User talk:Masterman087

Links in articles

I see that some of your edits have added links from one article to another, known as "wikilinks". Wikilinks can be very helpful, but it is a very common mistake among new editors to add too many wikilinks to articles. Generally speaking, a wikilink should be added only if it provides information which is likely to help readers of the article in which the link is placed to understand content of that article, or provide further information closely connected to content of that article. That normally means either a link to an article which explains words or expressions in the article containing the link, or a link to an article which provides background information which is necessary in order to understand content of the article containing the link. Linking to articles in other situations is not just unnecessary, it can actually be harmful, because research has established that the more irrelevant, or only slightly relevant, links there are in a page, the less likely readers are to find the ones which they might find useful. Thus, for example, nobody reading the article List of attendees and signatories of the First Council of Nicaea is likely to need to consult the article 11th century in order to understand what "11th century" means, nor does the article 11th century contain any information about people who attended the first council of Nicaea, so linking the one to the other is not likely to be helpful. Also, the link you added to 16-17th centuries is unlikely to be helpful to anyone, as there is no article with that title, nor is there likely to be one. JBW (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, JBW. I understand the point about overlinking and will be more careful to ensure relevance and avoid unnecessary or broken links in the future. Appreciate the guidance! Masterman087 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate User information

Background check here says that your account was created in August 2024, but your user page says that you have been editing wikipedia for the last 6-7 years. Please only use accurate and genuine information on your User page in order to help other users. I discovered your account because you erroneously made this edit which I reverted here. Relspas (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Masterman087:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Use of LLM or chatbot

Please read the essay Wikipedia:Large language models. I reverted your edit to Entheogenic use of cannabis because one cited source did not support the content and the other does not appear to exist at all. Chatbots are known for "hallucinating" sources. Always verify sources for yourself before adding them to articles. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:7 Year topicon

Template:7 Year topicon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to delet this template. Masterman087 (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Priya Singh (June 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rambley was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs a better range of reliable, secondary sources rather than only three sources from the same publication. Many parts of the draft are also unsourced.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Priya Singh and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rambley (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masterman087! 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! Rambley (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gaurav Singh Chouhan (June 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gaurav Singh Chouhan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Priya Singh (July 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Avgeekamfot were:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Priya Singh and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Avgeekamfot (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello, I'm Amigao. An edit that you recently made to Politics of China seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. 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. Amigao (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit to Pamela Sue Martin may also have been LLM-generated. LLMs tend to use many vague words to say not very much; they also fabricate sources that don't exist, such as the "book" that you cited. Since Worldcat has never heard of it and the ISBN comes back as invalid, I reverted the edit. Please, don't use chatbots or LLMs to generate content and never use the sources they produce without checking them yourself. Schazjmd (talk) 22:53, 7 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, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List notability

For a list-article, you need sources to establish notability for the topic. As WP:NLIST says: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources So your article, List of Indian Kindle-published writers, needs sources that discuss "Indian Kindle-published writers" in general. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Indian Kindle-published writers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Indian Kindle-published writers 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/List of Indian Kindle-published writers 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.

WikiMentor01 (talk) 11:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gaurav Singh Chouhan (July 9)

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 Gommeh was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Gommeh 🎮 14:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Independent Publishers in India (July 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
Essay-like writing
Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
Close paraphrasing

Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Independent Publishers in India and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM usage

Are you using LLMs (ChatGPT, etc.) to edit Wikipedia? Please do not edit anything else until you answer this question. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 19:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had to go through all your mainspace edits and it took me nearly an hour to revert all of them. Most of your LLM edits have hallucinated sources, hallucinated book titles, hallucinated ref names, citations to non-RS, and are generally unhelpful. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 20:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masterman087. 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 ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 11:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Masterman087 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear admins, I understand I was blocked for suspected sockpuppetry and using AI. I truly apologize if I unknowingly violated any rules.

I would like to clarify that I have only one account — Masterman087. I have never used any other usernames or accounts like "Yeletiti". I simply logged into both Hindi and English Wikipedia using the same account to practice article editing and learn more about contributing.

I did use ChatGPT occasionally to help me understand difficult English words or sentence structures, but I never fully relied on it to write articles. I now understand this could have caused confusion, and I will be more careful in the future.

I am a college student, and I was contributing to Wikipedia to improve my writing and gain experience. I had no bad intentions, and I genuinely want to follow the community's rules and contribute positively.

Please consider giving me one more chance. Thank you for your time. Masterman087 (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please only make one unblock request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Masterman087 (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Masterman087 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand I was blocked for sockpuppetry. I respectfully request an unblock. I will follow Wikipedia’s policies going forward and will not use multiple accounts abusively. I’m open to answering any questions to clarify the situation. Masterman087 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please only make one unblock request at a time. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Masterman087 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I have a hard time believing that you only used ChatGPT for making grammatical checks; that wouldn't produce hallucinated references. Additionally, you deny being a sockpuppet, but you have been clearly linked as one, and even if you are not the same person it would only make it meatpuppetry, which is considered the same as socking for enforcement purposes. If you really aren't the same account, then you would have to tell us how your edits differ from those of BossyPirate and you also need to address your usage of AI. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 17:45, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- (Non-administrator comment) "I am a college student, and I was contributing to Wikipedia to improve my writing and gain experience" This is blatantly untrue, since you said you have a conflict of interest in both of your AfC drafts. If you look their names up on the internet, one can find similar content being spammed on other websites and wikis, including those that don't scrape Wikipedia. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  They have also tried to create the Gaurav Singh Chouhan article on the Simple English Wikipedia. Even if they somehow aren't a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, they are definitely not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Masterman087 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear admins,

I truly apologize for my mistakes. I understand now how important Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines are. I made some wrong decisions, but I promise I have learned from them.

I want to clarify that I have **never done paid editing**. The only article I created with a personal connection was about *Gaurav Singh Chouhan*. That was **not paid** — I only tried to create it because I knew the person, and I didn’t know how strong the Conflict of Interest rules were at that time.

I also used ChatGPT in the beginning, and I now realize that it was not the right way to contribute. It caused unreliable references and bad content, and I’m very sorry for that.

I have only used **this one account**, and everything I did — good or bad — was from here. I was just trying to learn, and I made some mistakes while learning.

I request your forgiveness. I promise I will not edit again **unless I fully understand** the topic and the **Wikipedia guidelines**. I will not use AI or write anything promotional or personal again.

Please give me just one chance to improve. I want to grow as a contributor and do things the right way now.

Thank you for reading and understanding. Masterman087 (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per Newslinger: This unblock request is seemingly LLM-generated (or at least generic enough that it is indistinguishable from LLM output. If you wish to be unblocked, you will have to specifically address the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masterman087/Archive, and you will have to do so in your own words. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Masterman087 (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above unblock request is obviously LLM-generated, and should be declined. — Newslinger talk 14:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gaurav Singh Chouhan Dainik Bhaskar 2025.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gaurav Singh Chouhan Dainik Bhaskar 2025.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destubathon runs until the 16th of July

Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]