User talk:Chaotic Enby

CHAOTIC   

TALK

• ARCHIVES
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Question from Writing Soul (05:31, 11 February 2025)

Hello Chaotic, Hows you doing ? --Writing Soul (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Writing Soul! I'm doing fine, thanks a lot. As a piece of advice, you shouldn't draft articles directly in your userspace, as that is reserved for presenting yourself to other editors! Instead, you can move it to User:Writing Soul/sandbox or Draft:Akhil Bhartiya Terapanth Yuvak Parishad. Also, it reads a bit too much like promotion right now – I would advise you to take a look at Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (also, if applicable, Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide if you have any connection to the topic). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Chaotic Enby for your valuable suggestions, I will go through the tutorial you have suggested. Further can you please help me finding the way to write article avoiding my userspace. How a article can be written ? Writing Soul (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Writing Soul, you can move the article to draftspace as I indicated above. Once that is done and you think the article is ready, you can submit it using Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Submitting. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

did you vote to delete forbidden hot dog? What is wrong with you! there was a tiny glimmer of humor on wikipedia, and you destroyed it! 2001:8003:95C6:900:FC8C:5DFE:5D79:FA29 (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I wager that we can do better humor than reheating the "forbidden" meme. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from WikiStories212 (11:34, 13 March 2025)

create a page --WikiStories212 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @WikiStories212! The first step is to look for sources, which you'll use as the basis to write your article. Usually, you'd want sources that are secondary and independent, with enough coverage to write a solid article. To make sure your sources are reliable, you can look them up here, here and here (the last one is the most complete, but the hardest to search in as it has all the archived discussions about the sources). Wikipedia:42 is a good criterion to know if you have enough to write an article (what Wikipedia calls "notability", but which is closer to "having enough material in sources" than to what people usually understand as notability).

Once you have the sources, writing the article is pretty easy – write the information you find in the sources, without direct copying or closely paraphrasing for copyright reasons. You can add references to the sources you used after each paragraph (or, if you used multiple sources in a single paragraph, you can be more fine-grained with it). For your first articles, you can write them as drafts and submit them through Articles for Creation for a reviewer to look at them. That last link should have a button on which you can click to start your draft.

Wikipedia:Your first article has more advice if you are still curious! (and, of course, my guide on everything essential) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This is such a kind and in-depth response. Repsjared (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Ruler Rone (15:35, 16 March 2025)

How do you add pictures --Ruler Rone (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ruler Rone, you can upload pictures with Wikipedia:File upload wizard. You should first make sure that you know who created them and under what license they were published, as Wikipedia usually only uses files under specific licenses (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright). To add them to an article, you can type [[File:Name_of_your_image.png|thumb|alt=A description for users who can't see your image|A caption to go below your image]] (if the alt text and the caption would be similar, you can just have the alt text be "refer to caption" instead). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:45, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

Please stop reverting edits on RC before me, it's getting me angry. Doing it about 2 times is ok, but many times, it gets me angry. Now, are you intending to annoy me or get me angry? PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 09:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PEPSI697, my apologies, I didn't mean to annoy you in any way. I can't know if other people are about to revert the same edits as I do, but, since it looks like you're already on it, there's less of a need for me to patrol at the same time. Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I've now taken some deep breaths and will cool down, I plan to log off Wikipedia for the day and return tomorrow. I'm sorry if I didn't keep my cool. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 09:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Micah Payne on Storage security (16:21, 18 March 2025)

Hi, I do not have a specific question, just using the mentor's talk page. --Micah Payne (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! Happy editing! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

This information is wrong. Pasi caste is not Dalit and untouchable. Pasi is a martial caste of India, Pasi is a Bharshiv Nagavanshi Kshatriya Pasi caste, This is correct information Pasi caste has been kept under Scheduled Caste Pasi caste is placed under Scheduled Caste in some states, in some states it is placed in Other Backward Class, in Telangana and South India it is placed in Other Backward Class

This information is wrong. Pasi caste is not Dalit and untouchable. Pasi is a martial caste of India, Pasi is a Bharshiv Nagavanshi Kshatriya Pasi caste, This is correct information Pasi caste has been kept under Scheduled Caste Pasi caste is placed under Scheduled Caste in some states, in some states it is placed in Other Backward Class, in Telangana and South India it is placed in Other Backward Class Shani pasi (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Split Image (21:56, 25 March 2025)

just looking for some feed back from recent edits. --Split Image (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Split Image! Your additions have been unsourced and sometime even removed sources, which is strongly discouraged, as readers should be able to verify content. Also, a lot of them have subjective wording that should be avoided, such as describing a film as "underrated". As you often wrote these in only a few minutes, it could be helpful to take more time to first look for reliable sources, and then write from what you found in the sources. Do not use ChatGPT or other AI models, these are very unreliable and do not write in a way that is compatible with how Wikipedia works. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

question about Talently

hi @Chaotic Enby Noticed this message Talently was sent for deletion. Can you take another look? There was a wrong link, that got removed. Application is published in a Google Store, and has got Featured badge (from Google: Featured extensions follow our technical best practices and meet a high standard of user experience and design). https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/hire-app-developer-talent/pjhfikhiahmphpeiaapfdnhcmkphcmjn

It also has received positive feedbacks and it is a working app for recruiters and startup founders.

