User talk:Feizan

Welcome!

Hi Feizan! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you so much for the warm welcome - I truly appreciate it. I am really enjoying my time here so far, and a big part of that is because of how welcoming and supportive the community has been. Its encouraging to be part of a space where experienced editors are open to helping newcomers like me. I am looking forward to contributing more and continuing to learn from everyone here! Feizan (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Vacuum packing, you may be blocked from editing. Promarksvac, BagNPouch, PolyPrint are not WP:SCIRS reviews, and can be seen as promoting their businesses. Zefr (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your message and understand your concern. I see now that my addition to the Vacuum packing article may have unintentionally come across as promotional, and I apologize for that. That was not my intent. I’ve taken a step back to review Wikipedia’s guidelines on WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:SCIRS more carefully. I’ve also removed the external links and made sure to avoid repeating similar additions. To clarify, I’ve added a message on the article’s talk page explaining my edits and am open to any suggestions or feedback on how to improve the page in line with Wikipedia's standards. Thanks again for helping me learn and improve my contributions. Feizan (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Promarksvac Corporation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Promarksvac Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Zefr (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zefr,

I hope you are doing well. I’ve recreated the article on Promarksvac Corporation in the Draft namespace, making sure to:

Remove all promotional language and keep a strictly neutral, encyclopedic tone.
Support all statements with independent, reliable sources (including peer-reviewed research and market reports).
Fix all citation errors and formatting issues.
Add a relevant “See also” section for internal linking.

Here’s the current draft: Draft:Promarksvac Corporation

Since you previously flagged the earlier version under G11, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a quick look before I submit it for review. I want to make sure this version meets Wikipedia’s standards and avoids the same issues as before.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Feizan (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the draft talk page. Good luck! Zefr (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Promarksvac Corporation (September 13)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Promarksvac Corporation 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feizan! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Hi Feizan! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Channel Tunnel and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source-text integrity

Hello Feizan, I was reviewing your edit to Porcupine since I keep track of work done there and had to do a lot of reviewing on your edits to determine if they actually matched the sources. While the first one checked out, it was inconvenient to find these sources because you provided no links even though this is a readily available source online. Not to mention, some of the text you added was already in the article in the preceding section. Also, I had to revert your recent edit to Patagonia because the sources you used did not support the text at all (one of them was just the homepage of INACH which is updated regularly and won't provide a consistent reference). Please make sure that what you write is supported by the sources you are adding (which I note many of being offline, which makes it hard to verify).

One question - are you using a large language model or other generative AI to assist in your editing? -- Recon rabbit 14:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my edits and pointing out the issues. I went back and looked over what you mentioned, and I understand where the problems came from. I’ll be more careful about adding clear, accessible sources and making sure the text isn’t already covered in nearby sections.

Regarding the Patagonia edit, I see why the reference wasn’t appropriate, and I’ll make sure that anything I add is directly supported by stable, verifiable sources. Your feedback actually highlighted a few things I need to pay closer attention to, so I appreciate it.

As for your question about tools or assistance, I try different ways to organize information depending on the topic, but the focus for me is always to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines as accurately as possible. I’ll make sure that any future edits are easier to verify and don’t create extra work for others.

Thanks again for taking the time to point this out. I’ll keep your advice in mind moving forward. Feizan (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

Please stop. If you continue to unconstructively edit Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), as you did at Nelson, British Columbia, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you unconstructively edit Wikipedia using a large language model, as you did at Nelson, British Columbia. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you decided not to answer Reconrabbit's question above about use of LLM or AI; whether the answer is "yes" or "no" I find it difficult to imagine why you don't wish to provide that information. However, since you have decided not to answer, I will answer. Yes, you have used LLM/AI to generate article content. There are numerous indications of that, including references with errors of kinds that it is virtually inconceivable that a human editor would make. For example, you gave a reference to a paper, and gave as its author not any of the actual authors but the author of another work cited in that paper. The citation is nowhere near to the title of the paper or the list of its authors, and its author's name is not mentioned anywhere except buried in that citation. Nobody reading the paper could possibly have mistaken that name for the name of the paper's author. I hope that one example will be enough to indicate the nature of the problem.
I strongly recommend not using LLM/AI, because doing so frequently leads to various problems, some of them quite serious. If, however, you decide to do so, then it is absolutely incumbent on you to check the resulting text thoroughly, and make sure that you don't post it to Wikipedia if it contains errors, whether in the form of erroneous statements, phantom references, or anything else. If you do continue to post AI-generated erroneous content you are likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator, to prevent further damage. JBW (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the answer to my question about use of an LLM was: As for your question about tools or assistance, I try different ways to organize information depending on the topic, but the focus for me is always to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines as accurately as possible. Feizan, your recent edits to Nelson, British Columbia are frustrating - rewriting the text piecemeal as a form of copyediting using a large language model leads to the same issues I was having on Porcupine, where suddenly the sources do not support the text as it was written. -- Recon rabbit 16:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the seriousness of this warning and I take it seriously. The issues being raised relate to errors in how some references were handled and verified, and I acknowledge that the example mentioned represents a significant citation mistake. That should not have happened, and I accept responsibility for being more careful.

Going forward, I will verify author names, titles, and citations directly against the original sources before making any edits. I also recognize that incremental wording changes can create problems when sourcing does not align precisely with the revised text, and I will avoid that approach. Where there is any uncertainty, I will refrain from editing and instead raise the issue on the article’s talk page.

I want to add that I work on Wikipedia in my own time because I genuinely enjoy contributing constructively and improving articles where I can. With that in mind, I am adjusting my editing practices to better align with Wikipedia’s sourcing and verification standards so that my contributions are helpful rather than burdensome.

Thank you for taking the time to explain the concerns. I will make sure this does not continue. Feizan (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even your response is AI. "With that in mind", you need to stop. Thank you for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Promarksvac Corporation

Hello, Feizan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Promarksvac Corporation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fatal Passage, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain was added. 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) 18:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]