User talk:Pythoncoder/Archive 7

Hi @Pythoncoder, the draft for Draft:Ken Chen (biologist) is rejected and recommended to use footnotes for cite. I checked the draft, it is using <ref><Cite></ref> for the faculty link with

in the reference section. What exactly needs to be updated to follow footnotes standard? Or you are talking about something else in the content? Pickwonder (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a good start, but please replace the external links with footnotes as well —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I reformatted the link using the cite web template with title, url and website using | as delimiters in between. Is that what you are recommending? Pickwonder (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

We already have that as part of a larger article, anyway.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi... I am relatively new to this and like some people I've seen above I fell into incorporating some LLM help on generating the citations and adjusting copy for my post on Equilar.

I am happy to take a completely fresh start on a fully LLM-free draft. What I was hoping to check is that the citations I provided at least meet the notability threshold. Specifically, I was focused on the ongoing data partnerships with the Associated Press and New York Times along with frequent citations in independent publications as an authoritative data source on executive compensation.

I've disclosed all conflicts and just want to make sure I have a reasonable foundation for moving forward and addressing the aforementioned issues with the article. Thank you. MCLynch121 (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you please post the citations here since the page is gone? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely, appreciate you taking a look.

New York Times

The Rich Compensation for Being CEO (2025)

A New Measure Shows CEO Pay at Even More Astronomical Levels (2024)

Associated Press

How AP and Equilar Calculated CEO Pay (2025)

Wall St. Journal

Is There a Relationship Between High CEO Pay and Effectiveness (2022)

The Hollywood Reporter

The Hollywood CEO Pay Mega Chart Revealed (2025)

Harvard Business Review

We Know Female CEOs Get Paid More, But We Don't Know Why (2017)

This is far from an exhaustive list of possible citations, but I chose these to establish the following:

- While not necessarily the subject of these articles, Equilar data often represents the bulk of if not the entirety of the foundation for the reporting, including regular annual studies done in partnership with the New York Times and Associated Press (to be clear Equilar is only involved from a data standpoint. There is no editorial control over the content itself).

- In addition to providing data, Equilar is frequently quoted as an expert on topics of executive compensation and corporate governance (see Hollywood Reporter and Wall St Journal articles as examples).

- The Harvard Business Review article is a bit older but I included it to reflect that these types of citations have been occurring for a significant number of years, as well as another case of Equilar research representing the entire news peg for the story. If it would help, there are similar citations going back as far as 2002, I just didn't want to overdo it from a quantity standpoint.

I can include some citations on topics beyond CEO pay if they would be of interest, though the CEO compensation data definitely yields the most substantial citations in independent media because of widespread public interest in the topic.

I recognize these do not quite rise to the level of, say, a full-on feature or profile on the company, but I feel they do clearly rise above the level of citation Wikipedia considers to be trivial according to its guidelines. CEO pay in particular continues to be a highly socially relevant issue for a number of reasons, and Equilar is a frequently cited and quoted authority on that topic across a wide swath of independent media. I believe it is reasonable to the public interest to have a Wikipedia article establishing the nature of the origin of that data.

If there are any particular types of citations missing from the above that would be helpful, I am happy to provide additional reporting.

Thanks for taking the time taken to evaluate the above, and if Equilar is deemed to meet the notability guidelines I would look forward to following all processes and guidelines in creating the article.

MCLynch121 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Shuvasish Bhowmick (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shuvasish Bhowmick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Shuvasish Bhowmick (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, what is your request? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Pythoncoder! Thanks for reviewing my submission for Telna Inc.'s page draft. Could you help me improve it?

I believe to have followed Wikipedia's guidelines in writing this, so could you please help me pointing out what parts are not neutral as they should be and also which of our citations are not trusted fonts? Thank you! Leo Caliri (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This is AI slop. It wasn't written by a human, and it certainly wasn't properly checked before submitting it for review. I would have rejected it, not merely declined it, and proposed it for speedy deletion in accordance with WP:G15. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

What he said. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion! I updated the lead to bold the Latin-script name and moved the Arabic form to parentheses. Yosf22ww (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• Stefan85xx (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Amnis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am reaching out regarding the feedback I received for article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Amnis I have made the necessary changes (company name capitalization, adding more external sources and deleted one section to better match the encyclopedic format). Before re-submitting, could I receive a little bit more in-depth feedback in case the current version still needs some tweaks? Best, Stefan85xx (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Stefan85xx (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure thing, here’s what I found after giving the draft a quick read:

