W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Femfem5

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.


CS1 error on Bisexual flag ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :Bisexual flag ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Femfem5&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Bisexual flag}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1293900981 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

AfC ↗ notification: Draft:U.S. state flags with emblems on monochrome fields ↗ has a new comment


<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:U.S. state flags with emblems on monochrome fields ↗. Thanks! <span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span> (talk · contribs ↗) 14:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC) </div>

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: U.S. state flags with emblems on monochrome fields ↗ (June 4)


<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fdf2d5); color: inherit; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation ↗ has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by CoconutOctopus was:

{{divbox|gray|3=This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article ↗. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: <br />
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid ↗ when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.|}}<!--
--
-->&nbsp;The comment the reviewer left was:

{{divbox|blue|3=I don't feel this is currently shown to be notable; Youtube is not a reliable source and many of your other sources are discussing either ''Good Flag, Bad Flag'' or individual state flag redesigns, not SOB flags as a concept.}} 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''.
{{clear}}

<span style="color: purple">CoconutOctopus</span> <span style="color: pink">talk</span> 16:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC decline-->

{| style="margin: 0.4em 2em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo ↗
| <div style="background-color:#e1e6db; color: #393D38; padding: 1em; font-size: 1.1em; border-radius:10px;box-shadow:-2px -2px 1px #8e8a78;">Hello, '''Femfem5'''!
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! <span style="color: purple">CoconutOctopus</span> <span style="color: pink">talk</span> 16:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)</div>
|}<!-- Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation -->
Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC ↗

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: Seal on a Bedsheet ↗ (June 26)


<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: var(--background-color-warning-subtle, #fdf2d5); color: inherit; padding: 0.5em 1em; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation ↗ has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by Lijil was:

{{divbox|gray|3=This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article ↗. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: <br />
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid ↗ when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.|}}<!--
--
-->&nbsp;The comment the reviewer left was:

{{divbox|blue|3=This doesn't seem like a good topic for a Wikipedia article, as other reviewers have commented before me. I appreciate that you've spent a lot of time editing this draft, but your additions are mostly things that would be better in the articles for the specific state flags they're about. Most of your sources are actually about specific flags and not about the "seal on a bedsheet" style of flag. If this topic is really notable we would need significant coverage in reliable independent sources not of individual flag debates, but of the idea of "seal on a bedsheet" more generally. I'm not convinced that this exists. If it does, and you want to resubmit the draft, it would help our volunteer reviewers if you could identify, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NACTOR criteria #3, because XXXXX").}} 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''.
{{clear}}

Lijil (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC decline-->

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/08&oldid=1322758940 -->

December 2025



25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, I'm Alith Anar. An edit that you recently made to :Bisexual flag ↗ seemed to be generated using a large language model ↗ (an "AI chatbot ↗" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia ↗, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources ↗ and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted ↗. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.{{PAGENAME}} ↗<!-- Template:uw-ai1 --> Alith Anar 15:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

