Iamnilesh0321

September 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Life expectancy have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Life expectancy was changed by Iamnilesh0321 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.851028 on 2025-09-04T16:07:00+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Michael T. Weiss, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop adding mentions of "TheToolx" to unrelated articles where the cited source doesn't mention this at all, as you did here: (1, 2, 3). Waxworker (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, but why did you remove the link from URL shortening?

It's more reliable sources then, this: https://thetoolx.com/tools/url-shortener Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It does not appear to be a reliable source, and also doesn't appear to support the claim it was added to. Waxworker (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Got it Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Künsberg, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Mitrella fortuita, you may be blocked from editing. Waxworker (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Waxworker

I have added reliable words to Mitrella fortuita Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The content added is unsourced - reliable sources are necessary for verification per WP:BURDEN. Waxworker (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

How can i find best sources or references sites? which meet Wikipedia content quality. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia User's

I’m Nilesh Kumar, I’ve been writing professionally for over seven years and have a special interest in history, sports, technology, and culture.

My Interests on Wikipedia

List the areas you want to contribute to. Example: “I enjoy creating and improving articles about Indian culture, sports history, technology tools, and biographies of notable personalities.

Pages I’m Working On

Currently, I’m developing a page for TheToolx.com

Contribution Goals

My goal is to share clear and reliable information on topics in technology, science, and film. I aim to expand coverage of new tools, discoveries, and trends, while also improving existing articles to make them more accurate and easier to understand.

Thank You! Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hey Iamnilesh0321, welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed your recent edits are handling sections tagged with {{Expand section}}. Please note that that tag means that additional information is missing from the section. I've taken a look at a few of your edits and it seems your edits removed that tag but didn't add any new information and just copyedited what text was there (and in some cases, removed existing references). Please do not remove the template if you aren't adding the missing information. Also, please don't remove references and leave text unsourced. Gonnym (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I will keep in mind. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop

Can you stop adding internal wikilink outside the short description right now? KuyaMoHirowo • he/him (DM me on Discord at kuyamohirowo (DMs are open!)) :3 • View profile on Carrd 11:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, i will stop doing this. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The ToolX (September 16)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:The ToolX 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.

sksatsuma 14:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Iamnilesh0321! 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! sksatsuma 14:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Sksatsuma,

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I understand your concerns about the draft reading like an advertisement. I will carefully revise the article to remove any promotional tone and make sure it follows a neutral point of view.

I have already added reliable sources, including government websites and coverage from popular YouTubers, to help establish notability. I will continue working on improving the balance of sources and ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality guidelines.

I appreciate your feedback and guidance. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TheToolX

Hello Iamnilesh0321,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged TheToolX for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Agent 007 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for the review. I’d like to contest this speedy deletion because I believe TheToolX does have notability and significance that may not have been fully reflected in the draft yet.

Several popular YouTubers and tech creators have already covered TheToolX in independent videos, tutorials, and reviews. For example, and other videos demonstrate the platform’s tools and reach, with thousands of views and audience engagement. This shows that the project has attracted independent attention and usage beyond its own promotion.

In addition, TheToolX is actively used as a utility platform for tasks like video downloading, background removal, and productivity tools. Its coverage by creators with large audiences highlights its impact and growing relevance in the tech and content-creation space. I am in the process of adding more reliable secondary sources, including articles and media mentions, to strengthen the references.

For these reasons, I believe the subject has sufficient importance to merit an encyclopedia article, and I request that the speedy deletion tag be reconsidered so I can expand the page with independent sources.

Thank you for your time and understanding. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

AI

Hi - are you using AI for your edits? If so, can you please mention:

• Any tool(s) you are using
• What prompts and/or features you are using
• What review you are doing of the output

Thank you. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, yes I’m using AI to assist with edits. The tool I’m using is ChatGPT. I usually provide prompts like “rewrite this in neutral, encyclopedic tone” or “remove promotional content” to make sure the language aligns with Wikipedia standards. After getting the draft, I review it manually to check for accuracy, neutrality, and proper sourcing before saving any changes.

Could you also help me edit this page and remove promotional content so it meets Wikipedia’s standard quality?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_ToolX Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop using ChatGPT. If a text needs to be rewritten for neutrality you need to rewrite it yourself, without the use of any AI tools. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 16:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

In the case of that article, it would be difficult since the content comes from sources listed that are either promotional and/or unreliable; reliable sources would have to be found, and the article would have to be rewritten.

