User talk:JazzyOxygen

Hi JazzyOxygen! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 05:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to let you know that on a side note, sorry about the reversion issue. I hope you go on to be a contributing wikipedian! 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 05:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello JazzyOxygen. 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:JazzyOxygen. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=JazzyOxygen|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. — Newslinger talk 10:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I’m not entirely clear on what you mean by “the nature of your edits” but I am not being paid to edit Wikipedia, nor do I have any financial or professional stake in the topic(s) I’ve contributed to. When I find interesting people or topics I check to see if they have a page. If they don’t, I try to get one started for others to build upon. WP:BB

I understand Wikipedia's rules around paid editing and WP:COI and I fully support the need for transparency. If you have specific concerns about any of my edits or contributions, I’m happy to discuss. But, I would appreciate it if you started the conversation by WP:AGF and not WP:BITE. JazzyOxygen (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

My first comment is a standard message issued to editors whose activity on Wikipedia matches patterns associated with undisclosed paid editing. Your editing history shows that you made just over 500 "newcomer task" edits before requesting the new page reviewer permission twice (on 16 June and on 7 July), a permission that has a minimum requirement of 500 article space edits. After your first request was declined on 19 June, you created the obviously LLM-generated article Jobs to Be Done, which I have now moved back to draft space. Your subsequent article creations are promotionally toned and are in subject areas (e.g. businesspeople) that are common targets of undisclosed paid editing.

Paid editing on Wikipedia is only allowed when disclosed, and editors who match patterns associated with undisclosed paid editing are sometimes offered a chance to disclose any conflicts of interest before further investigation. In contrast, undisclosed paid editing is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 17:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Once again, I’m not a paid editor but thanks for AGF. I do take issue with your comment "Your subsequent article creations are promotionally toned" if you looked at my newcomer task edits, I'm actively involved in removing promotional language. For example, I’ve written about an author where I've also included his criticisms. I have created some articles about businesspeople because they appeared to meet notability guidelines and filled clear gaps in coverage. For example, Jason Cohen, the founder of WP Engine, has established multiple notable companies that have their own articles, yet did not previously have an article about himself. JazzyOxygen (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Using Jason Cohen (entrepreneur) as an example, over half of the citations are to non-independent sources such as interviews, including ones from self-published sources such as miscellaneous podcasts, a Forbes.com contributor, and a site called "Eventual Millionaire". The article as a whole does not satisfy the WP:PSTS policy, which requires at least half of the article to be based on reliable secondary sources. Phrases in the article such as "address a growing demand for reliable and scalable hosting", "focus on performance, security, and customer support", and "focused on long-term vision, product innovation" are indeed promotionally toned. There are some additional issues, but before addressing them, I am interested in your answer to my question in the section below. — Newslinger talk 19:12, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The article could certainly be improved. Someone gave it a C rating which seems appropriate. I have not claimed to be an expert writer so please WP:DONTBITE. But that specific article has plenty of WP:IS that satisfy the criteria. However, In terms if reliability that's your call. Someone at least found it good enough to give it a C. Since you now seem to have an ax to grind, do with it what you will. The only reason why I even created the page in the first place was the guys name was listed in the info box of WPEngine and SmartBear and he didn't have his own page so I thought I'd try to help. Good luck. JazzyOxygen (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

New editors are not expected to know all of the policies and guidelines, but everyone on Wikipedia is expected to be receptive to feedback. You seemed to be unaware of how the article was promotionally toned, so I explained the issues with the sourcing and some of the phrasing. Basing the majority of an article on primary sources such as the article subject's claims about himself in interviews is effectively allowing the article subject to write the article about himself. — Newslinger talk 21:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Agentic Web. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and It also needs more sourcing so as to satisfy WP:VERIFY.. I have converted your article 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay thank you! JazzyOxygen (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

McNugget Caviar, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MightyRanger (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This might be the most interesting AfC submission I've seen in some time. It feels like something out of Demolition Man. MightyRanger (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Ha ha! I thought so too :) JazzyOxygen (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Sahil Bloom, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• The page exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia and output must be carefully checked. (See the section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. isha ^(talk) 03:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, since you are looking for feedback on sources - I don't have access to the draft, obviously, so I'll go through the ones you offered in the REFUND request. I'm an AfC reviewer so hopefully this will give you an idea of what we look for.

