User talk:Masterman087

Links in articles

I see that some of your edits have added links from one article to another, known as "wikilinks". Wikilinks can be very helpful, but it is a very common mistake among new editors to add too many wikilinks to articles. Generally speaking, a wikilink should be added only if it provides information which is likely to help readers of the article in which the link is placed to understand content of that article, or provide further information closely connected to content of that article. That normally means either a link to an article which explains words or expressions in the article containing the link, or a link to an article which provides background information which is necessary in order to understand content of the article containing the link. Linking to articles in other situations is not just unnecessary, it can actually be harmful, because research has established that the more irrelevant, or only slightly relevant, links there are in a page, the less likely readers are to find the ones which they might find useful. Thus, for example, nobody reading the article List of attendees and signatories of the First Council of Nicaea is likely to need to consult the article 11th century in order to understand what "11th century" means, nor does the article 11th century contain any information about people who attended the first council of Nicaea, so linking the one to the other is not likely to be helpful. Also, the link you added to 16-17th centuries is unlikely to be helpful to anyone, as there is no article with that title, nor is there likely to be one. JBW (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, JBW. I understand the point about overlinking and will be more careful to ensure relevance and avoid unnecessary or broken links in the future. Appreciate the guidance! Masterman087 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate User information

Background check here says that your account was created in August 2024, but your user page says that you have been editing wikipedia for the last 6-7 years. Please only use accurate and genuine information on your User page in order to help other users. I discovered your account because you erroneously made this edit which I reverted here. Relspas (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation backlog drive

Hello Masterman087:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in June!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 1 month of outstanding reviews from the current 3+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 June 2025 through 30 June 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3200 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.

Use of LLM or chatbot

Please read the essay Wikipedia:Large language models. I reverted your edit to Entheogenic use of cannabis because one cited source did not support the content and the other does not appear to exist at all. Chatbots are known for "hallucinating" sources. Always verify sources for yourself before adding them to articles. Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:7 Year topicon

Template:7 Year topicon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to delet this template. Masterman087 (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Priya Singh (June 22)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs a better range of reliable, secondary sources rather than only three sources from the same publication. Many parts of the draft are also unsourced.

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:Priya Singh 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.

Rambley (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Masterman087! 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! Rambley (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gaurav Singh Chouhan (June 26)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Gaurav Singh Chouhan 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.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Priya Singh (July 6)

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Priya Singh 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.

Avgeekamfot (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]