User talk:Bhaski007

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Television in the Philippines have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Television in the Philippines was changed by Bhaski007 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.962006 on 2026-02-04T07:56:02+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

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

• A ISBN error. References show this error when the ISBN value or formatting is invalid. Please edit the article to ensure the value is correct, that only one ISBN is used, that the proper optional separators are used, and that no other text is included. (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) 14:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

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

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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) 14:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to improve this article, but I don't think your edit improved it. In both cases the two references supported the whole statement, and there's nothing to gain by interrupting the flow of the sentence with one ref and having the other at the end. There's nothing bad about having two references next to each other.

It would be helpful if you used an edit summary to explain why you are doing what you do in an edit. Thanks. PamD 14:40, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I appreciate the feedback. My intention was simply to improve the formatting and readability by avoiding consecutive references that appeared visually cluttered. I did not mean to disrupt the sourcing structure or imply that the references were insufficient. If the previous arrangement better reflects citation practice, I am happy to restore it. Thanks again for the clarification. Bhaski007 (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I find it useful sometimes to look at a "Featured Article", to see whether, in this case, multiple adjacent refs are acceptable or avoided as "visually cluttered". Today's featured article The Voices of Morebath confirms that they are acceptable, and it's not just my idiosyncratic opinion, as a featured article will have been examined in detail by experienced and careful editors. There's always something new to learn about editing wikipedia. Happy Editing! PamD 06:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and for pointing me toward the featured article example. That’s helpful. I understand your point about adjacent references being acceptable, especially when they support the same statement. I’ll keep that in mind going forward and be more cautious about rearranging citations purely for formatting reasons. Thanks again for the guidance. Bhaski007 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

In your edit to Eucithara angiostoma you reformatted a reference to use a standard citation style, which is ok to do except that you omitted the URL which gave the reader direct access to the text. Please go back to that article now and undo the damage by providing the URL, and take more care in future so that your edits improve the reader's experience rather than harming it. Thanks. PamD 06:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, and I apologize for omitting the URL in the reference. My intention was only to standardize the citation format, not to reduce accessibility for readers. I agree that retaining direct access to the source is important. I have restored the URL and will take greater care in future to ensure that formatting improvements do not remove useful information. Thanks again for the feedback. Bhaski007 (talk) 08:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

But you haven't restored the URL, and have added a dead URL to another ref, and have some useless "WORM citation here" non-refs. I have found that there is a template {{Cite WoRMS}}, and I'm going to revert your 3 edits to that article and clean it up. You also removed a statement in the description, about the band turning to a spot when worn, for no obvious reason. PamD 09:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That "Cite WoRMS" template doesn't seem helpful after all, but I've tweaked the ref to improve it. Your link for the Hedley ref doesn't work: please check it before reinstating it. PamD 09:30, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This edit, with edit summary "Clean, Policy-Compliant Rewrite" was not helpful.

You unlinked a lot of quite appropriate links.

You added a reference, a duplicate of the existing reference, to support the second paragraph. Have you read that source yourself? Do you know that it supports that paragraph? If not, then why did you add it? It is not helpful to state that information comes from a particular source unless you know that it does. Please take more care. PamD 12:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed feedback. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the issues.

You’re right — I should not have duplicated the reference without verifying that it specifically supported the second paragraph, and I should have been more careful about removing existing links that were appropriate. That was not my intention.

I will review the source properly before adding citations in future and will take more care to preserve useful links. Thanks again for pointing this out. Bhaski007 (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

You copied this response directly from ChatGPT. However, I can tell you write the edit comments manually, because of the grammatical mistakes. RustyOldShip (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Bhaski007, I saw your recent edits on Vanessa Tomlinson where you added references in the Discography section. Regarding Discogs, it is not a reliable source because the information is user generated. See: Wikipedia:DISCOGS.

It also looks like in all of your references you didn't like to an actual page that has the information being referenced. For example, the reference for Pateras Collected Works Vol. II (2005-2018) just links to the Discogs front page and not to a page for Pateras Collected Works Vol. II (2005-2018). Likewise, The Space Inside reference links to a search page on Bandcamp and not the actual release itself.

The Spotify references do link to the correct release (from what I can see) however the title of the reference should be changed from "Spotify – Web Player" to the name of the page/release that is being referenced.

If you need further help on how to reference web pages, please see: Wikipedia:CITEWEB or the general help page Wikipedia:Citing sources. Jimmyjrg (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this for me, I will make sure that it is corrected :) Bhaski007 (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Do not use AI or LLMs to generate references or content for pages. I undid several of your edits as the references did not support the content. Perhaps the content was correct, but it is clear it was not checked by a person when you added it. Also LLMs generate totally fake references and so they are unusable. For example in your change to Trifluoromethyl group all the references were fully or partially fake. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I also note you are using LLMs to add to talk pages. Make sure what you say is sincere and what you yourself mean, not some fabrication to sound good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)