Archive

Hello, this is Icarus. A contributor of Wikipedia. Can you please update the draft article The Best Thing? Because many members of the WikiProject China was no respond on my request, even on its urgent task. Since there is no one should be collaborate, can you do this as much as possible. So, if you'll interested to expand it with a gathering sources and needs some translations, feel free to ask. Thank you. Icarus 🔭 • 📖 • ✎ 03:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for reaching out, but I'm still in learning stage. But whatever I learnt happy to share. Unable to access the direct draft version hence mentioning details here.

• Don't write article from fan perspective, or bias fluffy exaggerated versions. It's straight reject.
• Try doing Google search, pick up links mentioning The Best Thing; search with both artists name.
• YT, FB, Blogs, Twitter, Instagram, Weibo, Sina, Self media are not acceptable.
• Article is not storytelling but simple neutral formal professional information, so be careful what data you are mentioning

Chinese link/wikipedia could help for source

sohu.com

• Refer top left (XA) tab, go to different languages wiki to gain links talking about the topic.
• Seek informations which are best. Refer accepted wikipedia page for reference.

SakuraSmart (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please update for A Love Never Lost, since some references needs to an expansion and overall changes. Remember, any reliable sources (local or foreign) will acceptable. And also, CPOP Home should use as a reliable primary source (when no one attributed source exist) selectively with caution — in terms of fan-oriented entertainment site and some content may unverifiable information [like personal life in biography, controversies, awards, etc.]. My advice is up to you. Take care and may continue for editing. Icarus 🔭 • 📖 • ✎ 00:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from zh:我们的新时代 to New Generation (TV series). While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at fr:Exact name of French article; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Admin, I was not aware of the attribution part. It's not the translation, but yes inspiration from it was considered. 6 stories details and reception is new addition. Please review it once again, if required I will add the tag.SakuraSmart (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Thing (TV series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MCE89 (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!, this is extremely encouraging. Will explore more to improve my writting. Admin, few of my article creation is not graded, if possible do look into the same. SakuraSmart (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is SakuraSmart. Thank you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kautilya3, I doubt your credibility. Someone filed Violation/ Vandalism case against you and you thought it was me? So in counterattack you dragged my name, it's serious abuse of your editor privilege. SakuraSmart (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for behaviour incompatible with a collaborative project.

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 ~~~~}}.  asilvering (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is injustice. I have not made any reverts/ edits of the user who filed case against me, in assumption that in filed Vandalism case on them. Plus I have not engaged on the page/ major edits which reportedly. Why on me, can't I question on case filed on me out of no where, does that deemed incompatible? SakuraSmart (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi, I respectfully request a review of my block, as I believe it resulted from a misunderstanding of my involvement. My participation was primarily on the article’s talk page. I made a conscious effort to address concerns through discussion and policy-based reasoning rather than through repeated edits or reverts. I did not engage in edit warring, and my intent throughout was to encourage resolution through established existing processes.

I understand that participating/ contributing in a heated discussion during an active dispute on debatable topics can sometimes come across as contributing to conflict, even if that wasn’t my intention. I apologize for misunderstanding the intent of others and for any confusion which my responses may have caused. Looking back, I realize it would have been better to step back sooner and wait patiently for resolution, or request formal dispute resolution process that was already available.

During the dispute, I raised concerns about another editor while seeking help from senior editors. My goal was only to explain how I felt targeted, but I understand that the way I expressed it could have made things worse instead of helping. This was the first time someone doubted my intentions, and I realize that my emotions may have affected how I expressed myself.

I was not the first to raise concerns. Initially, I respectfully asked the editor in question for assistance, but over the time I felt that their responses were biased. I will be careful henceforth, and will make deliberate effort to ensure my contributions are clear, follow policies, and reflect Wikipedia standards.

If unblocked, I seriously commit to strictly follow the policy and be careful.

• I will limit my involvement to clearer constructive version, policy based contributions only.
• I will avoid participation in disputed topics where my involvement could be misunderstood.
• I will use dispute resolution and noticeboard forums instead of prolonged discussion.
• I will step away from any article immediately, if I'm advised by the administrator.

I really value Wikipedia’s collaborative environment and community standards, and I would be careful to follow the rules while continuing to contribute in a helpful, respectful and constructive way. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Decline reason:

This unblock request appears to have been written by a chatbot using a large language model. The purpose of unblock requests is to determine whether you, the human operating this account, understand why you were blocked – not to test a chatbot's ability to tell us what we want to hear. A message written (or rewritten) by a chatbot can also cause you to sound like you're making empty promises. It is better to write the unblock request yourself. Please read through the guide to appealing blocks for more help. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

SakuraSmart (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously LLM output. -- asilvering (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Admin, I genuinely placed my thoughts in retrospection, understanding my mistakes, and making it clearer, more respectful this time. I read the unblock Wikipedia policy thoroughly to understand the intentions and make my appeal reasonable. I also understood where and what led to the misunderstanding. My intention was not to engage in conflict like social media. I felt targeted as in multiple forum I was highlighted, hence I replied to those post to seek guidance and help from other seniors. If it came across as disrespectful, I place my sincere apology. I made it bit formal, as I now understood the consequences of my unclear sentences.

I genuinely request you to reconsider my appeal. Thanks again for your time. SakuraSmart (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Please read Wikipedia:NICETRY, appeals written by AI/LLM/Chatbots are immediately declined - the AI isn't blocked so the AI doesn't need to write an appeal, any appeals must come from you directly.

If you choose to appeal again, please read the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks then write the appeal by hand yourself.

Please read through the ANI discussion, AE discussion and your block notice to understand which of your actions led to the block, then address each concern in your appeal - a general "I'm sorry I won't do it again" isn't enough, you need to show understanding of why you were blocked and what you should have done instead. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Admin,

In retrospection, I read the specific policies again, the ANI discussion and the guide to appealing blocks. I understood why my actions were seen as violation.

I stayed involved in a contentious discussion for too long and continued responding across forums instead of stepping back and letting admin handle the situation. I do not have a history of major policy violations or disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. I did not engage in repeated edits, reverts, or edit warring, and utilised talk page in anticipation of support and guidance from seniors. I am now aware this escalated the dispute, even though that was not my intention.

Regarding the concern about my writing, I am a content writer and I write in a particular structured, bulletin and formal style. I prefer paragraph breaks to give clarity to the readers. I often give points in bullet form to highlight important areas and callouts. In my 1st appeal after calming down, I have identified the problem areas in my conduct and outlined/ explained the remedies that I will follow in the future. I realised this style may have caused some concerns.

I am understanding the facts that raising concerns about another editor during dispute was inappropriate and made things worse. I will avoid contentious areas, will step away if advised and rely on the available dispute resolution processes in future.

I sincerely request to reconsider the decision. Thanks SakuraSmart (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Thank you for responding, please note I've marked my comments to show I'm not an admin. If you choose to appeal again, I'd recommend clearly stating whether you are or are not using AI, LLM or chatbot tools to write your comments. Read the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and focus on the reasons why you were blocked. You can read that here.

I suspect you used AI to write your appeal because there is a significant difference in the way you write everywhere else - including AI, ANI and Talk pages.

The admins want to hear from you, even if the grammar isn't perfect. If there's a massive difference between the way you write on the noticeboards & Talk pages, they'll notice that immediately and your next appeal will also be declined. Blue Sonnet (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]