Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.
Hello, Jesuspaul502, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.
Sourced information removal & Edit war
@Jesuspaul502,
Your removal of sourced content from ISKCON is baseless and a clear violation of WP:RS and WP:V. Samakal, Nayadiganto and Daily Inqilab, these are reputable medias, and your personal claims of controversy without verifiable evidence hold no weight here. If you think they are unreliable, prove it with credible secondary sources. Stop removing sourced content without justification—this is disruptive editing and violates WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR. — Cerium4B—Talk? •15:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cerium4B, thank you for bringing your concerns to my talk page. I would like to clarify my position and ensure that this discussion remains constructive and policy-based.
=== 1. About the Removal of Content ===
The edits I made were based on concerns about the reliability of the sources being cited (*Samakal*, *Daily Naya Diganta*, and *Daily Inqilab*). Per Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), sources must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. These publications have documented histories of controversies and credibility issues, which raise questions about their suitability as sources for contentious claims.
For example, the following secondary sources highlight challenges with the Bangladeshi media landscape:
The Disinformation Index report discusses disinformation risks and reliability concerns in Bangladeshi media. (Link)
USAID's assessment of the Bangladeshi media sector highlights issues with bias and external pressures. (Link)
A CIMA report analyzes how media ownership affects editorial independence and reliability in Bangladesh. (Link)
These sources provide a broader context about reliability concerns in Bangladeshi media and justify the need for scrutiny before using *Samakal*, *Daily Naya Diganta*, or *Daily Inqilab* for contentious content.
=== 2. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR ===
I understand your concerns about consensus and edit-warring. My intention was not to disrupt but to uphold Wikipedia’s policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. To avoid further conflict, I have started a discussion on the relevant article's talk page to address these concerns and achieve consensus. I invite you to participate in that discussion and present evidence supporting the reliability of these sources.
=== 3. Moving Forward ===
To ensure a constructive resolution:
Let’s continue this discussion on the article's talk page rather than engaging in back-and-forth reverts. This will allow other editors to weigh in and help us reach a consensus.
Please provide secondary sources or evidence demonstrating the reliability of *Samakal*, *Daily Naya Diganta*, and *Daily Inqilab* if you believe they meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (WP:RS).
I hope we can work collaboratively to ensure that the article reflects high-quality, verifiable, and neutral information.
Just to clarify, I’m not using any AI tools like chatbots to make my edits. Everything I’ve contributed has been done manually based on my own research and following Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’m really careful about making sure the information I add is reliable and neutral.
If anything I’ve edited seems off or unconstructive, I’m happy to discuss it and make changes where needed. My goal is to improve the article and follow Wikipedia’s rules.
Feel free to reach out if you want to talk more about it!
"Edit" includes anything that you post to any Wikipedia pages, including talk page comments and noticeboards. Using a chatbot to generate text that you post to Wikipedia as your own comments is discouraged. Schazjmd(talk)20:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Schazjmd,
I just wanted to clarify—does using a formal tone in my responses automatically mean I'm using AI? I aim to maintain a professional and respectful approach in my comments, but I didn’t realize that could be seen as something else.
I’m happy to discuss or adjust anything if it’s needed, and I’m committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines.
It isn't just tone that makes your comments sound like they come from a chatbot. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that you understood that when we say "edits", we don't just mean to articles. Schazjmd(talk)20:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I understand now that "edits" includes more than just article changes. I just want to emphasize that all my responses, whether on talk pages or articles, are written by me and not generated by any chatbot. I strive to keep my language respectful and clear, but if my tone seems off or gives the wrong impression, I’m happy to adjust. JESUS (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting tactic—digging through old user pages to make a point. If that’s the best approach you can come up with, it’s more telling about your priorities than mine. Perhaps focus on constructive contributions instead of irrelevant distractions?
The userbox on my old page was intended to reflect tools I explore out of curiosity, not as a declaration of what I use for editing. It seems some have chosen to twist this into something it’s not, which is disappointing but not surprising.
If you’re more interested in making accusations than addressing actual content discussions, that’s your choice. But let’s not pretend baseless assumptions qualify as constructive dialogue. JESUS (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t act innocent @Jesuspaul502. Do you think you’re the only one who uses chatgpt and we know nothing about Ai? There are many expert users on wikipedia. Do you have any idea of their skills? You were also bargaining with an admin. In your edits, it’s completely visible that you have used Chatgpt’s WhatsApp integration and just copy-pasted the answers as WhatsApp uses stars (*) to highlight words, and those are completely visible. Also, there are many sites to check Ai generated content. @CFA has checked that your content is 100% Ai generated. Yet, you’re still making baseless arguments here.
