User talk:Goldenpen1

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Communication theory 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: Communication theory was changed by Goldenpen1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.904171 on 2025-09-24T14:36:34+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in File Explorer. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Criticize (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at File Explorer, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: File Explorer was changed by Goldenpen1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.963829 on 2025-09-26T15:38:04+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Goldenpen1 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that my recent edits to (File Explorer) and (Communication Theory) were subtle and intended to improve the clarity and accuracy of the content, not to sabotage it. It appears that ClueBot NG accidentally deleted the edit.

I also appreciate the warning about the style guide. I'm careful with it, and I'll be even more careful in the future. Goldenpen1 (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Goldenpen1 - LLM-generated content and fraudulent sourcing. --Sable232 (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Please note that I have blocked you from editing mainspace articles until you reply to the discussion mentioned above. This block applies to articles only and does not prevent you joining discussions on talk pages. Black Kite (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Regards,

  Thank you for your notes. I can't reply on the referred discussion page, as the option to reply there is currently not available to me. Nor can I respond to everyone. I would like to explain that I still see myself as a beginner editor and I'm not fully used to encyclopedic writing way. I'll make sure in the future not to add any text that could be understood as promotional.

  As for the citation mistakes, they were not on purpose. The info mentioned is correct and from a published source, but I have made a mistake in how I added them. I'll add references correctly in the future.

  Correct references:

  https://www.ofspace.co/blog/chevy-logo

  Edit 2

  Correct references:

  https://www.jalopnik.com/2081302/how-chevy-stovebolt-engine-got-its-name/

  I see these comments as part of the learning process. Also, I confirm that I'm not trying to gain any permission, and I don't even know the requirements for them. My use of AI applications is limited to translation and language improvement only.

  Regarding the number of edits, I understand that they were many, but the goal was organization and improvement, not to increase the number of edits for any reason, I'll try to combine the edits into a single edit whenever possible.

  Finally, I reaffirm my full commitment to Wikipedia’s policies, welcome constructive feedback, and understand the reason for the ban. Kindly and sincerely, I ask that the block be lifted, and I truly appreciate your understanding and consideration. Goldenpen1 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Black Kite Goldenpen1 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi, did you use an AI/LLM program to generate your post above? It honestly reads like it was written by a machine, which isn't a great idea if you're blocked for problem editing and indiscriminate AI use.

This wasn't a simple typo, it was hallucinated & false sources on several occasions - we know this happens when you use AI & chatbots to find sources for you and wouldn't happen if you were just using it to translate text.

You need to show that you as a person understand what the problem is and what you should have done instead, but an AI can't do that for you (especially if it was getting things wrong in the first place).

If you wish to submit an appeal against your block, please read the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.

I very strongly advise against using any form of AI, LLM, chatbot or machine translation to write any appeal - it should be written manually by you, even if your English isn't perfect.

Admins need to discuss this directly with you, to make sure you understand things properly. AI-generated appeals are usually immediately declined, as explained at Wikipedia:LLMAPPEAL.

If you'd like my advice, I noticed that you're only blocked from editing articles directly - you can vastly increase the strength of your appeal if you have proof that you are a competent and trustworthy editor.

To do this, first submit well-written edit requests by following the Edit Request process that's given here. That will help to show admins that you have learned from your mistakes and know how to correctly find sources and edit articles properly.

Gathering evidence first will take longer, but it will also give admins a much clearer picture of your abilities - if you can show admins that you've had plenty of edit requests accepted, they'll probably be a lot happier to consider a future appeal. You can make your appeal without evidence, but I don't really recommend that. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes and instructions. I totally understand the mistakes that I involved myself in, I also read the page Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and will work with what is stated in it. I kindly ask the administrator

@Black Kite

To look in to removing the ban, I appreciate your advice very much. Goldenpen1 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm glad that you've read the guide, if you take another look you'll see that it tells you how to submit an appeal using the correct template.

Once you've posted your appeal using the template, an uninvolved administrator will review your appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

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).

Goldenpen1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Greeting, I am blocked for promotional editing and improper referencing. Thank you for your notes, I would like to clarify that I still see myself as a beginner editor and not fully used to the encyclopedic writing style. I will make sure in the future to not add any edits that can be understood as promotional. As for the reference mistakes, it was not intentional, and the info's are legit and from a published source, but I made a mistake in adding them. In the future I will add reference in the correct way Correct Reference: Edit 1: https://www.ofspace.co/blog/chevy-logo Edit 2: https://www.jalopnik.com/2081302/how-chevy-stovebolt-engine-got-its-name/ I see these comments and notes part of the learning process; people learn from their mistakes. I want to clarify that i am not trying to gain any permissions and even don't know their requirements. My use of ai is just for translation and to improve my language. I understand that there were many, the goal was origination and improvement, not to increase number of edits for any reason, I will try to combine the edits into one edit if possible. Finally, I confirm my commitment to Wikipedia policies, welcome constructive feedback, and understand the reason for my block. I sincerely and kindly ask that the block be lifted, I appreciate your understanding and concern. Goldenpen1 (talk) 4:44 pm, 11 March 2026, Wednesday (8 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I agree with Blue Sonnet below, please take the time to make some constructive edit requests and demonstrate your knowledge of Wikipedia best practices. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

(Non-administrator comment) The first source is from a blog so I'm not sure that's sufficient. Can you please read through the reliable sources and verifiability guidelines and try to find some better quality sources?

I still think that you should submit edit requests and have at least a dozen accepted before applying to have your block removed (as explained above). You need some more experienced to understand what count as reliable sources, you can do this by submitting edit requests & having them vetted by more experienced editors first, I'm a little disappointed to see that you haven't tried to do this yet.

We also ask that you write your appeal yourself without using AI/LLM or machine generation, so the administrators can judge whether you understand the English language well enough to edit English Wikipedia. Most translators also incorporate AI, which would fall foul of the policies against AI-use.

Your replies don't have to be perfect, they just have to come from you as a person rather than a machine. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)