User talk:Philbutler

Hi Philbutler! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:24, Thursday, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

Hi Philbutler! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:25, Thursday, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Stefan Günther Tweraser and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your time and the feedback SwisterTwister I have gone over some more press etc., and have added quite a few more sources. As you may have guessed already, much of what there is written about Mr. Tweraser is form Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Doing my best. I will re-submit here in a few minutes, after I add this link for his photo with the CC license etc. Not exactly sure how to do that even :) I do so appreciate all the help the great community here is giving. Thank you again. Philbutler (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Philbutler/sandbox 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 removed 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. Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Your Teahouse post drew my attention to your userpage. Although it has been like that since 2016, I need to point out that it breaches our policy on what it may contain. Written in the third person, it currently reads like an encyclopaedia entry about you, which is not allowed. I simply suggest you rewrite the first paragraph in the 1st person, removing the family and kids sentence, and delete the second paragraph completely. That should suffice for you to tell us who you are, and why you're here to edit Wikipedia.

If a friend has asked you to write about a company, there is a not unreasonable assumption that they and you may well have a Conflict of Interest, which you need to declare on your userpage. See that link for details.

I think a small company logo can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia (but not to Wikimedia Commons) under a 'fair use' policy. But that does not apply to draft articles, like the one in your sandbox. An image/logo makes no difference to whether a company meets our notability criteria (see WP:NCORP, so it's best to wait until it is in mainspace. (BTW: your sandbox draft is very promotional in tone, somewhat overdetailed, and not yet very well referenced. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes Thanks very much for you help. Sorry I saw this a bit late. I shall do as you suggest. You can tell, my experience level is novice. I hope to do better in the future. Philbutler (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Philbutler. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Shiji Group, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 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) 23:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Philbutler. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Shiji Group".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Can you tell me a bit about your edits to Cretan Hound? I ask because the content you added is unencyclopaedic in tone and appears to have been written almost entirely by some AI engine, with the usual problems associated with that. The section you added on "Agility and dog sports" gave me a reading of 100% AI-generated on this useful tool, and was cited only to this dead link – how exactly did you go about writing that content, may I ask? I read German with reasonable ease, but don't know the word for 'agility trials' (actually I don't really even know what 'agility trials' are). As far as I can see, they are called 'Agility-Prüfungen'; that term does not occur in the text of the reference you cited (yes, it's been archived – and is a history of the dog). I've reverted all your edits for now, pending clarification of these questions. Could you kindly explain? Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I am editing the Cretan Hound page because, first off all, it has not been touched in years except for a few minor edits by me. As an owner of one authentic Cretan Hound, as a member of the Cretan Hound Club, and as the author of the most authoritative book on the subject of the breed to date, I only want to let people know more about these amazing dogs.

As for AI, in my experience, even the best detection tools are inconsistent, to say the least. As a journalist, I've been proud of writing all original content. I understand your concern, and I checked the whole page using five different tools I am familiar with. Each rates these texts (the whole article) as somewhere between 100 percent huiman and 100 percent ChatGPT. The range is everything in between.

The "Agility and dog sports" section is paraphrased by me from my book information, and that of the world's most famous Kritikos agility trainer, Astrid Collett. I am sorry I made the error about this aimed at the Greek Kennel Club, it could just as easily been from a page or two in my book or from PDFs that breeders I know have published.

I used the term "agility trials" because it lets readers know the place these dogs in more than one working or companion situation. I actually have a lot more on this aspect, as well as others including hundreds of photos, research from two years of tracing the lineage of the hounds, and work by others associated with me including archaeologists, the most trusted breeders of the hounds, and The American Kennel Club explains about dog agility competitions.

I will gladly redo any links or erroneous link destinations. And, I apoligize if I seem on my ear about this. I am not an arrogant person, but I am sure that no one on the planet has written more about these legendary dogs than I have. My passion for the breed, and helping people get to know them is my only motivation here.

Anyway, I am happy to answer any and all questions you may have. I see the dead link now, so I wonder how "not one work of the content in that section could have ever been discovered? I still wonder what erronious or inappropriate "knowledge" infused into the article stub. And, I wonder how AI factored in so easily here? I know that another Wiki contributor wrote the standard for these dogs, I only wonder why the page had three short paragraphs about one of the rarest dog breeds in the world? Just a curiosity.

Please advise as to what I need to do. I have a lot more material to bring this artiicle up to the standards of the Rough Collie, which I sort of used as a template. Philbutler (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

While awaiting your response to my previous message, I studied a little further into the “Agility and dog sports” question, and wanted to share what I found.