• You forgot to capitalize Amnis a few times. I suggest using your browser’s “Find” feature to find the ones you missed.
• There are several promotional words/phrases that should be refactored to be more neutral. Examples: “advanced expense management tools”, “providing the essential tools to achieve its ambitious growth objectives”, and any use of “solutions”.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:08, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, changes are made. Stefan85xx (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, task is resubmitted. 61.228.75.57 (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, Can you Please help me to review the Draft. Revised draft with a neutral tone, added independent reliable sources, such as PIB, India Today and Times of India. I corrected the infobox and categories. Can you please share your inputs again. AnkushBharadwaj (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, please give me a yes or no answer on whether ChatGPT wrote this sentence from the comment you submitted above: “Revised draft with a neutral tone, added independent reliable sources, such as PIB, India Today and Times of India.” It sounds a lot like something a LLM would write. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, You're right. I did use a tool to help me with the Summary wording, but in Article all the research and sources are my own. AnkushBharadwaj (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, as this is my first attempt at creating an article, can you tell me specifically what about my draft that is problematic that I should edit, other than it showing signs of AI generation? I used chatgpt to get an idea of the wikipedia formatting and coding etc, but edited and/or created the wording, references and citations myself. All the statements made were supported by references and citations. Your guidance is appreciated. ---- Dillon DeCoteau (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I just read the draft again and it very much reads to me like ChatGPT had a larger role in writing it than you’re admitting to here. In addition, I strongly advise against even using it for help with the coding as it tends to make a lot of rookie mistakes stylistically speaking. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:25, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, I am fairly new so this may be a very stupid request. I'm helping to clean up after a user who was using LLMs to mass-rewrite sections of articles, discussed here at WP:ANI § Large swath of possibly loosely reviewed AI rewrites by Bookleo and WT:AIC § yet another large swath of AI edits. That led me to Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI, an article that you accepted at AfC. It is very likely that this article is primarily composed of LLM generated content, given that it was first declined at AfC for having such content and then expanded by a user with a history of LLM misuse. A quick spot check of one source reveals significant hallucinations in the article, which in multiple places portrays the Guardian review in positive terms despite the actual review being almost entirely negative, even scornful. Is it possible/appropriate to re-draftify this article? I don't know how to interpret WP:DRAFTREASON because it is not policy. If you have any suggestions for how to handle this article please let me know. Thanks! NicheSports (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh crap, I was not aware that the user who rewrote the article was also using LLMs (and is now blocked for doing so). There does seem to be a rule against draftifying articles >90 days old, and my draftifying gadget flags the page as such. However, I'm inclined to ignore that here, because (1) I accepted it only a few weeks ago (and Bookleo's rewrites are from a similar time frame), and (2) because the acceptance of the draft was an error on my part. I could send it to AfD, but that seems like needless bureaucracy here. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for handling. Btw were the details left open-ended in that RfC close ever clarified anywhere? I.e. when the clock starts on the 90 day window, etc. Also I glanced at your AfC logs and am distressed at the number of LLM-generated pages that you're seeing! NicheSports (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

how would I be able to write my article in a way that it's not in-universe? shane (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I’d suggest starting the draft with something like “_____ is a fictional spaceship from the Space Battleship Yamato series”. In addition, sentences like “It was originally launched in 1940, and sunk in 1945.[1]” should be rephrased or contextualized so that they don’t sound like they’re talking about historical facts. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean in the actual show this ship is a part of, they did have a flashback scene to the sinking of the Yamato shane (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok I edited the lead is it fine? shane (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t have a lot of experience writing articles about fiction; if you have more questions, I suggest asking the help desk. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I would like to upload an image of the Space Battleship Yamato, for the draft im working on, how could i find if the one i using is a non-copyrighted or non-free image? shane (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If it doesn’t explicitly say it’s public domain or released under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA, you have to assume it’s copyrighted. If it is copyrighted, then you’ll have to wait until the draft is accepted to upload it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

it is copyrighted, i checked the trademark for the series itself (which includes the Yamato) but i cant put copyrighted images into my article yet shane (talk) 12:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi pythoncoder, please could you explain the disruptive post-rejections submissions? Thanks Peterviddle (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