Please stop! — Cerium4B—Talk? •10:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is riddled with baseless accusations and unsubstantiated claims. Bold or starred formatting is not exclusive to any platform and certainly not evidence of AI usage. Making sweeping allegations without proof reflects poorly on your so-called "expertise."
If you genuinely possess the skills you boast about, focus on evaluating the actual content of my contributions instead of resorting to speculative attacks and hollow arguments. Accusing someone without solid evidence only undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and makes your stance appear petty and unconstructive.
Repeating baseless accusations doesn’t make them true. If you can’t engage in a meaningful discussion without resorting to empty claims, perhaps it’s best to step back. Constantly crying "AI" whenever faced with a well-structured reply only reflects your inability to argue on substance.
You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
I have noticed that you are using AI to generate your responses. Please do not do this, your replies come of as impersonal and may contain hallucinations or misrepresentations or arguments that may appear plausible at a glance but lacks actual substance. It also takes valuable time for an editor to respond to your messages which could be generated instantly using AI. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s interesting that you choose to criticize the quality of my responses by assuming they’re AI-generated. If being articulate and structured comes across as "impersonal," perhaps it’s a reflection of your own biases rather than my contributions. Accusing me of lacking substance while offering no evidence yourself is ironic at best.
Instead of making baseless claims, perhaps your time would be better spent addressing the actual points in the discussion. Let’s focus on constructive dialogue rather than unwarranted distractions. JESUS (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your denial of AI chatbots is not going to help your case. When multiple editors and administrators have suspected you of using them, we were not born yesterday, we can spot AI comments very easily. This comment of yours is also entirely AI generated [1]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see we're taking the "we were not born yesterday" approach, which is always a classic. Just because you've been around the block doesn't mean you can spot everything with a magical AI-detecting radar. It’s almost comical that you’ve put so much trust in GPTZero, a tool that’s as reliable as flipping a coin. If we’re going to take those results seriously, we might as well start using horoscopes to judge content.
Let me clarify: if you think I’m using AI to generate my responses, you’ve missed the point. If I’m being honest, it seems like you’re more interested in labeling and accusing than engaging with actual substance. Let’s focus on facts, shall we? I’m sure “years of experience” will go far in helping you spot real arguments instead of just patting yourself on the back for your “expert” AI-spotting skills.
Instead of reaching for an AI detector and pulling out random accusations, maybe try reading the content itself. It’s far more insightful than whatever tool you’re relying on.
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).
I believe the block was applied due to a misunderstanding regarding my contributions, particularly regarding concerns that my responses might have been AI-generated. I want to assure you that my intention has always been to contribute constructively to Wikipedia and adhere to its policies. While I understand the concerns raised, I want to clarify that I have never used AI tools like ChatGPT to generate my contributions. I have always written my responses thoughtfully and in good faith.
I acknowledge that my writing style may have seemed more formal or structured, which might have led to the suspicion of AI involvement. However, this has been my personal approach to ensure clarity and professionalism in my edits. I am fully committed to Wikipedia's principles and standards, and I am open to refining my approach to ensure it aligns better with Wikipedia's expectations.
If my edits were perceived as disruptive or problematic, I sincerely apologize. I am more than willing to engage in constructive dialogue and learn from any feedback. I would be grateful for the opportunity to prove my dedication to improving the quality of content on Wikipedia and to demonstrate that my contributions are genuine.
Thank you for your understanding, and I kindly request the block be lifted so that I can continue contributing to the project in a positive and constructive manner.
This request comes up as 75% likely AI generated according to zeroGPT. It's certainly true that such tools are not perfect, but you're making it hard to tell. I would tend to trust the tool more than what you claim, but if you wrote this yourself, I'd suggest concentrating less on structure and form and more on just communicating with us. To unblock you I would need to see that you understand the feedback that you've already gotten, and I don't see that here, whether you are using AI or not. 331dot (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2024 (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.
For my part, it appears each and every edit by this user was written by a LLM. Now they are trolling other users on talk while clearly lying about the verified usage of ChatGPT. Their very first userpage edit included a user box announcing their use of the modeling. This unblock response, if checked, will prove to be LLM created. BusterD (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2024 (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).
I completely get where you’re coming from with your concerns about my edits and why some of my messages might have seemed like they were written by AI. I didn’t realize how my formal tone could come off that way, and I’m really sorry for the confusion. It’s just my way of trying to be clear and precise in my writing, but I see now how that could have looked suspicious.
