyclopedic tone and copyright issues to make sure it will pass the standards of a Wikipedia reviewer. Before re-editing this again, I would like to know your personal decision why you declined the recent draft so I can improve the article. Subtleazn (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I declined it because it is generated by an LLM, as you have just confirmed. --Gurkubondinn 01:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No, I am not confirming anything. If you read between the lines, I said, your feedback is luring someone to use an LLM. I did not say, "used"; and would not prefer to because that is counterproductive and odd. That is why I am asking you, what parts I need to double check or rewrite in order to pass your standards? Subtleazn (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Well,...but you did.

I had manually double checked for hallucinations

Besides, I already knew that it was AI-generated. Hence the decline. Like I already said, you need to write it yourself to pass our standards. Please read WP:NOAILIARS and WP:NOLLM. And WP:YFA should be helpful as well. --Gurkubondinn 02:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok i understand. I read those standards and just uploaded a new version. Subtleazn (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

🗿 you tried to lie (or at least be misleading) and then got caught in it... Fam that's really not a good look. grapesurgeon (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

True, what a spin. I was asking on how to improve the draft. Now I am accused for lying instead of answering my inquiry.

Thanks for reviewing my article grapesurgeon. Ill check on it again. Anything i need to improve more? Subtleazn (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Again a spin. Dont be obtuse, you know exactly what the spin was. By doing this you're destroying our trust in you. grapesurgeon (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand. But did not came here to argue, my intention is clear from to the start, to recieve feedback for the draft improvement. Subtleazn (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Even this recent reply is a bad faith spin. If you had just been upfront about the AI and then gracefully took the feedback there would have been no issue, instead you lied. Really reflects poorly on you; why would we want to help you again knowing you'll possibly lie to us? Apologize and don't act like this again in future please grapesurgeon (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Understood. I apologize of not being upfront from the start. I wanted the draft to be judged on merits and feedback. By trying to be vague, I ended up being misleading then accused lying. Subtleazn (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you. When you're a COI editor trust is extremely important. If you had continued to be belligerent I would have advocated for a block. We are trying to help you follow Wikipedia policies; please work with us in future grapesurgeon (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for owning up to this, and I appreciate your apology.

By trying to be vague, I ended up being misleading...

This is otherwise known as lying. You may not have wanted to lie to us, but what you said was not true and you were aware of this. --gurkubondinn 09:05, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Please. Not everyone is smart as like the people in wikipedia. I literally had follow up messages to you on our other conversation to clarify my message. Subtleazn (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

...Do you actually want to be blocked? There was no need to insult all Wikipedians like that. None of what we asked of you or said to you was unreasonable, this is purely on you. grapesurgeon (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

grapesurgeon, I apologize for the misunderstanding. My previous comment was a direct reply to gurkubondinn regarding our parallel conversation. It was absolutely not meant as a insult to you or the community. I meant that because i am new here, i am out of my depth and frustrated with my own lack of knowledge compared to experienced editors here. Subtleazn (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Again, you need to tread carefully. I actually agree with gurkubondinn's point that the way you worded that message ("by trying to be vague...") is still a little frustrating, not an actual full concession. I was just ignoring it so we could move on.

Imo it'd be best if @Gurkubondinn and you both just drop this convo; more heat than light at this point.

Subtleazn, I think it's reasonably clear you did use AI. You misrepresented that you did, now you know it's wrong to do so. In future, use your own words as much as possible, maybe AI to clean up grammar or something at most. grapesurgeon (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I think we've been getting somewhere below at § Your submission at Articles for creation: OBRA Incorporated (May 21), and @Subtleazn seems to have identified where they went wrong in their communication. I have been trying to guide them to a more productive outcome. I'm fine with looking past the previous intentional vagueness as they don't seem to want to communicate more clearly now, and it seems to me that they would want to contribute to the project. My suggestion, however, would be to contribute elsewhere to the project for a while, and not only focus on getting an article which they have a COI for into article space. --gurkubondinn 12:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, ill review it again. Subtleazn (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I re-edited it and now used the online editor. It seems like you want a record of typing strokes. Subtleazn (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Don't be facetious. It was very easy to tell that you did not write this. --gurkubondinn 08:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is something i can defend because I did actually rewritten it by keyboard stokes from the draft that was rejected. Do you want me to share a screen record to show I had written thisl, just in case you reject it again? Subtleazn (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(To clarify, I am not defending this message that you rejected by the way. I am talking about the recent one i resubmitted) Subtleazn (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Come on now, the wikisource was in a Markdown-formatted code block (amongst other signs). We are WP:NOTDUMB, but I think that you should read WP:NOAILIARS and have a think before you lie to us again. --gurkubondinn 08:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I see the issue. You are talking about the base format, I had said i have rewritten it.