In general, we strongly recommend editors using AI mention any use of AI in the edit summary. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for explaining. I understand now that the main issue is the lack of reliable sources and the need to rewrite the article based on better references. I’ll work on finding appropriate sources and rewriting the draft myself so it aligns with Wikipedia’s standards.

Regarding AI, I’ll make sure not to rely on it for edits and, if there’s ever a case where I’ve used it for drafting, I’ll mention that clearly in the edit summary.

Appreciate the guidance. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Please do not add unreliable sources such as alchetron and jiosaavn to Wikipedia articles. --bonadea contributions talk 16:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited B. Shivadhar Reddy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Corruption Bureau. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Continued AI misuse

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model.

Hi @Iamnilesh0321, you have been warned multiple times but continue to make unsourced, or partially unsourced, updates using LLMs. We do not currently have policies against LLM use but you are consistently using them in ways that violate core wikipedia policies. I would strongly advise you to stop using LLMs entirely as I don't think you have the experience to use them in ways that are in compliance with wikipedia policy. NicheSports (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NicheSports, I understand your concerns and I’ll take them seriously. My main aim is to contribute constructively, and I use LLMs only for grammar or clarity, not to invent content. When I add information, I try to provide reliable sources, but if some of my edits don’t meet the standards, I’d appreciate guidance on how I can improve. Could you please advise what the best approach would be for me to contribute responsibly while making sure my edits follow Wikipedia’s sourcing and policy requirements?

Thanks,

Iamnilesh0321 Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

hi @Iamnilesh0321, please do not use LLMs to generate comments on talk pages, that is actually against WP:AITALK. I noticed from your edit history today that it looks like you have changed your approach to editing, which I appreciate. However this diff still contains evidence of improper LLM usage, specifically the sentence: The lectures bring together scholars, writers, artists, and public intellectuals to explore different aspects of American history, culture, society, and politics. This was not supported by the provided reference and was clearly generated by LLMs. You really, really need to stop using LLMs on wikipedia as you have not shown the ability to use them constructively here. You should assume that if you use an LLM on wikipedia again - whether on a talk page or to edit an article - that another editor may seek to have you blocked from editing to prevent harm to the project. NicheSports (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You can also reach out to me on my talk page if you want to discuss ideas for how you can contribute to wikipedia without using LLMs NicheSports (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Citations and LLM misuse

Hi Iamnilesh0321, I appreciate that you have been locating articles with cleanup tags and working on fixing those issues. However, other editors have expressed concern that some of your recent edits appear to be LLM-generated. First, please note that using an LLM to write talk page comments is unacceptable; if you would like to proofread text that you have written, you may use a word processor (see comparison) or dedicated grammar checker (see category) as an alternative.

In articles, LLM-generated edits are highly likely to violate policies or guidelines and land you into trouble.

For example, from your recent edits:

• 17:17, 28 September 2025: The MovieInsider page does not support the claim that "In July 2020, Saban Films acquired distribution rights for the United States", which means that the sentence does not satisfy the verifiability policy. Based a web search, the claim does appear to be correct, but you would need to find a reliable source that supports the claim and add a citation of the source to the end of that sentence.
• 17:13, 28 September 2025: There are three reasons this Bridge.audio page is unreliable. First, Bridge.audio's music directory does not have any apparent editorial oversight, which makes it a self-published source. Second, on the the Bridge.audio home page, the service describes itself as using "AI auto-tagging", which means that it is likely to be a source produced by machine learning, which is another type of unreliable source. Third, the cited Bridge.audio page contains a "About Masters of Hardcore" section that looks like a closely paraphrased rewrite of the Profile ("Profil") in the French-language Discogs entry that the Bridge.audio page links to;  Discogs (RSP entry) is also unreliable because it consists primarily of user-generated content.
• 17:10, 28 September 2025: I don't see anything in the cited Genius entry that supports the claim about Jeffree Star's song or album. Please note that Genius (RSP entry) annotations are generally unreliable because they are user-generated.

