User talk:ChrysGalley

Hello ChrysGalley. Thank you for your review of Draft:Liverpool Liberal Democrats. I have made substantial revisions to address the concerns raised and would be grateful if you would consider reviewing the draft again. All the best. Knockonwood1981 (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Knockonwood1981 - there is no harm asking, but I will let another reviewer reach an independent view on this, rather than you getting stuck with just my analysis. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hello, User:ChrysGalley, I am a new user on Wikipedia I want add more articles related to history prefer Punjab. I am using AI to find detail can i convert it to human write or write myself.Please help me in this situation. Thanks, Regards Prabhbajwa0 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Prabhbajwa0 - The problem with those two articles - Draft:Hamir Singh of Nabha and Draft:Jaswant Singh of Nabha is that they are very clearly 100% LLM in origin. There is no evidence of a human re-write other than one or two words swapped over. LLM is not your friend. What we have found, in a recent survey of this, is that LLM kind of contaminates articles, you can't just alter what LLM has done, it take so long that you may as well start again without LLM. See also this essay WP:BACKWARDS. And you may want to initially amend existing articles to get practice, but do this editing without LLM. Don't worry about how your English looks, that is very easy to fix, LLM is a nightmare to fix.

Here is how I write a new article (it's hard work, by the way). I find say 3 good sources. Yes you can use LLM just for that task, but the danger is LLM puts some obscure rubbish as one of the 3 sources just because LLM is lazy and it's the first thing they find. I use Google, my university library and WorldCat a lot to find sources. So I then read those sources, perhaps twice. What you were doing was letting LLM do that reading for you, and that's wrong. Having read the sources I then put them out of sight and write some bullet points, maybe three bullet points, maybe ten, depending on how detailed the sourcing is. You don't want too many bullet points, you are just summarising the information. Being bullet points you don't need to worry about language. Then I open the source again and double check what my summary says is close to what the source said, to prevent errors. The old guide of Who? What? When? Where? Why? - that has its own article: Five Ws. With that in mind the bullet points should be easy.

Here is a recent example of my bullet points (though I wrote them on pen and paper originally)

a) She was born x, she married in y to z. She died in 1922 and is buried in Hampstead Cemetery. She had one son, also a writer.

b) She wrote x books, the one most known is book z, translated into n languages, and a school text book in the UK until 1940.

c) She found out her husband was stealing her royalty payments in 1899 and divorced him for adultery, though she confirmed in 1920 that there was no adultery.

d) Her book z dealt with European history in the Middle Ages, it has been out of print since 1960. It has been more recently criticised by historians, for focusing too heavily on certain areas of Europe to support her narrative.

Now if I did that to the other two sources I would quickly have 3 summaries in bullet points, probably some overlaps. Then I can shuffle the bullet points around to get a chronological order, though actually Wikipedia does not require articles to be written like that. Then the last stage, doing the draft, should be quite quick: do the references first, give each one a "ref name=sourceA", then put in the bullet points but this time in flowing English. Then use the ref names to allocate a source to the text. Read up about ref names, it makes life so much easier if you do that early in the process, see WP:REFNAME.

And to repeat, it's hard work! ChrysGalley (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I removed GNLM website. And I just add more sources. She was played at the Philippines women Club Stallion Laguna F.C. (women) for 3 months loan and played 2025–26 AFC Women's Champions League against Tokyo Verdy Beleza. Do I need more reliable sources? Thanks ZyTun (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes @ZyTun, yes I think it does need some better coverage in clearly reliable sources. I know it's not easy! ChrysGalley (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• Maxumi incius (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:ProturnMC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

how

Maxumi incius (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Chrys, maybe if you have a minute, you could have a glance at this ? I’m very confident it passes. Regards. ~2026-31368-77 (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-31368-77 - from a quick glance, yes it seems to be in or near the right place under WP:NAUTHOR. It's in the relevant queue and it will be reviewed in due course. ChrysGalley (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

More information Extended content ...

