User talk:Literarywolf2025

This is Literarywolf2025's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (July 23)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
Essay-like writing
Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
Close paraphrasing

Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

The comment the reviewer left was:

A lot of unreferenced content, and many of the sources are of poor quality. Apparently written at least in part by AI.

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 User:Literarywolf2025/sandbox 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Literarywolf2025! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We are trying to get this page sorted before we represent NZ at the Frankfurt Book Fair in October. I will try rewriting it again and ensure all the third party validation links are showing up properly. Literarywolf2025 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style, including MOS:SECTIONHEAD re sentence case, and MOS:LEAD re the "lead has no heading". Nurg (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Folly Journal (July 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 MediaKyle was:

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
Essay-like writing
Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
Close paraphrasing

Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

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:Folly Journal 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.

MediaKyle (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kyle

We wrote this, and yes we asked ChatGPT to help us format the citations because we aren't coders and it was very technical. However this has been thoroughly reviewed and edited by our editing team and all information in it is correct and correctly cited to verified and trusted third party sources. We can confirm there are no hallucinations, and all words are direct quotes or summaries of cited third party sources. These are all reliable third party sources. Would it be possible please to provide more specific reasons for what is wrong with the submission?

Thank you

Em and the team at Folly Literarywolf2025 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources, no coding skill is required, AI is notoriously bad at creating Wikipedia references. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello Literarywolf2025. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Literarywolf2025. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Literarywolf2025|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. We have no employer or financial stake. I do personally know of people who have created their own wikipedia pages with nonexistent links for board appointments as so on. As a result, we didn't expect this very legitimate not-for-profit international publication to run into any concerns when providing real and verified third party citations to legitimate sources. There appears to either be some over the top gate keeping going on for us to be treated so differently to individuals who wish to self promote. Any advice on how to demonstrate that this is legit would be appreciated. 118.148.68.168 (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Folly Journal has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Folly Journal. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Folly Journal (July 27)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Reads excessively positive and passionate, along with suspected WP:NOR violations

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:Folly Journal 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.

AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 00:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

You have been soft blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.

This account has repeatedly used "we" and all indications are that this account is shared by two or more people. A Wikipedia account is for use by one individual person only, who is required to maintain account security to prevent use by other people. Irresponsible use of AI/LLMs is an aggravating factor in this case. Cullen328 (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Folly Journal

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Folly Journal, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.

You have actually stated that your purpose in creating the page is publicity. That isn't permitted here. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]