• Boston Globe - Bloom is extensively quoted, and it's fairly clear that the article has been built around information he's supplied; I don't think it'd pass the 'independent' criterion;
• Bloomberg - I can't access the entirety of this one, but the bits I've been able to see suggest that it's very brief reviews of 82 books. It might be usable if there's enough in-depth discussion of Bloom's book;
• Big Think - again this is based on an interview with Bloom, so the same problems as Boston Globe;
• Maria Shriver - also based on an interview with Bloom.

Did you have more sources? These alone would not be enough to show that Bloom qualifies for a Wikipedia article, unfortunately. Meadowlark (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the sources and explain your reasoning. I do want to push back a bit on the interpretation of “independence” and “extensive quotation,” because those standards seem to be highly subjective unless they’re tied to a more concrete policy threshold.

For example, the Boston Globe piece is still an editorially produced article published by an independent newsroom with independent fact-checking and editorial oversight. The presence of quotations from the subject does not automatically negate independence; otherwise, a large percentage of profiles, features, and business reporting on Wikipedia would fail the same standard. Wiki policy seems to focus more on whether the publication itself is independent and whether the coverage is substantive, rather than whether the subject was quoted “too much.”

Similarly, I’d appreciate clarification on what specifically qualifies as “extensively quoted” in a way that disqualifies a source. Is there a policy-based benchmark being applied here, or is this more of an editorial judgment call? Right now the distinction feels difficult to apply consistently across articles.

I also think there may be an overly narrow interpretation of notability when the subject has received coverage from major independent outlets. I agree that only interviews don't establish notability, but the existence of multiple independent publications covering the subject, reviewing the work, and discussing its broader impact should count toward significant coverage when viewed collectively.

While I would love to continue improving the sourcing, but I’d appreciate more objective guidance on what threshold would satisfy the standard here, because “not independent enough” can otherwise become difficult to distinguish from individual reviewer discretion.

Below is a list of 10 different publications that were all listed in the article as sources at the time of it being published. All these sources are listed as approved sources from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources meaning all these outlets are not paid placements and independent fact checkers. There is certainly enough here in this list alone to deem him "noteable" and a speedy delete was not the right call here. There are plenty new sources now to be updated given the chance.

1. https://people.com/sahil-bloom-offers-a-new-way-to-think-about-your-life-in-new-book-exclusive-8678321
2. https://indianexpress.com/article/trending/trending-in-india/family-hires-a-ghostwriter-for-grandmother-8870904/
3. https://www.newsweek.com/career-coach-slammed-advising-teens-knock-strangers-doors-jobs-twitter-1729475
4. https://www.nytimes.com/books/best-sellers/2025/04/06/business-books/
5. https://www.yahoo.com/news/author-sahil-bloom-shares-tips-140240708.html
6. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timmaurer/2025/02/02/sahil-bloom-on-wealth-success-and-pursuing-all-time-highs-in-money-and-life/
7. https://www.gq.com/story/real-life-diet-sahil-bloom
8. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/nov/15/14-easy-tips-for-better-evenings
9. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2025-02-07/bloomberg-masters-in-business-sahil-bloom-podcast
10. https://www.businessinsider.com/influencer-sahil-bloom-advises-knocking-on-doors-to-network-2022-6

JazzyOxygen (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

There's certainly editorial discretion, which makes things harder - we don't have a way to measure that, let's say, 55% of a source is based on an interview (and if we did we'd still get arguments about it!). Different reviewers and editors have different opinions and all we can do is work with what's been laid down in policy/guideline and what we've seen as precedent. One consideration with the perennial sources is that even if the publication is reliable, it may not be independent (eg an intervew) and may not be significant coverage (sigcov for short). Reliability is a vital base but the other things are also necessary.

AfC reviewers have one overriding instruction: if they believe a draft has a 50% or greater chance of surviving an immediate AfD, they should accept. So that's what I go by personally. I also know that interviews go really badly at AfD, at least in my experience. It may be that I'm harsher than some reviewers and easier than others, it's hard to know because everyone chooses which drafts to review. All I can give you is what I personally think, and it's always up to you whether you agree. The most important thing to keep in mind on Wikipedia is consensus. If I am the only person telling you this draft won't succeed, then I'm probably wrong. If multiple people are saying that it won't succeed, they're probably right.

