"We do not kill them."
Translation:Illos non interficimus.
This might be it:
The cenaculum is an actual proper room. You can even see the roots "cena" (dinner) and "culum" (room/chamber).
A triclinium is an arrangement of three (tri) couches (clinia, which shows up in the English "recline") where the wealthy would lounge while eating like their decadent Greek forbears.
There's also this:
It's the problem of false positives, it's a known problem, but moderators can't do anything, as it's at the software programming level.
You can do 3 things. Filling a bug report, posting on the troubleshouting forum, or making a sentence using illas with a small mistake, on purpose, and send "my answer should be accepted".
Yes, it's perfectly fine. The "non" always comes before the thing it negates, but it doesn't have to come directly before the thing it negates. Just as the English "We do not kill them" is ambiguous (is it "we do not KILL them" or "we do not kill THEM?"), so "nos non illas interficimus" is ambiguous in the same way. But that doesn't make it ungrammatical.
You would need to take a screen shot of the problem and submit a bug report:
Eos works. You can report "My answer should be accepted." e.g., Deut 9:29 ut interficeret eos in solitudine. The Late Latin of Jerome shows a preference for is, ea, id over ille. When he retains the latter, it's frequently part of the consuetudo of the Vetus Latina.