User talk:Baobon

Please do not introduce links to draft articles in actual articles, as you did to New York State Department of Financial Services. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Office of Science and Technology Policy, you may be blocked from editing. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 04:57, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi I am a new wikipedia contributor. Could you share what specifically was disruptive editing so I can edit correctly moving forward? Thank you. Baobon (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@LaffyTaffer I think you're ^referring to my links in existing articles to draft articles -- is this correct? If so, I've now read that this is NOT a wiki standard (I misread the AfC guidance, thinking links in existing articles were necessary to get draft AfC reviewed/approved).

Please let me know if you are referring to any other issues so I can correct my editing moving forward.

Thank you! Baobon (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

That is what the warnings were about, yes. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 13:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm more awake now so to expand a little bit on this answer. By the time I had issued this warning, your changes had already been partially reverted multiple times with WP:DRAFTNOLINK linked in the explanation for those reverts. In addition, there had already been a warning on this page informing you that draft links in mainspce articles are inappropriate. With all that in mind, adding yet more draft links after that point read to me as wilfully ignoring these warnings. Please be sure to keep an eye on this talk page when you get new messages, and also take a look at the history of articles you're editing to see edit summaries explaining what other users have changed (including reverting changes that you've made) ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 15:39, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks for clarifying. I did this in a number of pages where I thought it was required to get new articles confirmed; will figure out how to find and change those! Baobon (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, any stragglers were removed. I cleaned up a lot of them and there's an editor who I know monitors for any draft links getting added to articles, so you should be good moving forward. Thanks. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 21:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Draft:Alexander Macgillivray requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Arnab Pal. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

understood and thanks! Baobon (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Thilio, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the person meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for people. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the person in detail, not brief mentions or interviews lacking independent analysis;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the person, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

This draft appears to be generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You should not use LLMs to generate article content.

LLM-generated pages with the below issues may be deleted without notice.

These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies:

• hallucinations: they often invent false information and cite non-existent references.
• unencyclopedic tone: they tend to be vague, promotional, or essay-like, rather than neutral and factual.
• copyright issues: they may closely paraphrase existing text, leading to copyright violations.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

See the advice page on large language models for more information.

Sources are primary with routine mentions no independent secondary sources with in depth coverage and please see WP:NEWLLM

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Justina Gallegos to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 18:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

hi @Thilio, I'm a new wiki editor and am trying to fill in holes in government pages on contemporary science and tech issues. I see the above articles were flagged as an LLM -- can you share what set off this flag specifically? I'm drafting new/missing content in word and copying over (the wiki text box is a little confusing, so it's easier for me this way) -- is that what triggered this?

Thanks for any steers, and I will keep this in mind as I attempt to build out more missing content. Thank you! Baobon (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• and not sure if I'm a ^wiki-"editor" or how to refer to myself, but I'm new here and appreciate any/all feedback. Thanks! Baobon (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Confused Spirit may have picked up on something I'm not seeing and can give their own response, but I think I might be able to offer some clarity at least from my perspective. In your content generation as well as communication, you've demonstrated a quite unusual style of formatting (such as your strange use of bolding, etc). LLMs have a very poor understanding of how to write things that are suitable for Wikipedia and will introduce a number of formatting errors that are not unlike your own changes. If there aren't some more subtle signs of LLM use that Confused Spirit caught (if you use Grammarly, that uses LLMs and sets off AI checkers), then I'd reckon that the warning was put in place due to your similarly unconventional formatting.

To be clear: I don't think you're generating WP:LLM content (at least not from scratch, there's obviously a human oversight happening here), from my view you simply appear to be a new editor who's unfamiliar with some of the broad strokes of our manual of style. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 21:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

good to know, thanks for the notes.

And yes I love bolding key content and adding bullet points for ease of reading -- I find a lot of wiki content looks like it's promotional and includes long, run-on, and often unsubstantiated claims. I think readers would benefit from complex content being broken into more digestible forms. BUT, that seems to not be kosher here, so will try to emulate the (unique to me) style that wiki editors prefer.

And not sure what grammarly is, but I have been using MSFT Word and copying over, as I find it easier to draft there.

Thanks, and appreciate the feedback. Baobon (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Grammarly is a grammar checker that has started implementing more and more AI features and has been enshittified(if you'll pardon the vulgarity) for it in my opinion, you're better off avoiding it. To my knowledge, Microsoft hasn't forced copilot features into Word, but my knowledge there is limited, I do all of my non-professional text editing in notepad like a maniac lol.

You raise some interesting points though regarding the simplicity of reading. Have you heard of Simple English Wikipedia? Its one of our sister projects whose entire deal is presenting information using language that's easier to parse. That may be up your alley. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 21:49, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

cool, will check out the simple English wiki, and thanks for advice -- lots of cool missing science and tech content that I'm trying to learn how to input here. thanks! Baobon (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tesla, Inc., may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2026 (UTC)