1. People - this is a press release, which makes it inherently not useful for notability, sorry. PEOPLE can exclusively share that Bloom’s new book, The 5 Types of Wealth: A Transformative Guide to Design Your Dream Life, will hit shelves next winter. (...) According to its publisher Ballantine Books... is a giveaway.
2. Indian Express - this is not going to pass WP:42; it's not about Bloom but rather a summary of a tweet, there's no author byline (sources without a named author are usually not usable).
3. Newsweek - I'm dubious. Newsweek post-2013 is listed as not generally reliable and relying on clickbait headlines rather than quality journalism. Most of the source is not actually about Bloom. I wouldn't use this, personally - it tells us basically nothing of encyclopedic value.
4. NYT Bestsellers - there's nothing independent and no sigcov of Bloom. A review of the book would be much more persuasive. See also for some reasons why we do not rely on the list.
5. Yahoo - we can surely agree that this is entirely an interview and cannot possibly be independent? You could potentially use this for information about Bloom, but not for notability.
6. Forbes - mmmmmaybe? There's very little about Bloom, he's had input into the article which is always a problem, but there is a fair bit about his book. This would probably work better for an article about the book; usually a notable author should have either one really wildly notable book/series (think Twilight, Harry Potter, Game of Thrones) or two or three generally notable books. If this is Bloom's only book you might want to focus on seeing if you can get an article up about the book rather than about the man himself.
7. GQ - an interview.
8. Guardian - not about Bloom.
9. Bloomberg - interview.
10. Business Insider - not about Bloom, no encyclopedic value.

These would not be enough for me to accept a draft. I don't think it would make it through AfD, to be perfectly honest with you. Writing new articles is incredibly hard. At least 95% never get accepted. This is usually not the fault of the author, but rather because there is just not enough information available in reliable sources, independent of the subject, that has significant coverage of the subject. At the moment Bloom does not have enough available. That could change, of course, but right now he would not qualify for an article. Meadowlark (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The article Jaymes Black has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The article T-Rex World Championship Races has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The article WindowSwap has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time.

This is an automated notification. Please refer to the page's history for further information. DatBot (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there. I think that you may have misunderstood the purpose of WP:LLMPRV. There are some strict requirements that must be met to remove an LLMPROD tag. It has nothing to do with the notability of the article subject, and this process is a tool to deal with the asymmetric workload that is created by LLM users. If you want to remove an LLMPROD tag, then you must also follow WP:LLMPRVOBJ. The most common option is to either stubify or redirect, but you can't just remove the tag and do nothing. By removing the tag, you are also assuming responsibility for the text, similary to how WP:BANREVERT works. Just removing the tag without following LLMPRVOBJ is disruptive, and only wastes the time of other volunteers. Thank you, ‑‑gurkubondinn 22:58, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Heads up to Kowal2701, who tagged the pages that you've removed LLMPROD from. ‑‑gurkubondinn 23:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi JazzyOxygen, see WP:STUBBIFY, you can also WP:USERFY articles if the timeframe is too short, but they need to be properly reviewed before moved back to mainspace, thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@JazzyOxygen: for example WindowSwap and T-Rex World Championship Races haven't been sufficiently cleaned up. Do you want to have them userified instead? ‑‑gurkubondinn 21:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gurkubondinn - Yes that certainly seems like a better solution than deleting them. JazzyOxygen (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure thing, I've moved the pages into your user space for you:

• User:JazzyOxygen/WindowSwap: moved in Diff/1364815978
• User:JazzyOxygen/T-Rex World Championship Races: moved in Diff/1364816473

‑‑gurkubondinn 17:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

What about Jaymes Black? JazzyOxygen (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

oh, sorry I forgot about that one. I'll take care of it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done: moved to User:JazzyOxygen/Jaymes Black in Diff/1364817734.

And thank you for working on these articles. I agree that queer representation is important on Wikipedia. But I do think that they, especially Jaymes Black, deserve better than having LLM-generated articles. I'm not saying this in a backhanded way, because I genuinely hope that you will improve the page and that it will be returned to article space. I just think that they deserve a to have a well-written biography about themselves here on Wikipedia. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and luckily Wikipedia allows anyone to jump in and improve it if they feel it deserves better. But instead it was flagged to be deleted which is annoying. JazzyOxygen (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

That was a direct result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1196 § JazzyOxygen and LLM use.

This comes up fairly often, and it has been explained many times over, and I don't want to repeat it yet again when other people have explained it so much better than I could, so I'll just point you to these comments by Purring maggot and M kuhner from the most recent conversation that I remember seeing it explained in:

• Wikipedia:AI noticeboard § c-Purring maggot-20260717200500-Deedubaroo-20260717185300
• Wikipedia:AI noticeboard § c-M kuhner-20260717212300-Purring maggot-20260717200500

‑‑gurkubondinn 18:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello, JazzyOxygen. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kurt Van Dyke, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)