User talk:Accesscrawl

I have just revised and added/deleted any verifiable information, replacing sources (especially the "Investigation", "Accident" and the "Lawsuit" section), can you revert back the reject? Ohok12 (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done Accesscrawl (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Ohok12 (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Accesscrawl, thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation August Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 3000 drafts already. We have around 1300 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in the next 10 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to help make it happen – if everyone who signed up to the drive reviewed just 1–2 drafts a day for the next ten days, we'd be down to zero in no time! A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest, or you can find a random submission here. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Accesscrawl. Thank you for reviewing the draft.

I would like to clarify that following the previous decline on 22 August, I substantially rewrote the article manually before resubmitting it on 23 August. The revision history records that substantial edit.

I am therefore concerned about the subsequent conclusion that the current version remains LLM-generated based on its apparent “AI flavour.” Could you please identify the specific passages or other indicators in the current revision that you believe demonstrate LLM-generated content?

I understand and respect Wikipedia's restrictions on using LLMs to generate article content. However, Wikipedia's guidance also recognises that human-written text can resemble LLM output, and the G15 guidance distinguishes subjective stylistic indicators from unambiguous evidence of LLM generation.

Since the present version was manually rewritten, I would appreciate an independent assessment of the current draft by another AfC reviewer. I am not asking for the previous review to be disregarded, but for the substantially revised version to be assessed on its current content, sourcing, neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia's policies.

If there are particular sentences, sources, citation problems, or stylistic features that remain problematic, I would also appreciate them being identified specifically so that I can address them. Dr.GunjanPandey (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Please don't use an AI to talk to us. It's impossible for us to gauge your understanding of the situation and whether it's improving if we're talking to a chatbot. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Could you please specify which sections or phrasing came across as AI-generated?

Specific feedback would be much more constructive than a general comment, as it will help me address your concerns directly and improve the draft. People do write in varied and polished styles, so pointing out the exact bits that raised a flag for you would be really appreciated.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you. Dr.GunjanPandey (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for correcting the draft title and for your review. I agree that additional secondary coverage strengthens the notability argument, and I have expanded the article to cite modern academic sources alongside the medieval primary sources. The subject is attested in three independent medieval sources: - Ibn al-Qalānisī, who was an eyewitness to events in Damascus in this period; - Ibn ʿAsākir, in his biographical and historical work; - Al-Dhahabī, in his later biographical entries. To address the secondary source concern, I have added or clarified citations to: - Al-Sallābī, a modern historian covering the period and confirming the historical timeline; - The Annals of the Seljuk Turks, modern translation and scholarly edition; - De Gruyter Brill, academic publishing, which includes the figure in its historical appendices. These are not merely reprints of primary sources; they are modern works that present, contextualise, and analyse the historical record. If the standalone article is still considered borderline, I would be willing to merge this entry into an appropriate list article, such as a list of rulers or notable figures of Damascus in the 11th century, where primary-source attested entries are more commonly acceptable. I will also continue to search for further modern secondary sources.

Muslim.luffy (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

could i ask how many secondary source's do i need to add for it to be accepted? Muslim.luffy (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

There’s no fixed number, what matters is having enough reliable, independent secondary coverage to establish notability. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

it's okay sir i gave up on my draft since it is impossible for me to do

you could delete it if you want Muslim.luffy (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. To clarify: this article is a biography of my late father, the artist Jean Khalifé (d. 1978) — it is not autobiographical content about myself. My conflict of interest as his son is disclosed on my user page and here on this talk page, per Wikipedia's COI guidance.

On notability: the draft includes independent secondary coverage that I believe meets WP:NARTIST, including an in-depth 2022 profile in Gallery magazine, three separate contemporaneous reviews from Paris publications (1963), The Oxford Mail (1971), L'Orient-Le Jour (2026), and a 2019 peer-reviewed article in Manazir Journal discussing his work — none connected to the subject or his estate. I've also revised several passages that read too much like a list of appointments, per earlier feedback, and removed a claim that relied on a private, non-independent document.

Happy to point to specific passages or sources if that's helpful for review

Jim Khalife (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Eagle Jet 2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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.

John B123 (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Eagle Jet 1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

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.

John B123 (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

• Kelbro1960 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lance Letscher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Review of Lance Letscher page Hello Accescrawl, I am writing to request another chance to create the page on Lance Letscher, which was just rejected. Under Presumed, Letscher has exhibited all over the United States and Europe. A documentary was made about him in 2017. Under Significant Coverage, I can point to the monograph of his entire works published by the University of Texas Press and Letscher's own children's book, "The Perfect Machine". For Reliable, don't Psychology Today, the Austin Chronicle and the New York Observer fit that category? I have more references I can use, but honestly, I was concerned about upsetting "Sulfurboy" who has been pretty rude. I wanted to just get this page accepted, then add more to it. I have photos of Letscher's work, which is very impressive. Maybe I didn't do a good job of describing the significance of Letscher's work; this is the first page I've tried to create and I'm trying to follow the rules. Please allow me to continue to improve this page. Thanks.

Kelbro1960 (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2026 (UTC) Hello, I've found more information about Lance Letscher and added references. I am not using AI. Can you please review my changes? Thanks.

it's ai assisted and also doesn't seem to pass GNG Accesscrawl (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not AI assisted. Can you provide proof that it is? I wrote this draft after extensive research through many articles about him, his monograph, and other material. If Lance Lestcher does not "seem" to pass GNG, then I also would like more back up on this presumption. "Seem" isn't strong enough evidence. Kelbro1960 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see reasons to revert the rejection. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not asking for reasons to revert the rejection, I'm asking for proof that the article is AI-assisted. Kelbro1960 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Your accusation of AI- assisted is false. That is what I'm trying to clear up. If you don't accept the article on GNG, then fair enough. Kelbro1960 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)