Thanks. Yass6240 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi! What matters for writing a Wikipedia article (which we sometimes call "notability") isn't a certain amount of badges or positive feedback, but the existence of independent, reliable sources giving us enough content to write an encyclopedic article. Talently's own description page on the Google Store is not helpful for that purpose – we don't want to know what they say about themselves, but what other sources say about them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated content

Hi there. I'm reaching out because you're listed as the primary contact on WikiProject AI Cleanup. In the process of completing a Good Article review, myself and the nominator encountered a great deal of oddities with the referencing, in that in many cases the books cited did not mention the topic of the article. I've been following the various Wiki-related AI discussions and I saw someone mention GPTZero at one point, so I ran previous iterations of the article through that scanner and it returned 100% AI. In contrast, the edits from the nominator I'm working with returned as 100% human. I see on the WikiProject page it clearly says that GPTZero isn't entirely reliable, but as I started digging into similar articles I started seeing more 100% AI results, whereas when running the same scan on the edits of others it seems to always consistently identify them as human. This, together with the amount of oddities we encountered in this review, has lead me to believe a particular editor is publishing unedited AI outputs, with unreliable referencing. Wikipedia's policies around AI generated content are unclear to me, and I'm not some sort of Internet sleuth either to be able to say that I know for sure. What would you do in this situation? Your Wiki wisdom is appreciated. MediaKyle (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MediaKyle, thanks for reaching out! Are you talking about Talk:Classical theism/GA1? The first thing I'm noticing is that the upscaled image File:Saint Irenaeus of Lyons.png shouldn't be used (and should be replaced by File:Saint Irenaeus.jpg) per MOS:AIUPSCALE. This is technically not a GA requirement, but is still ideal. I'll take a look at the rest later today! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Great catch, thanks for letting me know about that. I'm not referring to the images though, I actually found that one on the commons myself after a discussion on the GAR, so I'll go ahead and switch it out. I'm referring to the text of the article. As it currently stands, the nominator has cleaned up the mess and the article is now substantially different than what I believe was an AI output (I didn't scan prior diffs until well into the review), but there are other articles out there with the same "100% AI" rating from GPTZero that have yet to be touched. I'm deliberately avoiding providing specific links or mentioning names at this point because I'm new to all this AI stuff and I don't want to get anywhere near WP:ASPERSIONS, especially if there's not yet consensus on how to deal with AI. MediaKyle (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle, sorry for the delay, looking at this today! Do you have specific diffs or articles in mind? Generally, if you have doubts about the provenance of something (for instance, high ratings on GPTZero, non-existing citations, or word choices that are especially common in AI outputs), it doesn't count as WP:ASPERSIONS to bring them up, even if they're not absolute proof – it would only be aspersions if the accusation was made without solid evidence at all. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Most of the article appears to have been (re)written in Special:Diff/1239994133, were the iterations that tested as AI before or after this one? Before that, Special:Diff/1230583364 also added a good amount of material. I don't find either especially suspicious, but if you have specific questions, feel free to ask. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's the first diff you mentioned. If you input that text into GPTZero, it will return as 100% AI. At first I had doubts about the veracity of the tool, but as I said, other articles I scanned returned very low ratings, and subsequent edits from the GA nominator returned as 100% human, so along with the sourcing issues we encountered the whole thing raises a lot of red flags for me. It's discouraging to think that myself and the nominator could be putting all this work into fixing AI outputs when we could be writing from scratch, so I'm hoping that we can figure this out. MediaKyle (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle, looking at the wording more closely, some of it does strike me as, if not AI-generated, at least editorializing: The work of these periods laid the groundwork for ongoing theological and philosophical discussions, ensuring the continued relevance of classical theism in both academic and religious contexts, each of which has been developed and refined through centuries of philosophical and theological discourse, This attribute emphasizes/underscores. Also, while not a definitive tell either, the ’ apostrophe character (different from the recommended ') is present both here and in content generated by ChatGPT.

Since the whole article looks well-cited (I don't think any LLM can do SFNs just yet?) and well-structured with precise points, I'm presuming that it was written by hand and then "reworded" with the help of ChatGPT or a similar LLM. If you wish, you can bring it up at WP:AINB if you see this pattern in other content written by the same editor (or, before that, ask them directly), but for this specific case, it looks like the problem was thankfully solved by you and the GA nom. Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Blaire Baron (23:32, 26 March 2025)

how to create a draft? --Blaire Baron (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Blaire Baron! The first step to create a draft is to look for sources, to know what you're going to add! WP:42 is a very short rule of thumb of what you'll usually need to prepare an article, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources goes in the technical details about what kind of sources are considered "reliable". If you want a quick list, this one and this more detailed one cover the most common sources you might find.

