User talk: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi @Waxworker

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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.

sk satsuma 14:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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! sk satsuma 14:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]