UberSuperBoss

Your submission at Articles for creation: Project Silica (November 3)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

This needs significant coverage in independent and reliable sources to show that the subject is notable. All of the sources currently appear to be closely related to Microsoft.

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:Project Silica 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.

LittlePuppers (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, UberSuperBoss! 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! LittlePuppers (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Project Silica

Hello, UberSuperBoss. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Project Silica, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 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) 20:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

December 2025

Hello, I'm Gurkubondinn. An edit that you recently made to Energy in Singapore seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. 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. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Actually, a small correction to my edit summary, that wasn't a book source. It was a non-existing journal article with a fictional DOI that you had added in Diff/1325636658. Please stop using LLMs to contribute to Wikipedia. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Its not an LLM you dweeb. UberSuperBoss (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you please explain where you got the DOI doi:10.1057/9781137449146.0007 that you added in Diff/1325636658 from? The paper does seem to exist, but it has a different DOI identifier assigned to it: doi:10.1057/9781137449146_2. It only differs in the last digits, but where did you get them from? You also added the ISBN 978-1-137-44914-6 for some reason (research papers normally aren't assigned ISBN numbers), which is assigned to a book by the same author on the subject (not the research paper). Did you mean to cite the book, or the research paper? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I didn't mean to cite any of it actually. I'm not sure how that citation got there. I remember trying to copy the original citation formatting from a citation so it could be that? You can see I made an edit right after that edit, to fix the false citation as I saw it was the wrong one. When I wrote the sentence I had the webpage to my actual citation open so I can only conclude I somehow buttonmashed or messed with something. I'm not familiar with wikipedia editing. UberSuperBoss (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The citation got there because you added it. By typing it yourself, allegedly. My question is, why did you add a citation with an invalid, but similar, DOI and an ISBN number assigned to a book written by the same author? This looks an awful lot like a typical hallucination from an LLM. Coupled with your insertion of an utm_source=chatgpt.com to the same article, I want to know where this comes from, since as you say yourself, you are obviously definitely not using ChatGPT in any way. Are you sure that you did not ask ChatGPT to find sources for you? Inexperience is fine, so is making mistakes, but you should be upfront and honest about how this happened. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn I use ChatGPT as a search engine, it's 2025 and it's pretty standard and reliable. I assume you have a bot that flagged utm_source=chatgpt.com, but simply using an advanced research tool does not mean the entry was a person's own work.

I'm wondering if back in the 90's, older people would shake their heads at kids using yahoo instead of going to the library.

While I adopt AI tools, I acknowledge that non human generated content can be harmful to sources of human created works, and that is why I use ChatGPT solely for research, as it is very good at it.

I should also inform you that modern LLM's like GPT-5.1 thinking very rarely hallucinate facts, and definitely do not hallucinate sources anymore. Hallucinating sources is more from the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 days of ChatGPT.

I will look further tomorrow. But I suggest looking at the article as it stands and if you feel it is lacking, make some edits, as it definitely needs some help. UberSuperBoss (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn Its not AI generated, I wrote it all myself without AI. And any human who read what I wrote can see that. UberSuperBoss (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Please explain why you added a reference with utm_source=chatgpt.com in Diff/1325637246. Where did you get this URL from? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)