User talk:Luka Maglc

⚠️ Talk Page Notice ⚠️

Welcome! Please read before posting:

If you see an issue with any of my edits, whether it’s wording, sourcing, or style, I strongly encourage you to be bold and fix it yourself rather than spending time and energy debating and complaining here when instead that energy could be spent improving the article itself.

I’m always open to good-faith discussion about major concerns, and I’ll take responsibility for significant problems if they arise. But in general, it’s far more productive for everyone to spend their energy improving the article directly than to get stuck in back-and-forth arguments.

Let’s keep this space focused on constructive collaboration. Thank you

Welcome!

Hello, Luka Maglc!

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.

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 at 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, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 03:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Audrey Chase Hampton has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Audrey Chase Hampton. Thanks! Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia

Your suggestion to include sophia in the etymology on the philosophy page was remarkable. I was glad to read about it, and found it to be useful today, coincidentally. ProofCreature (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Luka Maglc (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gussie Nell Davis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cotton Bowl.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

This is to express my appreciation of your discipline in stepping back from the escalating conflict at philosophy. (Lots of us have a very hard time doing that!)

I – and, I suspect, other editors – did not realize how new your account was. And you probably did not realize that you were proposing changes to an WP:FA article deemed one of the ten most WP:VITAL on all of English Wikipedia. A minefield, to say the least.

In all events: Very glad to see you're still highly active improving our coverage of, among other things, the great state of Texas!

Please do ping me (or whatever) if I might be of assistance sometime in the future.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you. Luka Maglc (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)-->[reply]

– Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)-->[reply]

The comment the reviewer left was:

Hi, you did a great job putting this draft together! I have to decline because in sort of a strange turn of events, there was already a redirect for this player - which I missed initially because of this draft title being Hampton's full name (incl. Aubrey). When I nominated the redirect for speedy deletion the original author replaced the redirect with their stub, but this draft you've put together is much more detailed and better-sourced than the original. I instinctively merged it, but now I realize I perhaps should have let you do that since the vast majority of this draft was your work + I just added a few details and sources. Please feel free to revert my merge if you'd like to do it yourself so your username is preserved on the edit history. Apologies for this somewhat clumsy review and jumping the gun on the merge, I haven't encountered this particular situation at AfC before but again I want to commend you for your great work. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to remedy the situation. Thank you,

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:Chase Hampton (baseball) 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.

Zzz plant (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC) -->[reply]

The World Destubathon

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It commenced yesterday on Monday June 16 and will run until Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize and $300 top prize for doing articles on populated places and geography. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help make the content produced as diverse and broad as possible! Feel free to invite others who you think might want to contribute.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Azuz

Hi Luka. Did you use a large language model to author Carl azuz? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no I used this as a base - Draft:Carl Azuz Luka Maglc (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. What's with the bolded bullet points? That's how ChatGPT formats things, and it's not how Wikipedia articles are formatted. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly edit history and city pages, so I’m not familiar with how news anchor articles are usually written. I came across this draft because I knew he was really popular I used to watch him all the time back in school. I also use bullet points all time. I can't use those? Luka Maglc (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLD outlines the proper uses of bold text.

The bulleted lists in the Azuz article should actually be prose, as they're not really lists of sets. For example, the article Lilac says Lilacs are popular shrubs in parks and gardens throughout the temperate zone, and several hybrids and numerous cultivars have been developed. It doesn't, and shouldn't, say The popularity of lilacs is owed to:
* Suitability for parks and gardens: Lilacs are ornamental and attractive.

* Hybridability: The development of hybrid varieties has led to a great diversity in lilacs.

These bulleted lists are good for breaking things down digestibly—appropriate for a slide deck or pitch, but not an encyclopedia, which seeks to present information objectively and soberly. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was reformatted that draft to be coherent and structured, changed some the of the language to be more neutral, and added a lot more secondary sources while taking away some primary sources, because that was the problem in the original draft. Luka Maglc (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Carl azuz for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carl azuz 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/Carl azuz 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.

CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) in Wikipedia pages without carefully reviewing them, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the majority of the articles you've created are partially or completely AI generated. It is too much and too late to clean up now. Using AI to create articles hurts Wikipedia in the long run, not help it as you may have thought. Please acknowledge this reply as soon as you can. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that using AI-generated content on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged. I want to be clear that I did not use a large language model or AI tool to create the Carl Azuz article (or my other edits). I used Draft:Carl Azuz and tried to fix the wording and language and the primary source problem it had from the start. I worked from the existing draft, reorganized the information, rewrote it, added more reliable secondary sources, and tried to make it neutral.

I do see now that my use of bulleted lists was tell of AI. I've also already converted those sections.

I care about improving Wikipedia and I’m open to constructive feedback. If there are specific parts of my edits that look unnatural or need more cleanup, I’d appreciate help pointing me to them so I can fix them. Luka Maglc (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, you can be completely honest with what you did. I assure you that you will not be penalized if you're honest. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Luka, it's really fine—you're not going to be blocked or banned. Just write articles yourself from now on and don't incorporate LLM-generated text. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m always open to good-faith discussion about major concerns. This is a major concern since LLMs are known to hallucinate sources and create a lot of hidden inaccuracies that are difficult to find and fix. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thefamouspeople as a reference

Hi Luka Maglc. I noticed that you used thefamouspeople.com as a reference for biographical information in Carl azuz. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]