:@Alith Anar
:You call it "AI generated fluff" and mention that the segment of text scored 100% on GPTZero.
:Yes, GPT-5 was used in the first stages of producing this piece of text, but it was not 100% AI generated. And I'm not sure why you would call it fluff?
:The prompt starting the conversation included a note to base the generated answer on this segement on the "Pride flag" wiki-article:
:Numerous communities have embraced distinct flags, with a majority drawing inspiration from the rainbow flag. These flags are often created by amateur designers and later gain traction online or within affiliated organizations, ultimately attaining a semi-official status as a symbolic representation of the community. Typically, these flags incorporate a range of colors that symbolize different aspects of the associated communities.
:the generated result:
:" Many people recognize the bisexual flag as one of the most widely used symbols associated with bisexuality, even though it was never formally adopted by the entire community. Created by an individual designer and later circulated broadly online, it rose to prominence through community use rather than through any official process. Over time, its vibrant trio of colors—magenta, purple, and blue—came to represent the overlapping experiences and identities within bisexuality. Its popularity has given it a semi-official status, functioning as a familiar emblem for many bisexual people while still remaining, at its core, a community-driven symbol rather than a formally sanctioned one. "
:after human editing:
:Page's bisexual flag has become one of the most recognizable symbols associated with bisexual identity. Circulated widely across online communities, it rose to prominence through gradual, grassroots adoption rather than any formal designation. Its broad visibility has given it a kind of semi-official status, making it familiar and meaningful to many bisexual people. Yet it ultimately remains a widely embraced community emblem rather than a universally mandated or unanimously endorsed representation.
:The Wikipedia draft-policy on AI-generated content is a work in progress and not yet official. It says that while algorithms can assist in creating content, Wikipedia editors remain fully responsible for ensuring the accuracy and quality of any material produced using AI.
:So, it seems that even 100% AI generated text is not forbidden, as long as accuracy and quality is maintaned.
:Then what we have left to discuss is why you call it fluff. If you would like to make that clear, please. Femfem5 (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
::The reason why I called it "fluff" is because it mostly doesn't add anything new to the introduction of the article, it's simply another repacking of what was already established in the previous paragraphs of the introduction. When it does add something new, it doesn't spotlight a major component of the article, or provide a source. Let's unpack it.
::"Page's bisexual flag has become one of the most recognizable symbols associated with bisexual identity." This sentence is redundant the introduction already explains this. In the second paragraph of the introduction, it is stated that "Page designed the flag to increase the visibility of bisexuals among society as a whole and within the LGBTQ community." Therefore the fact that the Page's flag is a recognizable symbol of bisexuality is already established in the second paragraph of the introduction.
::"Circulated widely across online communities, it rose to prominence through gradual, grassroots adoption rather than any formal designation. Its broad visibility has given it a kind of semi-official status, making it familiar and meaningful to many bisexual people. Yet it ultimately remains a widely embraced community emblem rather than a universally mandated or unanimously endorsed representation." This information is unsourced, and nothing in the article describes how the flag became popular. Therefore this new section of the introduction doesn't match the content of the rest of the article, and article introductions should reflect the content of an article. Alith Anar 16:18, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you for your detailed feedback. I agree that I did not provide a source for how the flag became popular. That statement was an assumption based on the history of other pride flags and should have been left out in this case.
:::However, I believe the article is missing an important point. The flag is not universally endorsed. It is widely embraced, but it is ultimately just a popular design rather than the definitive flag of bisexuality. This was the main point of my edit:
:::"Yet it ultimately remains a widely embraced community emblem rather than a universally mandated or unanimously endorsed representation."
:::Regarding the claim that "Page's flag is a recognizable symbol of bisexuality is already established in the second paragraph of the introduction," I respectfully disagree. That sentence only explains why Page designed the flag, not that it has become one of the most recognizable symbols of bisexuality today.
:::Finally, I appreciate your fast response, and I would like to kindly ask if you might reconsider using "AI-generated" as a reason for reverts. This isn't against Wikipedia policy, and calling it out in this way can come across as condescending and may unintentionally discredit the time and effort people put into contributing to this platform in good faith. Femfem5 (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi @Femfem5, it looks like the problem is that you were perhaps relying on GPT a bit too much - the warning notice explains that we should be relying on what reliable sources say, then summarise that in our own words.
::::The information you added wasn't cited to a reliable source. You can of course find a reliable source that makes that claim and add it with a citation? If you're making a claim on your own, that falls under original research ↗.
::::Re. the introduction, as per Wikipedia:Lead ↗ it should be a reflection of the rest of the article.
::::From Alith's comments, your edit wasn't reverted solely because it was AI generated, but that drew attention because AI-generated edits tend to introduce errors and other problems.
::::It's best to discuss this further on the article Talk page, if you'd like input from other editors. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025


link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗ regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> &#126;2025-31416-56 ↗ (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Kansas ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffalo ↗ was added. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)