It means you should stop trying to resubmit your draft because it has been repeatedly deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia. Normally I’d say to ask for help at WP:AFCHD, but in this case I suggest that you start over from scratch and rewrite the draft yourself, because the current draft appears to be AI-generated and contains at least one fabricated reference. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

There are no fabricated references! Peterviddle (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Then how do you explain the Financial Times ref that claims to have been retrieved today, even though I just clicked that link and it gave me a 404? It seems highly unlikely that they reorganized their website in the time since you added that reference. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.ft.com/content/0d2b3bf6-812f-11e8-bc55-50daf11b720d

works for me! Peterviddle (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That’s not the same link. The exact text of the link I’m referring to in the draft is https://www.ft.com/content/... — seems like something (probably a chatbot) cut off the full link —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Acknowledged and fixed. Peterviddle (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I’m messaging you because I received alert that my submission was decline. I put it into chetGPT because I do not know how to do the format for Wikipedia. I am just trying to help my friend be put out there so do I need to pay somebody to type it out for me because I don’t know how to I’m not tech savvy I didn’t know having AI help me put it into the correct form was not allowed Yesimmzluna (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not to promote your friends. AI-generated pages may be subject to speedy deletion. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

So my friend cannot have a Wikipedia page about them, but any other famous person can but because my person is not famous, but has 1.2 million streams they don’t qualify that kind of sounds like picking and choosing Yesimmzluna (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn’t care how many streams your friend has (besides, streams are not a reliable metric). What matters is if they’ve received independent media coverage. See WP:42 and WP:NMUSIC —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear Pythoncoder,

I have notes with the new edit copy as well but just wanted to (a) thank you for your careful review and editorial suggestions for revising the article about the Black Belt Community Foundation. I apologize that it took me so long to get back to you as I have been in the hospital for neurosurgery since August and am just now getting back atop of correspondence. Please let me know if other tweaks are still needed, but please accept my assurance that the article has been reviewed and edited, line by line, and is not an AI generated product (did use some Chat GPT help initially to try to improve and streamline the information). I have replaced numerous citations so as to rely on third party, established organic news pieces. In the case of the one Facebook reference use please note that the Governor of Alabama herself chose to use this means to distribute her commendation videos for the work, so it is the best source available. If you click on the link you will see that Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama herself is the one who is speaking in the video about the Black Belt Community Foundation (by name). We consider this instance to be a valid use of Facebook as a reference citation due to the historic nature and fact that the Governor herself was a chief authority involved in census administration in the state of Alabama. Thank you so much D.H. Dharris887 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You are correct that Facebook is an acceptable primary source if it’s an official account. However, the revision you made was revision deleted as a copyright violation. That’s an even easier way to get blocked than copypasting from ChatGPT. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Python Coder,

Thank you for the valuable feedback on the review. Ive made the changes, I did use a LLM more to assist with the code elements for Wiki. I have re-written the article in a formal/neutral TOV.

I hope this new version is more acceptable.

Thanks in advance. Amaru1986 (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Good afternoon. Can I talk/ask on this page about your review? Harold Foppele (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, what’s your question(s)? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Good evening, I have a compliment and some questions.

• First of all, thanks for picking up this article so soon. Some 1.5 hours after submitting, fast work. I saw that you changed opinion a couple of times.
• In your last review you stated: Wikipedia already has an article on quantum mechanics. A simple search gives: Results for "Quantum": 28,224. But this article is about Quantum as an overview together with QP and QM and related issues.If you ment the title does not cover the text, might be a different thing, but thats not what you stated. My hope is to attract also younger readers of Wikipedia by a "Frivolous Approach", see the "Quantum Cheat Sheet". For that reason I also write for Wikiversity.
• You asked if AI is used writing this text. I wrote the text myself in my sandbox, putting together the text and images, those changed while writing the text. When finished, i asked Grok to look at the refs and to suggest improvements. So, the answer to your question is no.

I go by AGF, to me that means to do the best to my abilities trying to improve Wikipedia, not to harm it.

