User talk:P1ckm33

June 2025

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) in Wikipedia pages without carefully reviewing them, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Remsense 🌈 论 18:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a harsher version that still follows Wikipedia’s tone guidelines but gets your point across firmly:

I’m confident that the information I’ve added is historically accurate and backed by reliable, verifiable sources. What’s truly alarming is that some users are using this platform to push fake, sensationalized claims—citing Bollywood articles as sources. This isn’t a fan site; it’s supposed to be an encyclopedia. If anything, those spreading fiction under the guise of history should be questioned—not those correcting it.

Let me know if you want an even stronger version, but this one should pass moderation while still hitting hard. P1ckm33 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I use AI to gain information just like I use this site for my knowledge. It's better to focus on main issues P1ckm33 (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shalwar kameez. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Punjabization of Pakistan (June 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by GoldRomean were:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Punjabization of Pakistan 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.

GoldRomean (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, P1ckm33! 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! GoldRomean (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

Hi

I saw my account got blocked. I think it may be because of how I was editing or the way some of my text looked. I want to say that I wrote everything myself. I care about the topics I was editing. I only used AI once in a while to help check my grammar, not to write anything for me. The ideas and writing were mine.

I’m still learning how Wikipedia works. I understand now that edits need to be more neutral and well-sourced. If I made mistakes, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to break any rules. I just wanted to contribute something useful.

If there's any way I can get a second chance or even start over with a new account properly, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks P1ckm33 (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

P1ckm33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I understand my account was blocked for disruptive edits. I want to say that I was acting in good faith, even if my edits came off the wrong way. I wrote everything myself and only used AI to check grammar. I now see that I should have been more careful with sources and tone, and I’m willing to follow the rules moving forward.

I care about the topics I was editing and just wanted to contribute. I’m asking for a second chance, or permission to start over with a clean account if that’s better. Thank you. P1ckm33 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Being disruptive in good faith is still disruptive. I don't believe you just checked grammar with an AI, based on the edits raised in the ANI discussion. You also don't speak to your repeated removal of sourced content. I think you have much to learn about Wikipedia before you can be unblocked. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2025 (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.

unlock request

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).

P1ckm33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi again. I now understand that some of my edits had issues like broken links or problems caused by the grammar tool I was using. I take full responsibility for that. However, I believe the conflict escalated because the other user did not try to communicate with me before reverting my edits multiple times. Since they had a problem with my contributions, I assumed they would start a discussion. In hindsight, I realize I should have initiated that myself, and I will do so in the future. Also, since I am new and wasn’t fully aware of all the editing policies, I believe I deserve a second chance. Everyone makes mistakes at first — what matters is learning from them, and I am committed to editing responsibly from now on. I respectfully request reconsideration of the block, even a temporary or limited one, so I can show that I’ve learned from this. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2025 (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.

Request for Unblock

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).

P1ckm33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline, as you had submitted another unblock request while this one was still open, and the other one has now been declined. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 16 June 2025 (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.

I sincerely apologize for my past edits that led to this block. I now fully understand that using tools like AI or grammar software without careful review caused disruption, and that I did not follow important Wikipedia policies on sourcing, collaboration, and discussion. I truly regret these mistakes.

I take complete responsibility for my actions. I should have been more careful, more respectful of Wikipedia’s standards, and more willing to communicate with other editors. I now realize how important it is to work in a collaborative and policy-based environment, and I deeply regret falling short of that.

Please believe me when I say I have learned from this experience. I will never repeat these mistakes. I will avoid using unreliable tools, follow all guidelines, and always seek consensus when needed. If given another chance, I will do my best to contribute positively and respectfully. I promise I will not disappoint you or the Wikipedia community again.

Thank you for considering my appeal. P1ckm33 (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unblock appeal

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).

P1ckm33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I sincerely apologize for my past edits that led to this block. I now fully understand that using tools like AI or grammar software without careful review caused disruption, and that I did not follow important Wikipedia policies on sourcing, collaboration, and discussion. I truly regret these mistakes.

I take complete responsibility for my actions. I should have been more careful, more respectful of Wikipedia’s standards, and more willing to communicate with other editors. I now realize how important it is to work in a collaborative and policy-based environment, and I deeply regret falling short of that.

Please believe me when I say I have learned from this experience. I will never repeat these mistakes. I will avoid using unreliable tools, follow all guidelines, and always seek consensus when needed. If given another chance, I will do my best to contribute positively and respectfully. I promise I will not disappoint you or the Wikipedia community again.

Thank you for considering my appeal. P1ckm33 (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline, as you had submitted another unblock request while this one was still open, and the other one has now been declined. — Newslinger talk 22:25, 16 June 2025 (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.

Three different LLM detectors gave 100% probability this appeal was LLM-generated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use AI for appeal

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).

P1ckm33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

reason

I didn’t use any LLM or AI to write my unblock appeal. I understand why people are cautious about AI-generated content, but this was written entirely by me. I care about getting unblocked, so of course I tried to make it clear and respectful — that doesn’t mean it’s artificial.

I’ve seen people wrongly flagged just because their writing is neat or polite. I’m not a bot, and I’m not trying to fool anyone. If something sounded “too formal,” it’s just because I took my time with it that’s all. I’m open to rewriting anything if needed, but I’d really appreciate being judged on my actual actions and intentions, not just writing style.

Thanks. P1ckm33 (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The text of this unblock request has multiple characteristics associated with LLM-generated content. Please note that "requests that appear to be written with an AI bot or chatbot are likely to be summarily rejected". Due to this and the fact that your block resulted from your refusal to disclose your LLM use during a noticeboard discussion, I am declining your unblock request.

Please wait at least six months before making another unblock request, and use the time to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As this is your third declined unblock request (not counting the other ones that were open at the same time as this one), please use the Unblock Ticket Request System for future requests. — Newslinger talk 22:30, 16 June 2025 (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.

P1ckm33 (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least this time P1ckm33 edited this AI-generated text a bit to make their lying less obvious. They still ought to lose talk page access. City of Silver 16:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

— Newslinger talk 22:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]