That section wasn’t AI written. It was paraphrased from my own book and from info by Astrid Collett, who is a well known Cretan Hound trainer and competes in agility. She even contributed to parts of my book, so the background is pretty solid. The link I meant to use is not dead, it’s here: https://www.kretahund.de/videoclips/index.php. If you look there you’ll see “Agility” is the actual subheading, even in German. That’s why I used the English “agility trials.”

On the AI point — I get where you’re coming from, but the tools aren’t really reliable. They throw up false results all the time. A study out of the University of San Diego Law School — AI Detection Tools are Unreliable (2024) — goes into this in detail. There are also other pieces, like Northern Illinois University’s AI detectors are an ethical minefield, that show the bigger problems (ethics, legal stuff, etc). In the end Wikipedia is about whether content is verifiable, not about guesses on how it was drafted.

That said, fair point on tone and sourcing. I’ll rework the section so it reads drier and more encyclopedic, and I’ll add inline refs from kennel clubs, the AKC agility overview, Collett’s work, and my own book (which has ISBN). That way it ticks all the boxes.

I really just want to improve coverage of this breed. It’s one of the oldest and rarest in Europe and deserves more than a stub. I’ll do the new draft in my sandbox so we can review it before it goes back into the main page.

Thanks again for taking the time to flag things.

–– [[User:Philbutler|Philbutler]] Philbutler (talk) 05:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, point taken about AI detection tools – unfortunately AI-generated content is a problem we're only beginning to have to deal with here, and long stretches of unreferenced and unencyclopaedic text ring the alarm bells. Our articles are (or should be) written in a formal, neutral (aseptic, even boring) tone without promotion or advocacy of any kind.

Wikipedia – in theory, at least – welcomes contributions from experts (usually academics); but do please read about WP:conflict of interest – you probably should not be posting content from your published work, either with or without citations to it. Sourcing is not always easy: breed societies commonly make exaggerated claims about the animal they're try to promote, and the AKC is, unfortunately, frequently a far from reliable source (they think the Maltese went from the Ancient World to China and back to modern Europe, for example); websites such as nationalpurebreddogday.com should simply be avoided (I've removed that from the page). Good sources are often either articles in peer-reviewed journals or books from established publishers; if in doubt, advice is available here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Just another quick note: to be a reliable source, a book needs to be published by a reputable publishing house; self-published works are not useable as references. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Good morning from Crete. I was not exactly sure how to do this, but I hope you can take another look and use the material I have created. I went over all of it, changed some things, and deleted any reference to my book. As I told you earlier, self promtion is not my goal here. I have some more images being submitted by dog owners here on Crete, which will further help people discover these fine dogs. Anyway, thanks very much for your guidance, and if I need to change anything else. I am eager to do so. Here is the link to my sandbox and the revisions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philbutler/sandbox Philbutler (talk) 10:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind advice. I am working on an improved version in my sandbox. If the conflict rules make me out of bounds, I will exclude the reference to my own book until it meets the requirements. I learned a lot trying to figure out what I'd done wrong. Initially, I was on my ear a bit because I have been so passionate about these wonderful dogs. One problem is, so few people in the world even know they exist, so references are usually web based or, as you suggest, not really authoritative. I have some from my book that you'll see in the next version that are unimpeachable (if nearly impossible to translate with my very limited German etc.)

Anyway, once again thanks for the helpful push. I am testing all the sections against several AI tools. Unfortunately, most of these tools sell "Human" revisions for those seeking to avoid the AI use brand. Working on some wonderful images of different specimens now. Always, Phil Philbutler (talk) 12:21, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear Justlettersandnumbers,

I know you must be absolutely awash in edits and other tasks. Please, I have gone over this article again and again attempting to bring it up to standards. A good point I might make is, the original article requested additional sources/information, and I have provided three times the detail that was the original page on the oldest hunting dog breed in Europe. I removed any reference to my own book, which has already been peer reviewed by the world's most famous authority on primitive dogs. I don't want to call too much attention to myself, but it's important to know that there are about 5 people in the world attempting to save an ancient breed from extinction. I am one of those 5. There are fewer than 50 quality specimens of this dog left on Earth. So, please, I hope you will act/help us via the spirit of Wikipedia my friend Jimbo Wales once referred to in an interview I had with him as "The world's largest and most accessible repository of human knowledge." Sorry for name dropping, but I have been a supporter of this platform, and others like WikiaSearch etc. over the past two decades. There are those of us on the fringes of the wiki community who try hard to do the right thing. So, please, take a few moments to think positively about what I am trying to add here. And, if there are a few minor corrections needed, allow the wider community to make those. Sorry, I type too much, way too often. Philbutler (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)