W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Vastmajority20025

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome



Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
Please remember to sign ↗ your messages on talk page ↗s by adding a space and four tilde ↗s to the end of the last line of your post, like this:
<pre>
This is the last line of the post. ~~~~
</pre>
The tildes will be automatically converted to a signature that contains your linked username and a timestamp to help keep conversations organized. I will sign mine accordingly with hopes you will remember me and will feel free to ask me any questions you have--or just say hi! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Egging on gameplay.mpg


Thanks for uploading ''':File:Egging on gameplay.mpg ↗'''. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link ↗, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions ↗.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Egging On ↗ moved to draftspace



Thanks for your contributions to Egging On ↗. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because '''it needs more sources to establish notability''' and '''the review citations provided are all unreliable sources per WP:VG/S ↗. Check out that list and WP:VG/SE ↗ to see if there's been more mainstream review coverage. It's also a recently-released game, so there's no harm in waiting to see if more reliable sources review the game soon.'''.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page ↗.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Egging On gameplay.mpg


Thanks for uploading :File:Egging On gameplay.mpg ↗. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags ↗ to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list ↗, click on this link ↗, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions ↗. Thank you for your cooperation.<!-- User:OrphanBot/untagged-new --> --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gharbzadegi (book) ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited All the Shah's Men ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Five Books ↗.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

A cookie for you!



{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Pretty rare to see an original userpage design these days. Polygnotus (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
|}

:@Polygnotus Honestly, I used chat gpt for its programming, but I personally wrote it. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Egging On ↗


25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello, Vastmajority20025. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Egging On ↗, 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&#32;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) 08:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Egging On ↗


48px|left|alt=|link= ↗

Hello, Vastmajority20025. This message concerns the Articles for Creation ↗ submission or draft ↗ page you started, "Egging On ↗".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy ↗, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Egging On|edit the submission}}, and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can '''request its undeletion''' ↗. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! <!-- Template:Db-draft-notice --> DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11



An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pivot of the Universe ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bab ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Pivot of the Universe



Hi, I just wanted to drop you a note that I marked ''Pivot of the Universe ↗'' as reviewed. Thanks for filling a gap in our encyclopedic coverage! However, in the process I ended up removing most of the article content as it just really isn't quite suitable for Wikipedia as written, unfortunately. If you're interested, I'd be happy to provide some specific advice about how you might approach revising the text! Feel free to reply here or elsewhere. All the best, Eddie891 <small>''<sup> Talk</sup> <sub>Work ↗</sub>'' </small> 15:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Eddie891 Hey appreciate that. what made u believe they were inappropriate according to WP's laws? yeah I'd be happy if u gimme good and featured article examples of the article's topic (non-fiction book), to learn the WP's regulations better. Thanks for your service. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
::Sure thing. First of all, the plot section:
::* This section was far too long for a plot section. By my count it came out to around 2,000 words. Because we are just trying to provide a summary of what the book talks about without going into great depth, we should aim for summaries to be closer to 500 words, per WP:PLOTSUM ↗. Consider how our featured article on ''The Autobiography of Malcolm X ↗'', one of the more influential autobiographies published in the last century, covers its plot in a single paragraph. Instead of focusing on the minute ebbs and flows of the narrative, try to identify what the key aspects are. I don't think the structure that you initially used, covering what happens chapter-by-chapter, is particularly conducive to this, so maybe try writing a one paragraph summary of the book, and then expanding the parts that feel they need a bit of explication.
::** This is super important, because, quite frankly, the vast majority of people who come to this article (the general public, if you will), are (probably) looking for a relatively concise summary of what the article covers. If they want more information, they can buy the book!
::* Similarly, I found the critical reception section really hard to parse, in part because you took each review one review at a time, giving them all several sentences. A better way to approach this would be to try and write a fluid narrative. User:LEvalyn/Getting information from book reviews <- this is a great essay on how to approach this that I would highly recommend. Basically, we care about what reviewers said, not about what each reviewer said. Again, if a reader wants the latter, they can go to the reviews themselves.
::** So, for instance, you have the following text: {{xt|John R. Perry writing for Journal of Near Eastern Studies offers a generally positive appraisal of Abbas Amanat's study, recognizing it as a thorough and needed examination of Nasir al-Din Shah's reign. He credits the author with extensive use of Persian documents and European archives to illuminate court corruption, the duplicity of foreign powers, and the shah's unflattering character. However, Perry notes a number of translation errors, factual slips, and the publisher's apparent neglect of editing, though he states these do not seriously undermine the book's scholarly value. Perry concludes that Amanat has rendered a solid service to modern Persian history. He views the book as an important, largely successful effort to recount this segment of the "long century," while noting that its value is somewhat marred by minor but persistent editorial and translational lapses}}. This could be condensed pretty easily to: {{tq|John R. Perry writing for Journal of Near Eastern Studies, concludes that Amanat has rendered a solid service to modern Persian history. He views the book as an important, largely successful effort to recount this segment of the "long century," while noting that its value is somewhat marred by minor but persistent editorial and translational lapses}} (less than half the length!) and that's without doing the more involved rewrite that I discuss above.
::* Most importantly, however, I am concerned that you did not read and/or write this content yourself, instead relying on a LLM chatbot ↗, which is prohibited by Wikipedia guideline. The only direct quotation that you include in the reception section is not a quote from the cited review, a common sign that a human did not write the text in question. More broadly, I don't feel that these summaries accurately reflected all of the content of the reviews they cited. I don't think that Tucker's review, for instance, can be reasonably summarized as "regarding the work as an outstanding scholarly achievement [...] masterful[]". Finally, there's a lot of filler words ("nuanced", "measured", "ultimately") that, combined with the above, made me feel that removal was necessary. If you did not write the content yourself, it cannot be in an encyclopedic articles.
::Eddie891 <small>''<sup> Talk</sup> <sub>Work ↗</sub>'' </small> 11:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
:::@Eddie891 The things you said were illuminating. Yes, I used to get help from artificial intelligence for editing on Wikipedia, but not as a source, and I thought this was correct. From now on, I will use artificial intelligence only for translation and grammar correction, and that too with oversight of the content, not simply copy-pasting. Vastmajority20025 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, it is probably a useful tool for copyediting, you just want to be very careful when using it, because LLMs tend to suggest phrasing that is a little too vague (or too flowery ↗) for our purposes! I'd suggest writing your own content and asking for a bulleted list of copyediting suggestions, so you can go through and decide whether the changes make sense or not. Eddie891 <small>''<sup> Talk</sup> <sub>Work ↗</sub>'' </small> 13:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)