User talk:Hypersite

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hypersite! Thank you for your contributions. I am WeijiBaikeBianji and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I nominated today's Driehaus Architecture Prize laureate Pier Carlo Bontempi to be featured on the start page of Wikipedia at "In the News". It'd be great for the whole discipline if you could support this nomination.

Please go there: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Driehaus Prize and add Support or Strong Support. Thank you! All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be also very helpful if you could also support this request (click!), so the Driehaus Prize would be considered to be included at "In the News" every year. Thank you, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Francization, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Bœuf. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chamber of Reflection, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Neophyte and Cronos. 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) 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Rite Opératif de Salomon, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 09:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rite Opératif de Salomon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hypersite. Thank you for your work on Society of Blue Friars. User:Dan arndt, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Needs to provide more inline citations referencing reliable secondary sources. The society's website is a primary source and therefore not independent.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Dan arndt}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dan arndt (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on High Twelve requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, society, or group that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Old Charges (Freemasonry). 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 your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pennsylvania Rite 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/Pennsylvania Rite 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.

Fram (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor with problematic article creations. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scottish Rite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Masonic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hypersite. Thank you for your work on Old Charges (Freemasonry). Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, Is there no images that could go in, brighten it. Its is a great article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creepTalk 12:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Masonic rites, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#AI-generated_articles

You have been mentioned here. Please take your time to respond it properly, if you want to. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sugar islands has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

AI-generated incoherent gibberish

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Moxy🍁 22:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article French society before the French Revolution has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

AI-generated. Spot check of sources do not collaborate with text.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Moxy🍁 22:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Venality of offices 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/Venality of offices 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.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for No responses on talk page, clearly using AI and not denying it.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 18:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hypersite (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

the greetings I have been a contributor of Wikipedia for about 18 years now and have made many contribution in English French Spanish and other languages, it is true that I recently experimented with AI for the creation of articles, my goal was to create them as backup for a main page that I was creating and then reviewing them one by one personally, but unfortunately for personal reasons I was not able to access the website for a while until today. This is why I was not able to respond. I have realized my mistakes and would like to be allowed to create new articles again as I used to but not using AI. Thank you for your understanding and do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. HyperSite (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not convince me you understand why you can't use AI to create articles. We aren't just being arbitrary here, using large language models to create Wikipedia articles is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia for specific reasons that are important for you to clearly understand. It also doesn't convince me you will start responding to problems raised here or on article talk pages. Yamla (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Hypersite (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I full understand what you mean, I was experimenting with AI (still verifying that it was correct information before publishing). I was under this impression that this could tremendously help our encyclopedia, but after learning more about how AI, I can see now the danger of misinformation that can be spread though it and I am now strongly opposed to its use. I was just unaware of its flaws before.

But if you look at my past contributions, far predating AI, you can see that I have been a collaborator to our endeavor, for Many, many years. I love our platform and I always played by the rules. I could easily create a new account and go around the rules but that it not my intent, I want to be as transparent as possible with our community.

I do not know how I can prove my honest resolution to you beside giving you my word, I you know of a solution I would gladly oblige, I am just asking for a second chance here. I feel that a unlimited block is a little harsh for a first offence.

Let me know what can be done for me to earn my account back, I would frankly like to continue contributing in a productive manner and I pledge to never use AI again. If I do, then I will fully accept a ban. I would just like a second chance on a one-time mistake. HyperSite (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I full understand what you mean, I was experimenting with AI (still verifying that it was correct information before publishing). I was under this impression that this could tremendously help our encyclopedia, but after learning more about how AI, I can see now the danger of misinformation that can be spread though it and I am now strongly opposed to its use. I was just unaware of its flaws before. But if you look at my past contributions, far predating AI, you can see that I have been a collaborator to our endeavor, for Many, many years. I love our platform and I always played by the rules. I could easily create a new account and go around the rules but that it not my intent, I want to be as transparent as possible with our community. I do not know how I can prove my honest resolution to you beside giving you my word, I you know of a solution I would gladly oblige, I am just asking for a second chance here. I feel that a unlimited block is a little harsh for a first offence. Let me know what can be done for me to earn my account back, I would frankly like to continue contributing in a productive manner and I pledge to never use AI again. If I do, then I will fully accept a ban. I would just like a second chance on a one-time mistake. [[User:Hypersite|HyperSite]] ([[User talk:Hypersite#top|talk]]) 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I full understand what you mean, I was experimenting with AI (still verifying that it was correct information before publishing). I was under this impression that this could tremendously help our encyclopedia, but after learning more about how AI, I can see now the danger of misinformation that can be spread though it and I am now strongly opposed to its use. I was just unaware of its flaws before. But if you look at my past contributions, far predating AI, you can see that I have been a collaborator to our endeavor, for Many, many years. I love our platform and I always played by the rules. I could easily create a new account and go around the rules but that it not my intent, I want to be as transparent as possible with our community. I do not know how I can prove my honest resolution to you beside giving you my word, I you know of a solution I would gladly oblige, I am just asking for a second chance here. I feel that a unlimited block is a little harsh for a first offence. Let me know what can be done for me to earn my account back, I would frankly like to continue contributing in a productive manner and I pledge to never use AI again. If I do, then I will fully accept a ban. I would just like a second chance on a one-time mistake. [[User:Hypersite|HyperSite]] ([[User talk:Hypersite#top|talk]]) 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I full understand what you mean, I was experimenting with AI (still verifying that it was correct information before publishing). I was under this impression that this could tremendously help our encyclopedia, but after learning more about how AI, I can see now the danger of misinformation that can be spread though it and I am now strongly opposed to its use. I was just unaware of its flaws before. But if you look at my past contributions, far predating AI, you can see that I have been a collaborator to our endeavor, for Many, many years. I love our platform and I always played by the rules. I could easily create a new account and go around the rules but that it not my intent, I want to be as transparent as possible with our community. I do not know how I can prove my honest resolution to you beside giving you my word, I you know of a solution I would gladly oblige, I am just asking for a second chance here. I feel that a unlimited block is a little harsh for a first offence. Let me know what can be done for me to earn my account back, I would frankly like to continue contributing in a productive manner and I pledge to never use AI again. If I do, then I will fully accept a ban. I would just like a second chance on a one-time mistake. [[User:Hypersite|HyperSite]] ([[User talk:Hypersite#top|talk]]) 19:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

How specifically does WP:CIRCULAR apply to current large language models? What specifically about LLMs is the problem here? Note that someone else will be reviewing your unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]