User talk:M1rrorCr0ss

May 2025

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Pramod Sawant. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 04:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

RegentsPark (comment) 01:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this yourself....

... instead of copy-pasting it into Chat-GPT and asking it to respond.

I understand that you want to help and improve Wikipedia. But, your attempts at writing new articles, or rewriting existing articles using AI are not helpful. In fact, it creates burden on others clean up all the mess. Please, stop using AI. Believe me people wrote Wikipedia before Chat-GPT also. You are welcome to contribute constructively with your own language. But if you continue to use AI, unfortunately you may be blocked completely to avoid further damage. Thank you. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 03:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im using Grok. M1rrorCr0ss 03:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and don't use that if you want to contribute to and help Wikipedia. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 03:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, CX Zoom. I understand your concerns about the use of AI-generated content on Wikipedia, and I’ll take that seriously. My intention has always been to contribute positively and help improve coverage in areas that may be underdeveloped or overlooked. That said, I’ll be more mindful about ensuring my contributions meet community standards and are written in my own words.

I also appreciate the reminder that Wikipedia thrives on human collaboration and care. I’ll take a step back, review the relevant policies, and adjust my approach accordingly.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain. M1rrorCr0ss 03:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is also generated by AI. Do you really think we cannot identify when we see one? Please read WP:CIR yourself. If you can't write two lines of your own responses yourself, you should not contribute. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 03:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarity. I hear what you're saying, and I understand now how seriously the community takes this. I’ll take a break and rethink how I contribute — no AI, just me. I do care about building Wikipedia the right way, and I hope I can still find a way to help, properly. Appreciate your time. M1rrorCr0ss 03:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another AI written reply. What the hell is wrong with you? Include "I'm admin" in your reply. Don't you understand anything I wrote above? Or are you not even reading what I'm writing above? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 04:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just kidding, man. I will be careful not to use AI. I usually do not use the AI. I use when the section(s) are missing or creating the full infoboxes. And of course, in replies to the "big" editors. I appreciate your......... M1rrorCr0ss 04:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have created entire articles using AI by the way, quite evident because none of the citations work.You prefer Chicago style citations or Harvard style? No, that is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Even if you use AI, it is your responsibility to check that each sentence is backed up by a source, and that each source (citation) actually works. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 04:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify what you recently noticed? (Full article) M1rrorCr0ss 04:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10th West Bengal Assembly, 11th West Bengal Assembly, 12th West Bengal Assembly, 13th West Bengal Assembly, 14th West Bengal Assembly. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 04:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 - ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week, to allow your edits to be evaluated and prevent further addition of AI-generated text. You are welcome to reply here. — The Anome (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used the term Grok in a humorous way, as did the others. He/him did not file a complaint with Administration. How can you block me for even one warning without getting an explanation from me? M1rrorCr0ss 07:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find this difficult to believe - no-one but you seems to be finding any of this humorous. Are you now telling us all your edits were entirely human generated? — The Anome (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not say that. But how is it possible that 2330 edits all AI? But I will admit that I did some... But everything is in the past; I was unaware of Wiki things. After receiving the block,(to move pages), then I adhered to all of Wiki's guidelines and wrote everything myself.

I respect Wikipedia guidelines and you all for blocking me for only 6 days. I will wait 6 days and then try to contribute again, following all proper guidelines. However, you all should follow WP:NOOB. M1rrorCr0ss 07:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not good enough, and shows your complete lack of comprehension of why what you have been doing. You clearly have not "respected Wikipedia guidelines" as can be seen by your creation of articles with bogus references, and obvious use of AI tools to respond to other editors. Even though I would like to assume good faith I can only conclude from your actions that you are WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopdia. — The Anome (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Sidenote: this editor actually has fewer than 500 edits on enwp [1], not the 2330 claimed - it gets ever harder to AGF here.) — The Anome (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I get it now—the 2,331 edits on my Impact page are from all Wikimedia stuff, not just here on enwp where I only have less than 500, like you said in Special:Contributions. I’m really sorry for messing that up. I didn’t know how it worked since I’m pretty new. I checked WP:EDITCOUNT and I understand better now. I’ll be more careful and only make good edits here from now on. I’m okay waiting the 6 days for the block, and I’ll do things the right way after. Thanks for letting me know! M1rrorCr0ss 08:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: you actually do have > 2000 edits, my mistake. However, getting back to the central point: are you claiming all your edits are human-generated? If not, can you explain why you did not delete your bogus contributions when you were called out on it? — The Anome (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I used AI for some early edits because I didn’t know it was against rules like WP:OR or WP:RS. I know now that was a mistake, and I’m sorry for any bad references I added. I haven’t deleted them because I’m not sure if I’m allowed or how to do it right—WP:DEL is confusing.