Extended content

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, MSK, left the following feedback: This draft appears to be generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content. LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated 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. Next steps Edit Draft:Rocket League France 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. msk 16:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC) Hello, ChrysGalley! 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! msk 16:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Close

For reference, the AfC timestamp things expect the time to be formatted as YYYYMMDDHHMMSS, without a any spaces, not like how the AI did it (05:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)). msk 16:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks and yes I could see it was something like that @MSK but when I did the Diff on your edit it all became clear. I was going to decline on AI too, but the bots won my round! ChrysGalley (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

AFAIK the only times errors like these are when AI tells people to submit by pasting something like {{AFC submission|t||ts=~~~~~|u=YourUsernameHere|ns=118}} (seen here) into the draft. I've also made a tool to properly format timestamps ( https://msk.wtf/afc ). msk 18:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi ChrysGalley,

Thank you for your previous feedback on my CORAN Boutique Spa draft. I have completely rewritten it addressing your concerns. The revised version is in my sandbox:

User:AsianWellnessEditor/sandbox

Changes made:

• Removed all promotional language per WP:NPOV
• Eliminated personal blog citations
• Now citing only Tourism Authority of Thailand (government), World Luxury Spa Awards (industry), and Clever Thai (independent)
• Added disclosure (I am affiliated with the subject)

I would greatly appreciate your feedback before I resubmit through AfC.

Thank you for your time and patience. AsianWellnessEditor (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@AsianWellnessEditor - by all means submit again, another editor may take a different view. However it seems to have been written with assistance from AI / LLM and that is not allowed. This also means LLM has not sourced the material correctly, it has name-checked the sources but not summarised them. Also you have created a second draft, which is also not allowed, you should simply amend the existing draft. The new draft, in your sandbox, is indeed more neutral and closer to the sourcing norms. Ideally the changes should have been done in the old draft, but as a second-best, you can just cut and paste the new version into the old draft, and resubmit the old draft. What is very important, however, is that the AFC log files at the top of the old draft are preserved, there are some dashes there, above the dashes should be preserved. The text below the dashes, starting with the infobox, can be overwritten by the sandbox version.

As a general point, writing about your own business is a mistake, see WP:BOSS, if the spa was truly notable, someone else would write about it.ChrysGalley (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel like WP:NCREATIVE applies here, as all four bullet points appear to be met. Would you have any objections if I resubmitted? ~2026-32376-67 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32376-67 No absolutely, there is no problem with resubmitting (though diplomatically it would best to make some changes first, some reviewers will automatically uphold a previous decline if nothing has been changed). I may well have got this wrong so be my guest. I think I would still query that this subject is: authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals given it is a piece of code, and regardless under NCREATIVE you still need significant coverage. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't NCREATIVE supercede significant coverage? From my reading of WP:BASIC, People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. implies that WP:NCREATIVE (one of the additional criteria) is a separate way of qualifying for notability as opposed to the traditional WP:GNG route. ~2026-32376-67 (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32376-67 Not entirely so. So let's say we were talking about the first type, an author. Instead of needing multiple GNG-style profiles of the author and their life, instead we could make do with "2 books, 2 book reviews each", that fulfills the 3rd bullet point. However! the reviews need to have significant coverage, they can't be one line listings, they need to cover the book to give critical analysis that can be summarised. So it shifts from significant coverage of the author to significant coverage of the author's work via the book review. On the other hand the "permanent collections" aspect of the 4th bullet point - that can (and often is) single line references from the art gallery to confirm they have that artist's work (so that still needs a source). ChrysGalley (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes sense. I suppose whether NCREATIVE applies or not depends on whether 15.ai could be considered a creative piece of work? The term creative professional is not cleanly defined in the page, but I can see an argument being made that 15.ai isn't your standard piece of code used, let's say, for a software company. ~2026-32376-67 (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32376-67 - it would certainly be fair comment that this scenario was not fully considered when NCREATIVE was cooked up. If there was a person whose creativity was firmly and provably linked to 15 then that person would have a stronger argument. This discussion appears to be the "artwork" rather than the artist. Other options to consider are WP:NPRODUCT and WP:WEBCRIT, which would be perhaps more, um, natural start points to this, but the WP:GOLDENRULE is the back stop here if nothing else works. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley That's a fair distinction, and I think you've actually pointed me towards the cleaner path. Rather than invoking WP:NCREATIVE, the stronger case is probably plain WP:BASIC: 15 has significant independent coverage across two separately-notable events, each with its own article (15.ai and Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal). In particular, WP:BASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; so we can combine the articles discussing 15 with respect to 15.ai as a single source, and the articles discussing 15 with respect to the Voiceverse plagiarism scandal as a single source. Because the sourcing spans more than one event, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. I feel like this kind of "anti-BLP1E" logic to establish notability should have been codified somewhere, but anyway this seems like the much stronger argument for inclusion. What do you think? ~2026-32272-98 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-32272-98 The big merit of BASIC/GOLDENRULE is that if it is clearly met then that debate is over. For example in the author example, what if they have 2 books and only 3 reviews? NCREATIVE isn't specific on that point. Having said that the "multiple over lots of sources" while definitely stated, it's not always accepted by reviewers, the patrol team and/or Articles for Deletion. Now that maybe particular for autobiographies (I had one yesterday with 140 passing references). The other factor is that sources tend to arrive without notice, the Wire does a new article and the significant coverage issue goes away. I don't think BLP1E is such an issue here, as it happens, the context was more than the a single event. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley True, but it's not like the sources are haphazardly aggregated into a single "whole" source using only trivial mentions. The sources do go into reasonable depth individually, so combining them doesn't seem like such a reach. ~2026-32272-98 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Well give it a go @~2026-32272-98 and resubmit it, if you doubt that there is any more sourcing to be found. ChrysGalley (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello ChrysGalley!

