User talk:Citation-PageScanner

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ashutosh Yadav (September 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RangersRus 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.
RangersRus (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

[edit]

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

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its by mistake changed 2409:40C2:2049:BE15:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anil Kapoor. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. BBC is considered reliable and it covered the "Jhakaas" and the misuse/sue part. Do not remove longstanding sources without discussion and do not edit war. If necessary, seek WP:CONSENSUS per WP:BRD in the talk page. Also go through WP:ICTFSOURCES and WP:RSP for a list of sources. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Suhana Khan (September 14)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe 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:
Fails WP:NACTRESS.
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.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Citation-PageScanner! 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! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Suhana Khan (September 14)

[edit]
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 SafariScribe was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Neither do starring in one notable film (see WP:NACTOR) nor being the daughter of a notable actor (see WP:INHERIT) does make one notable.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Narendra Singh (filmmaker) (September 14)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe 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.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Narendra Singh (producer) (September 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe 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:
Fails WP:NFILMMAKER.
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.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian filmmaker and actors

[edit]

Good day Citation-PageScanner. I have reviewed most of your submissions to AFC about Indian people and all of them doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I understand it may be frustrating for you but here are things you need to know.

Since you are working on films, actors and actresses, you need to read and know these criteria: WP:NFILM for films, WP:NFILMMAKER for filmmakers/producers, WP:NACTOR/WP:NACTRESS for actors/actresses. Thank you as you read them. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:27, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Citation-PageScanner (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Al Akmar Saify (September 18)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Thilsebatti 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.
Thilsebatti (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Govinda (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBFC. 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) 07:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shree Upadhyaya (September 22)

[edit]
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:
IMDb is not a reliable source.
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.
Rambley (talk / contribs) 13:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shreya Kulkarni (September 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Royiswariii 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:
Please address these issues. The best way 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.
ROY is WAR Talk! 10:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI use?

[edit]

Hello. In this edit (unhelpfully summarized as "Fixed Grammer" [sic]), you added some citations to the article's lead. For one thing, those were unnecessary per WP:LEAD since the material was already cited in the body. Much more concerning, however, is the fact that at least one of the added refs appears to not exist. There is no such Washington Post article titled "Preserving Europe's Art" by John Smith (!) that I can find, and another ref you added took a tagline from the cover of Rescuing Da Vinci and made it a subtitle. To me, these are highly indicative of careless use of AI while editing. Can you please confirm whether you used AI for this or other edits on the project, and if so, whether you are aware of the dangers of doing so without proper oversight and caution? Thank you. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

j Citation-PageScanner (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern — I did not intend to add any fabricated sources, and I’ll carefully review and correct any errors to ensure compliance with WP:VERIFY Citation-PageScanner (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using AI to write your response doesn't fill me with optimism. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do use AI only to help me check whether sources are reliable or not, but I don’t rely on it to create or invent citations. So you got it? 2409:40C2:1B:6578:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do use AI, but only as a tool to cross-check reliability of sources, never to fabricate them. Every citation I add is verified against actual published references — AI is just an aid, not a replacement for verification Citation-PageScanner (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every citation I add is verified against actual published references[citation needed]
In all seriousness, I hope you take what the AI wrote for you to heart, particularly the AI is just an aid, not a replacement for verification bit. It's one thing to use it to help with your grammar, but it's another thing altogether to replace it with actual encyclopedic research and writing. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it thanks.by Citation-PageScanner (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also just noticed that you changed the section header. Per WP:TPO please don't edit other users' comments and titles, even on your own talk page. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do your work dont interfere in my works Citation-PageScanner (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's not how Wikipedia works, and anyway you "interfered" with my work first when you introduced hallucinated AI slop into an article I wrote. Just be extra careful going forward, is all I ask. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When i interfered your works? Citation-PageScanner (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Qaseem Haider Qaseem (September 24)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Thilsebatti was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
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.
Thilsebatti (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crew

[edit]

Hello! fellow editor. Only the websites and/or newspapers in WP:ICTF have chance to not get reverted. Thank you. MSAOM (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karan Boolani (September 25)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe 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.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming copyrighted photos as "your own work"

[edit]

Copyright problem icon One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Donal Bisht, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the older photo of Donal Bisht because it is outdated and not from 2025. The article should reflect the most current and relevant image. Citation-PageScanner (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. The image that should be used should be representative of the subject and must be uploaded under a compatible licence; there is no requirement that an image used must be "the most current". Note that fair use cannot be claimed for images of living persons.-- Ponyobons mots 16:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page.-- Ponyobons mots 16:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and logged-out disruption. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.  Ponyobons mots 16:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ramnagar Bunny (September 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by S0091 were:
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 films). 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.
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:
Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Needs to be rewritten to replace the AI slop and almost none of the URLs work. Also, reviews need to be by named nationally known critics. S0091 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
S0091 (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Sahilsambyal per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sahilsambyal. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
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 think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Izno (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shreya Kulkarni (September 27)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Thilsebatti 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.
Thilsebatti (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]