User talk:Jesuspaul502

Hello, Jesuspaul502, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Check out some of these pages:
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Sourced information removal & Edit war

@Jesuspaul502, Your removal of sourced content from ISKCON is baseless and a clear violation of WP:RS and WP:V. Samakal, Nayadiganto and Daily Inqilab, these are reputable medias, and your personal claims of controversy without verifiable evidence hold no weight here. If you think they are unreliable, prove it with credible secondary sources. Stop removing sourced content without justification—this is disruptive editing and violates WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 15:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerium4B, thank you for bringing your concerns to my talk page. I would like to clarify my position and ensure that this discussion remains constructive and policy-based.

=== 1. About the Removal of Content ===

The edits I made were based on concerns about the reliability of the sources being cited (*Samakal*, *Daily Naya Diganta*, and *Daily Inqilab*). Per Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources (WP:RS), sources must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. These publications have documented histories of controversies and credibility issues, which raise questions about their suitability as sources for contentious claims.

For example, the following secondary sources highlight challenges with the Bangladeshi media landscape:

The Disinformation Index report discusses disinformation risks and reliability concerns in Bangladeshi media. (Link)
USAID's assessment of the Bangladeshi media sector highlights issues with bias and external pressures. (Link)
A CIMA report analyzes how media ownership affects editorial independence and reliability in Bangladesh. (Link)

These sources provide a broader context about reliability concerns in Bangladeshi media and justify the need for scrutiny before using *Samakal*, *Daily Naya Diganta*, or *Daily Inqilab* for contentious content.

=== 2. WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDITWAR ===

I understand your concerns about consensus and edit-warring. My intention was not to disrupt but to uphold Wikipedia’s policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. To avoid further conflict, I have started a discussion on the relevant article's talk page to address these concerns and achieve consensus. I invite you to participate in that discussion and present evidence supporting the reliability of these sources.

=== 3. Moving Forward ===

To ensure a constructive resolution:

Let’s continue this discussion on the article's talk page rather than engaging in back-and-forth reverts. This will allow other editors to weigh in and help us reach a consensus.
Please provide secondary sources or evidence demonstrating the reliability of *Samakal*, *Daily Naya Diganta*, and *Daily Inqilab* if you believe they meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (WP:RS).

I hope we can work collaboratively to ensure that the article reflects high-quality, verifiable, and neutral information.

Thank you, JESUS (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please stop. If you continue to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), you may be blocked from editing. C F A 20:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Just to clarify, I’m not using any AI tools like chatbots to make my edits. Everything I’ve contributed has been done manually based on my own research and following Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’m really careful about making sure the information I add is reliable and neutral.

If anything I’ve edited seems off or unconstructive, I’m happy to discuss it and make changes where needed. My goal is to improve the article and follow Wikipedia’s rules.

Feel free to reach out if you want to talk more about it!

Thanks, JESUS (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit" includes anything that you post to any Wikipedia pages, including talk page comments and noticeboards. Using a chatbot to generate text that you post to Wikipedia as your own comments is discouraged. Schazjmd (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Schazjmd,

I just wanted to clarify—does using a formal tone in my responses automatically mean I'm using AI? I aim to maintain a professional and respectful approach in my comments, but I didn’t realize that could be seen as something else.

I’m happy to discuss or adjust anything if it’s needed, and I’m committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Thanks for your understanding! JESUS (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just tone that makes your comments sound like they come from a chatbot. Anyway, I just wanted to make sure that you understood that when we say "edits", we don't just mean to articles. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I understand now that "edits" includes more than just article changes. I just want to emphasize that all my responses, whether on talk pages or articles, are written by me and not generated by any chatbot. I strive to keep my language respectful and clear, but if my tone seems off or gives the wrong impression, I’m happy to adjust. JESUS (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero score: 100%. C F A 20:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero score: 100%? Funny, I didn’t realize clear and structured writing could be so threatening. JESUS (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first version of Jesuspaul502's userpage, for reference. BusterD (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting tactic—digging through old user pages to make a point. If that’s the best approach you can come up with, it’s more telling about your priorities than mine. Perhaps focus on constructive contributions instead of irrelevant distractions?

Let’s aim for discussions that actually matter. JESUS (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your response doesn't explain why you put a userbox on your page that says you use ChatGPT. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or clearly troll us with the obvious lying? BusterD (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox on my old page was intended to reflect tools I explore out of curiosity, not as a declaration of what I use for editing. It seems some have chosen to twist this into something it’s not, which is disappointing but not surprising.

If you’re more interested in making accusations than addressing actual content discussions, that’s your choice. But let’s not pretend baseless assumptions qualify as constructive dialogue. JESUS (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t act innocent @Jesuspaul502. Do you think you’re the only one who uses chatgpt and we know nothing about Ai? There are many expert users on wikipedia. Do you have any idea of their skills? You were also bargaining with an admin. In your edits, it’s completely visible that you have used Chatgpt’s WhatsApp integration and just copy-pasted the answers as WhatsApp uses stars (*) to highlight words, and those are completely visible. Also, there are many sites to check Ai generated content. @CFA has checked that your content is 100% Ai generated. Yet, you’re still making baseless arguments here. Please stop! — Cerium4B —Talk? • 10:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cerium4B

Your response is riddled with baseless accusations and unsubstantiated claims. Bold or starred formatting is not exclusive to any platform and certainly not evidence of AI usage. Making sweeping allegations without proof reflects poorly on your so-called "expertise."

If you genuinely possess the skills you boast about, focus on evaluating the actual content of my contributions instead of resorting to speculative attacks and hollow arguments. Accusing someone without solid evidence only undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and makes your stance appear petty and unconstructive.

Perhaps it’s time to concentrate on constructive discussion rather than playing detective without facts. JESUS (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again 100% Ai generated reply!!!

@Voorts, Please block this user!!!!!! — Cerium4B —Talk? • 10:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cerium4B

Repeating baseless accusations doesn’t make them true. If you can’t engage in a meaningful discussion without resorting to empty claims, perhaps it’s best to step back. Constantly crying "AI" whenever faced with a well-structured reply only reflects your inability to argue on substance.

Best of luck, JESUS (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (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.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]