№15674540[Quote]
ev&oe its gemmy
№15674546[Quote]
>>15674507 (OP)why the fuck is meximutt in there kek it's NAS
№15674549[Quote]
>troonjak mentioned
can we make niggerjak so they put it on wikipedia
№15674597[Quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soyjak&action=historythis orbiter nigger is also the same one who make the chudjak wikipedia page that we checked out earlier im tired of this fag
№15674609[Quote]
>>15674597ns1sou/not1soul for clarification
№15674655[Quote]
Wait why does it say the first soyjak was created on /r9k/ when it was posted on /int/
№15674662[Quote]
>>15674609https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Not1Soulthis is clearly not a real 'teen, his contributions are all SNCA caca slop as shown by his canned articles
№15674675[Quote]
>>15674661what is this fucking hippie news site
№15674698[Quote]
>>15674675the article is definitely ai generated
№15674700[Quote]
>>15674698websites vibe coded too i bet
№15674717[Quote]
why don't we try to 'oxx the nigger that keeps making these shitty articles, he made the chudjak one as well
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chud_(pejorative)&action=history №15674725[Quote]
the peer reviewed sources for the article are gemmier then the article itself
>>15674717do dis
№15674747[Quote]
>>15674717geg he has to be a algorithm obsessed slut all of his contributions are of content farm slop
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ns1sou №15674769[Quote]
>>15674747>Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Vrxces was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The sourcing here is very poor and WP:GNG is far from met. None of the sources are provided are mentioned at all in WP:VG/S other than one unreliable source named VC Gamers. Examples of the low calibre include The Chomp Gateway, a high school student news site, Piunika Web, an article seemingly based on Reddit user posts, and Piipple, an article that looks LLM generated on a generic site with no information about what it is. The Hatch journal article, which is the closest to a reliable source, is in a sense based on primary research methodologies rather than secondary analysis and regardless not in itself a strong start for substantiating notability of a video game article. As a fan modification, it's incredibly hard to see a scenario here where, even if it were notable, it wouldn't be easiest just to have reliable coverage mentioned in Incredibox. With the mix of the sourcing well below reliability, having a stronger primary topic with an article, my inability to find anything reliable online, and the previous SALTing, I think a rejection is appropriate here. №15674834[Quote]
>>15674747by his account hes an atheist that likes roblox and other goyslop and the 'arty for some reason, he also just seems to be posting just for the sake of it because none of his contributions are either correct or have any trustworthy sources
№15674992[Quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VanFindavandalize this turbonigger's talk page he's reverting all of the gemmy edits
№15675385[Quote]
ofc it's wikipedos what did you think