User talk:Yaswanthgadu.21

Hello Yaswanthgadu.21! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

A lengthy welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM

May I ask, do you use an LLM or chatbot to write articles for you? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I gather and verify all information myself from trusted sources. Then I use to help rewrite or polish the text, but I make sure all facts match the original sources. is there any issue with that? i am just asking to make sure. Yaswanthgadu.21 (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not disallowed. However, it is quite strongly discouraged. Wikipedia:Large language models says: Avoid using large language models (LLMs) to write original content, generate references, or create replies on discussion pages. LLMs can be used for certain tasks (like copyediting) if the editor has substantial prior experience in the intended task and rigorously scrutinizes the results before publishing. I do not think you have sufficient experience to do this, and you are not scrutinising the results sufficiently.

When you edited Formby Lighthouse, I noticed that your expansion of the stub added unencylopedia language typical of LLMs, e.g. it remains part of local maritime heritage and echoes the region’s role in Britain’s seafaring history, matched up content with sources that do not support that content, and removed a decent existing source from the article. I have reverted those changes. I see that you have similarly fleshed out other stubs as part of the destubathon - please will you revisit those edits, remove unencyclopedic language, and check that content is accurately referenced by inline citations. I suggest that you stop using LLMs for the time being. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SunloungerFrog,

Just wanted to quickly explain the process I’ve been following: I usually start by Googling for sources based on the requirement. I read through them once, pick out key points or keywords, and then rewrite the content in my own words. After that, I use ChatGPT or other LLM to help refine what I’ve written and organize it the way I want. I also provide the source links at that stage. Once the content is cleaned up, I move it over to Wikipedia.

Since everything was based on the links I gave, I assumed nothing unrelated or unsourced was getting in. But after your observation, I decided to test it. I asked GPT, “Where did this particular sentence come from? Is it from the data I gave you?” and it replied, “No, it’s not from the data you provided.” So clearly, GPT can sometimes introduce its own info beyond what I input.

Thanks again for pointing this out. I’ll go back and review the articles I’ve worked on. If I find anything that doesn’t have a solid source, I’ll either add one or remove the sentence. I’d appreciate it if I could have two weeks to go through everything properly.

Yaswanthgadu.21 (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destubathon runs until the 16th of July

Hi, just a courtesy message to notify you in case you haven't seen the Wikipedia:The World Destubathon contest update in the last few days that we've decided to run the full month until the 16th of July. For those who have been too busy to contribute, we would love some help in reaching 4000 articles by Wednesday night! At present we're about 480 articles short!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week Award

	The Special Barnstar
	For your contributions on topic during Wikipedia:The World Destubathon which led to you being awarded an Editor of the Week. Much appreciate the work that you contributed and hope you had fun editing! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for competing!

	World Destubathon Barnstar
	Much appreciate your effort in the World Destubathon! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]