User talk:Kaolay
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is Kaolay's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Coronavirus fast local lockdown (April 7)
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic instead.
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 when they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Coronavirus fast local lockdown and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Coronavirus fast local lockdown, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, 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.
 |
Hello, Kaolay!
Having an article 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! -Liancetalk/contribs 16:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC) |
Your submission at Articles for creation: Psychology of Cybersecurity (September 13)
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
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.
- Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
- Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
- Essay-like writing
- Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
- Close paraphrasing
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Psychology of Cybersecurity 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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Psychology of Cybersecurity (October 24)
Still AI generated text present, please rewrite following Wikipedia guideline and also add secondary (Scholarly reviews, meta-analyses, textbooks, or journalistic summaries that interpret or contextualize multiple primary works.) citations.
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
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.
- Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
- Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
- Essay-like writing
- Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
- Close paraphrasing
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Psychology of Cybersecurity 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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Psychology of Cybersecurity (October 31)
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
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.
- Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
- Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
- Essay-like writing
- Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
- Close paraphrasing
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Psychology of Cybersecurity 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.
Concern about AI-assisted writing
Hi Kaolay! I just removed the text you added in this edit to the "social engineering" article because it looks like it was generated by ChatGPT or another LLM chatbot. For example, the references are vague or don't make sense:
- The citation to "The Psychology of Security" cites page 128, but the article is on pages 38-40.
- The citation to "Influence: Science and Practice" doesn't have a page number, and it's a whole book, so that's too vague to be a useful citation.
- The citation to "Hostile Influence and Emerging Cognitive Threats in Cyberspace" doesn't have a page number, and the article doesn't seem to support the statement.
- The citation to "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion" doesn't have a page number, and it doesn't support the statements - the book doesn't mention social engineering.
- The citation to "Social Engineering: The Science of Human Hacking" doesn't have a page number, and it's a whole book, so that's too vague to be a useful citation.
- The article at "Cybersecurity, social engineering, artificial intelligence, technological addictions: Societal challenges for the coming decade" doesn't support the statement. The article talks about social engineering (political science), not social engineering (security).
- The article "Social Engineering Attacks: A Survey" doesn't support the statement - for example, it does not mention cognitive load.
- The article "Keeping the Human in the Loop: Awareness and Recognition of Cybersecurity Within Cyberpsychology" doesn't support the statement - it doesn't mention social engineering.
- The article "Defining Social Engineering in Cybersecurity" does not clearly support the statement.
Please read Wikipedia:Large language models. As noted in this template warning: "Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words." Dreamyshade (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Psychology of Cybersecurity (December 7)
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include:
The comment the reviewer left was:
- Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
- Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
- Essay-like writing
- Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
- Close paraphrasing
Do not use ChatGPT to write Wikipedia articles.
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:Psychology of Cybersecurity 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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Psychology of Cybersecurity (March 4)
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include:
The comment the reviewer left was:
- Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
- Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
- Essay-like writing
- Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
- Close paraphrasing
Still shows LLM authorship, such as WP:AIBOLD. Please rewrite entire article with human hands.
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 it after they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Psychology of Cybersecurity 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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Psychology of Cybersecurity (March 7)
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include:
The comment the reviewer left was:
- Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
- Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
- Essay-like writing
- Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
- Close paraphrasing
Let me explain how I reached the conclusion this is AI generated: the last source, Beautement, has a fake DOI. This is extremely obvious, click it and it goes to DOI's answer to 404. How can a human get that wrong when the original version not only has the DOI clearly labelled, but that correct DOI is part of the filename? How else do you reach that source given that no URL is provided? So it is very difficult to believe a human would do that, when we know LLM does it quite frequently, since their databank of words gets detached from sourcing specifics. Regardless, the draft says
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 it after they have been resolved.
"Within corporate environments, these behavioral patterns create a "compliance budget."Well no, that's not what that source says, the draft second sentence is more accurate - this team proposed this budget concept as a way of projecting their argument. LLM isn't very good at weighting these sorts of studies. A human would instead evaluate this study against other references and citations and may say "this is a well established principle, referred over and again" or "this is a novel idea that is worth considering". The latter isn't really what Wikipedia does and the former scenario isn't sourced.
Section 5 of that source (Discussion) can be fairly summarised as "An individual’s willingness to exert extra effort without personal benefit is called their Compliance Budget. And the implied compliance threshold marks the point at which the individual is no longer willing to comply." Your draft does not summarise the source fairly, it is quite vague whereas section 5 is fairly specific, mentioning aspects such as hassle factor, repetitiveness, pointlessness, lack of value to the employee. There are 5 specific things companies can do about it, not mentioned in this draft.
I am reviewer number 6 to have reached the conclusion that this is LLM output, in contravention of WP:NEWLLM.- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Psychology of Cybersecurity 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.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Psychology in cybersecurity has been accepted
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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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!
guninvalid (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)