Since the block (Move), I’ve been writing my edits by hand and checking sources to follow the rules. I’m okay with the 6-day block and will use it to learn the guidelines better. I’m just a 25-day newbie (WP:NOOB), and I really want to help improve Wikipedia. M1rrorCr0ss 08:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about 1st West Bengal Legislature

Hello M1rrorCr0ss, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, 1st West Bengal Legislature, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st West Bengal Legislature.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Czarking0}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Czarking0 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 12th West Bengal Assembly for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 12th West Bengal Assembly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12th West Bengal Assembly until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— The Anome (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 13th West Bengal Assembly for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 13th West Bengal Assembly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13th West Bengal Assembly until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— The Anome (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 14th West Bengal Assembly for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 14th West Bengal Assembly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th West Bengal Assembly until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— The Anome (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 10th West Bengal Assembly for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 10th West Bengal Assembly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10th West Bengal Assembly until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— The Anome (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

This account has now been blocked indefinitely, per discussion on WP:AN/I. — The Anome (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow M1rrorCr0ss 09:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but the community has very real concerns about your editing. While I can't make any pronouncements of what any individual administrator wants to see, you're likely going to have to convince an admin that you will stay far, far away from any LLM use on Wikipedia, whether to write an article or respond to the concerns of other editors. By letting AI write for you, you created nearly two dozen cites, just on those West Bengal Assembly articles, that were completely fake. Yes, it may be that the AI created the fakery and not you directly, but it was your responsibility to check what you write. Writing fake stuff is not a newbie error. In a very real way, fake content is far more damaging to Wikipedia than childish vandalism is, since it's more insidious. I do really hope that you can return and be a constructive editor at some point; some editors have had far worse starts and ended up being productive editors. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don’t understand how I got blocked like this when I clearly stated I’m a newbie and open to learning. Yes, I used AI for help sometimes — like many do — but that doesn’t mean all 2,330 of my edits were AI-generated. That’s an absurd assumption.

Also, what about users who post heavily biased written articles by hand? They’re left untouched, but I get flagged and blocked just because I used assistance to maintain quality and structure? Where’s the fairness in that?

I never hid anything. The moment concerns were raised, I clearly said I’d switch to writing manually. I even explained my background as a debater (So. You all thought I was experienced.) and someone who’s genuinely trying to contribute, not spam. But instead of helping me grow as a new editor, I’m being treated like a malicious actor. That’s not how Wikipedia should work.

What’s most upsetting is seeing everything I built just brushed aside — as if none of it mattered — simply because I’m new and used tools that plenty of others use quietly.

This isn’t right. And I won’t accept being misrepresented like this. Pinging.... @Amone1994 @SandyGeorgia @Levivich @Drmies @Firefangledfeathers @Horse Eye's Back @BilledMammal @Beyond My Ken @TheresNoTime @Yamla The Anome CoffeeCrumbs Phil Bridger Bgsu98 Chaotic Enby Alexandermcnabb@User:The Anome User:Bgsu98 @User:Chaotic Enby Zero0000M1rror Cr0ss 09:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I understand that, as a newcomer, you might not have known about all of our policies. Notably, the use of AI for writing isn't by itself explicitly banned anywhere, although it usually breaks other policies (such as not creating fake sources). While I am not an administrator and it isn't up to me to make the call, I do believe that you have the potential to grow as an editor and successfully appeal your unblock, especially since you have mostly been transparent about the situation.

However, you have to understand what you did wrong. You stated you used assistance to maintain quality and structure, but a lot of the articles you created included completely made-up sources, which is both more problematic and more insidious than regular vandalism or bias. It is harder to detect and gives the impression of improvement when it is in fact the opposite, as the content itself might be hallucinated and we can't rely on sources to verify it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chaotic Enby, I find it very unlikely that this is a "newcomer". There's long been disruption on those articles and I have no doubt that a CU would confirm what I think. Drmies (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, this account does come off as troll, particularly from their attitude above [2]. Aside from randomly announcing he uses "Grok" for some reason, he repeatedly continues to try and irritate an editor by copying LLM stuff, a variant of a common strategy amongst trolls since the dawn of internet chatrooms. Fantastic Mr. Fox 15:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to what Chaotic Envy says here.

AI isn't bad when used as an assistant. I use it from time to time as a baseplate for very large essays or repetitive tasks to save time.

The problem is AI by itself is really buggy. It is, despite the hype, just a different form of a program. It will struggle to gather information from pages of varying formats that it has not been designed to deal with.

If I were in your position, I would completely avoid AI as an assistant entirely. It is not a sentient companion that can replace human function entirely and requires a good understanding to be used effectively.

You have also mentioned that you have found "heavily biased" articles (from your point) . Simply not using AI does not clear them if egregious WP:NPOV violations. Can you name them? Fantastic Mr. Fox 10:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to see the damage you were doing is the damning thing here. Your response was not to go back and clean up your mess, but to brazen things out with platitudes and even cite WP:NOOB - something which also makes it obvious this is not your first rodeo. Not understanding that filling Wikipedia with bullshit might be a bad thing is a serious problem. You are clearly not a stupid person, so it's hard to conclude anything other than that you were either aware of what you were doing, or simply didn't care. Being uncaring about consequences is indistinguishable from actual malice. — The Anome (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that M1rrorCr0ss is demonstrably WP:NOTHERE to contribute positively to Wikipedia, and has refused to do anything even vaguely to help with remediation, I'm now going to turn off their talk page access as well. — The Anome (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed bicameral legislature of Bangladesh moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Proposed bicameral legislature of Bangladesh. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. TarnishedPath^talk 11:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:West Bengal Legislature has been nominated for deletion

Category:West Bengal Legislature has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:M1rrorCr0ss/sandbox

User:M1rrorCr0ss/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:M1rrorCr0ss/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:M1rrorCr0ss/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 11:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lok Sabha composition

Template:Lok Sabha composition has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. TarnishedPath^talk 11:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UP Bangladesh moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to UP Bangladesh. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources, it consists of machine-generated text and Multiple sections unref'ed; two of first four refs do not verify the associated content. Creator ANI-indef'ed for LLM and general incompetence with consensus that their contributions are generally bad.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. DMacks (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi M1rrorCr0ss. Thank you for your work on Bangladesh pro league. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

bangladesh isn't a part of this

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]