So what your saying, no matter how its rewritten by a human if the LLM was used for assisting with the structure, then its generated by an AI, even with a humanly written traced evicence?

Im not here to argue. There is no point because im s nobody here. I am activly replying to the threads and asking feedbacks to improve the quality of what i have written here. Subtleazn (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

(i dont want to be vague again so, let me clarify: i said i have rewritten the writing style itself, i did not do anything about the base format that you are talking about) Subtleazn (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I have no idea what you mean by "base format", but it is obvious that you pasted in output from a chatbot. That is the problem, in and of itself, and it does not matter what you have asked the chatbot to do or not to do. Using AI is not allowed, that is what WP:NOLLM says, and it makes no exceptions for "base formatting" or "assisting with structure". This is not complicated; do not use an LLM, do not lie to us, and do not play dumb or treat us like we are dumb. --gurkubondinn 09:00, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

now i know what your talking about. I am using another text editor to write drafts, because this was drafted on a text file. my comment 01:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC) is a response that i acknowledge the rejection and rewritten the draft and resubmitted it for review. your comment 08:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC) is a feedback right after you reviewed the rejected draft. correct me if im wrong? Subtleazn (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, that is indeed a correct understanding of the timestamps of the replies. But I see where this is going, and I can already tell you that I don't believe you about "another text editor" (that for some reason wraps it in Markdown code block, that doesn't make sense). Just listen to the feedback that you have been given here, stop "spinning" or "trying to be vague" because it clearly isn't working in your favour. --gurkubondinn 09:38, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

This is what im saying about the base structure. Things such as []--<>"" and other technical stuff is unfamiliar to me and i had needed assistance. This was saved on a text file and i edit there. The writing the content is what i improve according to the feedback here.

I actually had adressed that "another editor" issue on the recent draft (again not this rejected draft you saw) by writing directly on the code editor of wikipedia.

But you had replied on this thead and based your conclusion of lying on the rejected draft, not on how i adressed the issue you are currently discussing. Subtleazn (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

It is much easier for you to use the editor on Wikipedia if you find that difficult and unfamiliar, because it will render a preview of the article (on the right side) as you are typing it, so you can see if your stuff has worked.

The markup really isn't that difficult once you get the hang of it, the WP:WIKITEXT shows you the most common markup. You can also look at the source of other pages to see how it's done there (I do this a lot myself) if you prefer learning from practical examples. --gurkubondinn 09:55, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Looking back, I see exactly how my communication caused this friction. If I had just clearly stated from the beginning that I acknowledged the rejection and was switching to the online editor, we could have avoided this entirely. I have definitely struggled with the learning curve of communicating on Wikipedia, but I appreciate you bearing with me. Subtleazn (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

No problem, I don't hold grudges like that. I am more than willing to assume good faith of you, and I won't hold this against you. Just please don't try to be intentionally vague again, but since you have identified the problem with the communication I think we'll be fine. The learning curve is perhaps a bit steep if you are used to communicating in a corporate environment or on social media -- this is more like what the internet was like ~20 years ago. --gurkubondinn 10:51, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am saying that you should not use an LLM to "assist with the structure". Just read the documentation, like everyone else has managed to do, and do not use AI for Wikipedia. You say that you are asking for feedback, but you have only responded with lies, attempted subterfuge, and wilful ignorance of said feedback. --gurkubondinn 08:58, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I understand. As someone who is new here, i can say i am ignorant, but not a liar. Please, dont think if one thing is wrong, everything is wrong already. I am not lying here. I posted my comment here right after I had rewritten the draft (the recent one for review).

Certainly you and everyone here is not dumb and experienced. Why would I contest that? Whats my point here, to publish, or to fight with the reviewers here?

For context, this draft was structured before you announced rules on AI. Subtleazn (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure, there's a lot of policies and guidelines here and nobody expects a new user to actually know them all. That's not the problem. --gurkubondinn 09:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Understood. I appreciate your patience as I adjust to how things actually work here. Subtleazn (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

All of the policies and guidelines can easily feel overwhelming and difficult to understand. What I thought was the most difficult was learning where to look them up, and knowing what to look for. But Wikipedians are a lenient and forgiving bunch, provided that someone has not been acting in bad faith, lying or trying to be intentionally vague. In general, as long as you clearly operate in good faith, ask questions rather than assert what you want, and listen to advice given to you, then you will be more than fine around here. --gurkubondinn 10:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I rewritten the article and added more references. I hope I pass this time. I learned a lot on this journey. Subtleazn (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok I understand. Ill give up revising this article because it lacks notability. Subtleazn (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I am also really impressed by the sourcing on this too. Congrats! (I wanted to deliver an actual message instead of the automatic one) VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:51, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for the reviewing my work~ I appreciate your effort. Subtleazn (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC
• User talk pages with conflict of interest notices