Once you have a few sources, you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and click on the blue button to start your draft. From there, you can work on it as long as you want. Once it is done, you can submit it for review (the instructions for this are just below the blue button), and wait for it to be reviewed. Good luck and happy editing! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Question from Eleftherisp (02:43, 1 April 2025)

Hello! Can you please look at the article I’m starting to write? I’d like to know what to do next. --Eleftherisp (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Eleftherisp! A good advice I can give you is to first look for sources, and then write the draft (Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward explains how to proceed). Once you found a few secondary sources (not interviews or paid promotion) that talk about him in-depth, you can start expanding your draft based on the information you found in these sources.

The one source you did link only has the URL for Vanity Fair's homepage, rather than the specific link to the article, which you'll need so other folks can check your source. Good luck! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Eleftherisp (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Kamala Harris and communism

Hello, Chaotic Enby. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kamala Harris and communism, 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) 05:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Harian288 (06:48, 2 April 2025)

Is there a rule against writing in indic scripts for country native names? --Harian288 (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Harian288! For modern-day countries besides India, it is okay to do so (for example, at Bangladesh, where the Bengali script is used). However, historical states in modern-day India can be more contentious, as a variety of different languages and script overlapped (especially since some historical states did not have one single official language), so WP:INDICSCRIPT disallows it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thank you for letting me know. Harian288 (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Have a look

Hi, it is regarding our discussion here. Should we remove this forumy part? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah, go for it. Not really very constructive content. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for answering those questions on my talk page! qcne (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Kamala (elephant)

Just a happy little update, Kamala (elephant) is a GA now! Thank you for all you did, writing it and tracking down sources when it was new. This article wouldn't have come this far without your work on it!

Also, several months later, and I still feel like I'm on an adrenaline rush after managing to save it during the AfD. Is that normal? Who knows! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Amazing, congratulations! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Featheredphilosopher (23:51, 14 April 2025)

Hello! thanks so much for being a mentor editor.

I've been reading through various wiki pages and can't say that I've come across any direct quotes included in-text. However, I enjoy info that includes short quotes to 'hear' the subject's voice. Would it be acceptable to have a quote in a wiki page? Do you know of any example pages where direct quotes are included?

I am also curious about the use of publicly posted Circum Vitas, verified through a university, as a source for wiki page. These are obviously user-generated, however, they often contain important information that wouldn't be 'found' elsewhere, like job titles timelines.

Thank you. --Featheredphilosopher (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Featheredphilosopher! Regarding quotes, short quotes are usually fine, although not always necessary: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations goes into more detail. The gist of it is that too many quotes make the writing less encyclopedic and might constitute copyright infringement, so it is better to summarize in our own words, although short quotes can be great tools to attribute opinions or for illustrative purposes.

Regarding CVs and the like, while job title timelines can be useful, we have to keep in mind whether they are due context. Subjects can choose to emphasize aspects of their career that might not necessarily be of encyclopedic relevance, and adding every detail they choose to mention can easily fall into promotional writing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Unblock wizard.js

Hello,

Your script, User:Chaotic Enby/Unblock wizard.js, is currently categorized in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace due to the nowiki tags not properly ignoring the content. In order to fix it, you could replace the starting "<" characters in the strings in the script (line 470 and 472) with \u003C (the unicode escape for said character).

Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I was curious what was causing this error! I'll fix it right now! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course! I realize I didn't specify- it should only be needed for the closing nowiki tags inside the script. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from 360onDeck (21:56, 18 April 2025)

hello I'm trying to set up my Wiki page I'm a multi-platinum music producer --360onDeck (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello @360onDeck! A Wikipedia article isn't something you should create about yourself – think of them less as profile pages, and more as entries in an encyclopedia. If you are notable enough so that reliable independent sources have written about you, it is likely that someone will end up compiling these sources into a Wikipedia article. But this isn't your responsibility, and there are many reasons why you shouldn't do that yourself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Harian288 (18:48, 22 April 2025)

Is it not allowed to write the native names in the indic scripts of modern day Famous Indian Celebrities, athletes or other personalities? Can you please give me few suggestions as to where I can write indic names in terms of country names or peoples' names whether it be modern day or at any other time. --Harian288 (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Harian288! While I'm not the most well-versed in the matter, our guideline on the matter discourages from using Indic scripts to write names, mostly because there can be many scripts competing for lead/infobox space. In terms of country names, it's usually okay for neighboring countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh or Pakistan, which all have only one or two official scripts. I would imagine that the same applies for historical states located outside of India proper, although I am unsure about edge cases like the Bengal Sultanate, with native scripts in the lead but not in the infobox. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay got it. Thank you Harian288 (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for all the work you're doing in the prototype for the unlock request wizard :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the idea! Still working on it, and happy to have had so many other users give me advice and feedback, I couldn't have done it all alone! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Bangteh Amascel Gubui (02:06, 25 April 2025)

Hello Please how can I create a citation to own a villa, a good car and cash for daily expenses? --Bangteh Amascel Gubui (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Military ranks of El Salvador

185.113.210.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have replaced the images on this page with AI generated ones. Could you do something about this? Trade (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 May newsletter

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)