User talk:Accusermanager

November 2025

Hello, I'm IsCat. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. IsCat (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a finance instructor at the Federal Financial Education Institute, and all of the edits are entirely the result of my own intellectual work. AI tools were used only to help refine the wording and improve the readability of the text. Accusermanager (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IsCat, thanks for your message. I do, however, feel that your response and reversion were a bit hasty and discouraging. That effectively wipes out work that took real time and effort, and it doesn’t really address whether the information itself was more accurate or more encyclopedic than what was there before. To be specific: 1. There was a clear factual problem in the original text ; 2. The original paragraph contained a lot of promotional material. Going forward, I would really appreciate it if you could take a moment to review the substance of the changes. Please show respect for other editors’ work. Thank you. Accusermanager (talk) 05:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have had to revert your edit to Currency, not because it is wrong (indeed I believe it is correct) but purely because you failed to cite a Wp:reliable source to attest it. By inserting it between the existing text and the source that evidenced that text, you implied that your addition is supported by that same citation.

Wikipedia needs subject experts like you, so please don't be discouraged by these technical issues while you learn how Wikipedia editors try to ensure that it is as trustworthy as we can make it. (Normally, more experienced editors would just let your edit stand and tweak it into 'house style' but finding a citation needs subject expertise.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Accusermanager!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help. Has a list of maintenance tasks you can do.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide perspective

Your addition to Money services business reads well but right now it is really about MSB in the US. I have tagged it as needing to be broadened, but that does not mean I'm finding fault with your work. The tag is there (a) to alert readers that it doesn't tell the whole story and (b) to provoke [potential?] editors from other jurisdictions to expand it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up and for adding the tag — you’re absolutely right that the section is very U.S.-centric at the moment. I’ll try to carve out some time today to broaden it so it reflects a more global perspective. Accusermanager (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's some challenge you have set yourself! I guess the Financial Services Act (disambiguation) (UK) might be a starting point, then European Union law (but which one? or is this a case where subsidiarity (European Union) trumps the European Single Market rules). Wikipedia has a huge readership in India but it would really need a local expert to write it because they have federal law and state law (like the US except that their states have more autonomy - I think!). Nightmare!

I hope you can find a citation that will allow you to reinstate your edit to Currency.

Welcome again to Wikipedia! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

You will see that I pared back your edit to Currency. You wouldn't have known, of course, that we don't accept Investopedia because it has a track record of dubious or inaccurate content. See WP:INVESTOPEDIA. More generally, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which lists sources whose reliability has been questioned.

For the overall policy, see WP:reliable sources. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Federal Money Services Business Association (December 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Opm581 were:

This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event for more information.

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This article mostly just covers recent news involving the FedMSB rather than explaining what it actually is. Please see WP:NOTNEWS.

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:Federal Money Services Business Association 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.

Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 01:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Accusermanager! 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! Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 01:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Money Services Business Association moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Federal Money Services Business Association. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted it 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. bonadea contributions talk 09:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can make improvements, but I want to stress that this wasn’t generated by any machine—no large language model could have written this article. Going forward, any criticism needs to be specific and detailed, not just vague or conceptual. Accusermanager (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A finance professional spent two full days of the Christmas holiday researching and drafting a finance-focused article, only to have it dismissed as machine-generated within minutes by someone outside the field. That is deeply frustrating and entirely unacceptable. Accusermanager (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Federal Money Services Business Association for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Federal Money Services Business Association is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Money Services Business Association until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fermiboson (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI use

Despite your categorical denials, it is obvious that you are using some form of LLM not only in your content creation but even in your talk page messages. This is utterly unacceptable. You ask for evidence - go read WP:AISIGNS yourself and tell me how many you hit. You have been warned multiple times by many different editors about the pitfalls of using AI to edit. You have not only persisted, but posted multiple denials using AI. This is disruptive and a waste of volunteers’ time and effort to reply to a bot, having failed to actually talk with the human.

I hope that you will cease your LLM use and contribute positively to the project using your own words and your own expertise, and read up on our policies on verifiability and notability, in particular notability for cryptocurrency related topics. If you have been putting your words into an LLM for it to edit, this is a sign to stop; we would much rather imperfect human written text than something we cannot verify or communicate with. If you have been wholesale generating things from LLMs as is looking likely, this is your warning to stop both the LLM editing and the dishonesty. A reminder that many tools such as Grammarly now insert AI generated text by themselves and it would be best not to use them. Otherwise, if disruptive behaviour persists, you may find yourself the subject of a WP:ANI thread. Fermiboson (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you remain calm instead of making unfounded accusations against others. Machines are incapable of creating a well-structured, coherent article, let alone organically integrating fragmented information that requires account logins to access. Accusermanager (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Accusermanager, did you read any of the sources you cited, or did you just get a machine to summarise their contents for you? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I read all the articles and reference materials; then I studied other organizations, such as the American Bankers Association, to understand their article structures. Next, I analyzed supporting materials to build the overall structure of the article. In the penultimate step, I drafted content for each module; finally, I polished the sentences for clarity and flow. Today, because the teaching building closed early, I was forced to leave the office abruptly and couldn’t handle everything properly. However, due to my editorial experience, whenever I create content, there are always suggestions from others. I leave certain imperfections intentionally, so they can be improved based on feedback. Accusermanager (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, due to my editorial experience, whenever I create content, there are always suggestions from others Please explain what this means. Who are "others"? What does your editorial experience have to do with feedback?

I leave certain imperfections intentionally, so they can be improved based on feedback. LLM or not, this is disruptive behaviour. Mistakes are acceptable but intentional ones are not. Fermiboson (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accusermanager (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accusermanager (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You, as a student, your logic is all over the place! Even though I know there are flaws, I objectively don’t have enough time to guarantee a submission that meets my 100% satisfaction standard—does that mean I shouldn’t produce anything at all? Nothing is perfect. It’s easy to criticize others because you’ve never actually contributed to creating content. Accusermanager (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You and that another Hong Kong student account that always rolls back others’ work are the same person. This is just you holding a grudge after a failed rollback last time and switching accounts to cause disruption. Accusermanager (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I will refine this article as soon as possible; however, I deeply regret your behavior of merely undermining others’ work and making baseless accusations, rather than engaging in constructive content development as I have done. Accusermanager (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Fermiboson (talk) 13:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent accusations against other editors, content and talk messages created with AI/LLM (see ANI report).

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:FedMSB-logo-300x300.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FedMSB-logo-300x300.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:FedMSBLogo.svg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FedMSBLogo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Accusermanager! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Please help me 🙏, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]