• New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting, or could meet the guidelines for granting soon if you build a track record in one of these three areas: article creation, articles for deletion, or articles for creation reviewing. These demonstrate proficiency with notability, and are what admins typically evaluate when deciding to grant this permission.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please make sure you have some experience with new article creation, articles for deletion, or articles for creation reviewing, then consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 19:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Destinyokhiria - thank you, and I'm flattered to be invited. But having got some expertise at AFC, I'm focusing on getting better at that, being relatively new to editing. But thanks again for asking. ChrysGalley (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. You rejected the article without even reviewing it. If you had looked at the tournament details from previous European and World Championships, you would have seen that the pages are identical. With so many empty and unnecessary pages out there, it’s unreasonable for you to reject the tournament pages I worked hard to write here in such a simplistic and biased manner. I also believe this goes against Wikipedia’s spirit of freedom. Being an admin does not mean you can reject things on a whim. Did you even open the sources in the text and check them, or verify the results from the sources before rejecting it?? The European Championship and Does not meet the need for significant prose coverage???? Are you kidding me?

• @Pehlivanmeydani - thanks for the above message. I am not an administrator, but I am a reviewer. I think I put a clear reason why I declined the drafts, but I did not reject them - reject would be the end of the road. Whereas a decline means "fix the problem, then it can be published". And yes, I appreciate your hard work here, I write up drafts too, and it's very hard to do, a lot of concentration is needed. There is no bias, I can assure you, if Wikipedia's guidelines are met then the article goes into mainspace. The exact issue is that the requirements in WP:SPORTSEVENT are clearly set out, and having a set of lists, effectively via the sports body concerned, isn't meeting the guideline that I am supposed to uphold. I can't just ignore that, as a gatekeeper it's my job. Those article just had zero secondary sources.

There was one draft that I did not decline, since there was a media report attached to it. A paywall there meant I could not access it, which meant I could not accept the article either. If that media report does in fact give decent prose coverage, and no other reviewer can access it, then let me know and I'll see if I can get around the paywall issue via the British Library, since it has a printed version.

One partial explanation I can offer for this issue arising was that in the past, and sometimes to this day, some sporting events ended up online without secondary sources. They are then at risk from the New Page Patrol and / or Articles for Deletion. Normally an article that meets the requirements under Article for Creation should not have problems with those two review stages, though nothing in guaranteed. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I’ve added the sources. Could you please review them and confirm? Pehlivanmeydani (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I checked two of them and yes some of the secondary sources appear to check OK. Now in order to ensure you get an independent review, it is best that I do not formally review it. I would also suggest you do not overload the review system with a lot of new and rapidly updated drafts, since that would give the impression that you used LLM here, which is not allowed. So I suggest you release just a few to see if another reviewer rejects them again, rather than submitting a lot all at once. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

		The Articles for Creation Barnstar
		Your contributions at the WikiProject Articles for Creation help desk have not gone unnoticed, and are appreciated. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I also wanted to add here: your efforts creating new articles and translation show immense dedication and a sorely needed attention to detail. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Aaw, you are making me blush @Reconrabbit. It's very kind of you to say that. I'm grateful to hear that. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)