In light of your prior LLM use, there is reason to believe that these three edits are also LLM-assisted because they were made in rapid succession, and the first and third of these edits (in particular) contain major issues that would have easily been noticed by reading the pages that were cited. I hope this illustrates the frequent issues associated with LLM use on Wikipedia, and I ask you to please stop using LLMs to make edits on Wikipedia. As an editor, you take responsibility for all of the edits you make, which means that every mistake that results from your use of an LLM is still considered a strike against you. Don't let an AI tool cause you to lose your editing privileges. — Newslinger talk 00:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Iamnilesh0321, where did you obtain the information used to make the edit Special:Diff/1314879104? — Newslinger talk 19:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I take the information from reliable sources like news article, reddit post etc. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Iamnilesh0321,  Reddit (RSP entry) is not a reliable source, as it is user-generated. Additionally, self-published sources such as social media posts must never be used for claims about living people (other than the authors themselves), per the policy section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS). The rest of that policy page explains that all information about living people on any Wikipedia page must be adequately supported by reliable sources. Your edit Special:Diff/1314879104 does not meet this requirement, because it added claims regarding Shawn Levy without citing any reliable sources to support those claims.

In many of your recent edits (such as Special:Diff/1315002710 and Special:Diff/1315002432), you have been citing  IMDb (RSP entry), which is not a reliable source because it is also user-generated, just like Reddit. Specifically for plot summaries, if you are using the film itself as a source, then you may write the summary without an inline citation per the WP:PLOTREF style guideline, because it is implied that the film is being used as a primary source. In this case, IMDb does not improve the sourcing, so please do not cite IMDb in plot summaries.

Since you have already received multiple warnings about adding improperly sourced content in #September 2025, please take extra care to ensure that your future article edits are compliant with the verifiability policy. If you are not sure whether a source is reliable, you can ask on the article's talk page or on the reliable sources noticeboard. However, please stop adding information to articles that is unsupported by a reliable source, and please stop adding inappropriate citations of user-generated content and other unreliable sources. The Teahouse is a great place to ask questions when you are unsure about how to make an edit that meets Wikipedia's sourcing standards. — Newslinger talk 18:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Iamnilesh0321 I see that you have made several edits since Newslinger's comment above. Special:Diff/1315255025 the provided source here does not seem to support the claim Between 1964 and 1969, a total of eleven Soviet Union Meteor satellites were launched. If I am missing something, please let me know. The reference that you added at Special:Diff/1315253622 has more issues, as it points to a profile on a streaming radio service that contains almost no information about the subject at all, and none of the information for which it is cited. Also, can you please specify whether you used LLMs for this edit? NicheSports (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NicheSports, thanks for your message. I can confirm that I haven’t used any LLMs for this edit. The source I added was the only one I could find that mentioned the information, and I believed it could be considered reliable for that context. However, I understand your concern, and I’ll look for a better reference or remove the statement if no reliable source can be found. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. NicheSports (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  voorts (talk/contributions) 19:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Voorts,

Thank you for reviewing my block. I understand the reason behind it, but I want to clarify that my goal has always been to help improve Wikipedia by correcting grammar, adding reliable citations, and improving the clarity of articles.

There may have been some misunderstanding regarding my occasional use of AI-assisted tools. I used them only to help with grammar and readability—not to generate or replace original content. I now understand that this can raise concerns, and I’ll avoid doing so in the future.

If I’m unblocked, I’ll focus strictly on verifiable edits, proper sourcing, and minor improvements that align with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I value the work of the community and would like the chance to contribute responsibly.

Thank you for your time and consideration.Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Please follow the unblock instructions in the block notice. Otherwise, the unblock review team will not see your request. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

LLM & Lack of Information about this - Blocked

Hello @Voorts,

I understand that I’ve been blocked for not appearing to contribute constructively. I’d like to clarify that my intent has always been to help improve Wikipedia by adding accurate and verifiable information. If any of my edits were not up to standard, I apologize — that was not intentional. I’m still learning the proper formatting, sourcing, and editing guidelines, and I’m committed to following them moving forward. I kindly request that my block be reconsidered. I want to continue contributing positively and responsibly to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and understanding. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 voorts (talk/contributions) 12:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Steve Ray Ladson (October 11)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Steve Ray Ladson 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

UTRS

UTRS appeal #107200 & UTRS appeal #107200 have both been declined. JBW (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Nilesh Kumar

Hello, Iamnilesh0321. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nilesh Kumar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Steve Ray Ladson

Hello, Iamnilesh0321. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Steve Ray Ladson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Nilesh Kumar

Hello, Iamnilesh0321. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Nilesh Kumar".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Steve Ray Ladson

Hello, Iamnilesh0321. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Steve Ray Ladson".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 11 April 2026 (UTC)