I also know that mentioning ChatGPT on my user page probably added to the doubts, and I can see how that may have been a red flag. The intention behind that was just to be transparent about the tools I use for research, but I can understand now that it wasn’t the best decision.
I want to be clear that I’m not trying to disrupt things here. I truly care about contributing to Wikipedia in a helpful way, and I didn’t mean to cause any issues. I realize I may have missed the mark in how I communicated and edited, and I’ll make sure to do better going forward.
I really hope you’ll reconsider the block. I’m committed to improving my approach and following the rules properly. Thanks for understanding, and I hope we can move past this. JESUS (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2024 (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.
All of your responses have been run through AI detectors and have come up as positive for AI generated content. Continued denials will not result in you being unblocked. This approach hasn't worked so far and it won't work again in the future. Your only possible hope to be unblocked is if you are honest and start writing your comments yourself. If you don't speak English, then please work on a Wikipedia in your native language. LizRead!Talk!00:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it when you make time to listen to my situation. I admire your efforts to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia community, and I understand that it must be very difficult for administrators to figure out things out with contributions, whether they are from real editors or simply perverse ones.
However, I have to communicate, as sincerely as possible, that every response and any contribution pertaining to me has been personally drafted. My writing is, so to say, inherently formal and structured owing to my past in academic life—I hold a PhD in the English language. While that might make my responses appear rather too polished or systematic, it does not mean they are AI-generated. This misunderstanding, as I said, stems from the limitations of AI detection tools.
I do understand that my previous denials could have sounded defensive or repetitive, and I also apologize for that. I had no intention of provoking a conflict but rather clarifying my position. I very much appreciate Wikipedia's mission and community and am here to contribute meaningfully.
If there are specific concerns about my style of communication, I'm quite willing to adapt it and prove my commitment to collaborative editing. I humbly seek another opportunity to rehabilitate and show through my deeds that I'm building the encyclopedia in good faith.
Thanks for kindly taking my appeal under consideration and for engaging me with fairness and openness. I assure you that I mean well, and I am quite enthusiastic about contributing constructively. JESUS (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2024 (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).
Let me clear up the worries about my writing. I've got a doctorate in English, and I tend to write in a pretty formal structured way. Now I see this might've led to some mix-ups making it look like a computer wrote my stuff. I want to make it crystal clear that everything I've put down is my own work. I'm here to help make Wikipedia better, not to cause trouble or pull the wool over anyone's eyes. If the way I write has given off the wrong vibe, I'm sorry about that. I'm happy to change how I go about things to fit in better with what everyone here expects. I'm hoping you'll think about lifting the block and give me a shot to prove I'm here with good intentions. Thanks for hearing me out. JESUS (talk) 8:22 pm, Yesterday (UTC−9)
Decline reason:
It does appear you are now writing your own comments, but your blanket denial that any of your previous comments were AI/LLM generated is not believeable, nor is your claim thjat having an advanved degree in English somhow forces you to wtite in such a manner. I think we've spent enough timne on this. El Beeblerinoif you're not into the whole brevity thing20:52, 28 December 2024 (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.
I have moved your latest unblock request to the bottom of the page. Please place new talk page postings at the bottom so that discussions appear in the correct chronological order. --Drm310🍁 (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all about assuming good faith but, Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Each and every edit by this has been a misrepresentation, and every beg for help is machine written. EVEN IF the current request for unblocking is written by the user (and IMHO we should scan EVERYTHING this user adds), the track record has been to use ChatGPT, then brazenly lie about it. It doesn't take any energy for them to apply for unblocking, because a machine is doing it. On the other hand, this account has taken up quite abundant time from many good faith users. BusterD (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make another general statement about LLMs: this sort of account (whether by design or not) is calibrating ChatGPT for acceptable responses in talk page discussions. We don't feed trolls, we should not be knowingly tutoring ai models. BusterD (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, I know this will have its critics, but every single word that I produce has not been produced by any AI tool. In fact, I have spent innumerable years perfecting my communication, and one might well imagine how highly structured or formalized it would be in terms of speaking. I see how this can be misinterpreted, though. Forgive me for that.
I should, also, mention the ban itself. This really is a very serious matter, so I do respect the authority under which you undertake the very important work that you do as an administrator; however, I have this general feeling that this may be a decision based on presumptions instead of solid evidence. All my edits and conversations have been great, and I came to value to Wikipedia and not cause problems.
If there are any special issues regarding my edits or behavior which I should know about, I take a constructive view of criticism and would gladly learn from. I would be grateful for such opportunity since I could present my allegations instead of being cornered in misunderstandings.