Maybe i see it all wrong, but please comment. Cheers Harold Foppele (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pythoncoder! Thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I saw your note about the references looking unusual. I wanted to clarify that many of these are physical newspaper clippings and documents held at the Jackson Barracks Military Museum Archives, which I’ve consulted directly. I’m now going back citation by citation to reformat them to make clear where each source can be accessed. Thanks for the feedback, I’ll be beefing up the references accordingly.Voxpopuli25 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

All right. Print sources are definitely welcome on Wikipedia; it’s just that because they’re rare (especially in drafts) it raises my eyebrows when they pop up. But your explanation makes sense, so keep on doing what you’re doing. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Pythoncoder. I have rewritten this article and added two sections (Reception and Bibliography) and additional references to strengthen the use of reliable sources. In my opinion, currently the article maintains a neutral, encyclopedic tone. If you still think that the article needs to be improved, please indicate what exactly needs to be done for this. Thanks for attention. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m confused by the claims the bot made about tbe nature of the edits you submitted. Please look at all the changes made since my last decline and tell me: what’s wrong with this picture? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 14:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder I'm sorry, but I didn't quite get your point. The reason for rejecting this article was "Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT". I don't think that's the case. All the information provided in the article is confirmed by sources. I also made a small rewrite to get away from the formalism, if that was the reason. If you think that this is not enough, please let me know in more detail what needs to be done to get this article reviewed. Thanks. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You’ve written a lot here but I still don’t have a clear answer to my main question here. Did you use AI while editing the draft, yes or no? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly is bothering you at the moment. I wanted the article to have the same structure as, for example, Mattermost or Slack. There is not much text in this article to question robotic writing. I have used and taken info only from reliable sources which is easily verified. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

So is your answer "yes" or "no"? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Initially, I used Perplexity to help prepare a draft version of the article and search for sources. Then I checked all the suggested sources of info on my own and made sure that the info was authentic. I also relied on the structure of the narrative based on the example of other articles on this topic. After that, I also manually searched for sources for additional info (for example, the "Biography" section). In fact, the current text is not what was in the draft, it is already a self-written text. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder hello. What further steps are required to publish this article? AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

If the current draft text was indeed human-written, it feels very influenced by influenced by the LLM writing style, and as such, the tone feels off for an encyclopedia article. That said, if you think it’s ready to be published, you can click the “resubmit” button and another user will review it. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Pythoncoder. You recently left a comment on a draft of my article about Nezar Hindawi. I didn't quite understand what it meant. Could you please explain? Algirr (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's just a note to other reviewers that I've verified you're allowed to create a draft in that topic area. Due to past disruptive edits relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict, Wikipedia requires anyone who edits pages related to that topic to have (at minimum) a 30-day-old account with 500 edits. You meet that requirement, so you should be all set. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for explanation Algirr (talk) 18:26, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pythoncoder, I'm writing regarding the Vitaliy Katsenelson draft you declined for AI detection. I want to respectfully explain why I believe this rejection may be in error. I completely rewrote this article from scratch based on independent, reliable sources: * Barron's profile (September 21, 2009) - "Home on the Range" by Lawrence C. Strauss * Forbes review (May 9, 2008) - by publisher Rich Karlgaard * Financial Analysts Journal (2008) - peer-reviewed academic review * The Denver Post (December 18, 2007) - feature article Every fact in the article is cited to these verifiable sources. I did receive assistance with proper Wikipedia formatting and citation syntax, which may have triggered AI detection tools, but all content comes directly from the sources listed. The subject meets notability through substantial coverage in multiple independent publications. Could you please review the actual sources rather than relying solely on AI detection? I'm happy to address any specific concerns about content or sourcing. Thank you for reconsidering. 50.198.195.50 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I read your rewritten draft and it looks like an improvement, but I'm skeptical of your claim that a large language model only provided "assistance with proper Wikipedia formatting and citation syntax". The sentence structure and wikilink usage in the revision I declined strongly point towards prose that was primarily or entirely generated by a LLM.

If you read through my talk page archives, you'll see that I don't use AI detection tools when reviewing drafts. You'll also see that while some mistakes on my part are inevitable given the hundreds of drafts I review each month, but I don't think I'm wrong here. Also, just in case the message I'm replying to right now is AI-generated: please don't do that. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pythoncoder,

Thanks for taking the time to review my draft and for your thoughtful feedback.

I want to clarify that the text itself was entirely written by me — I only used a formatting tool to help with coding. The prose, structure, and wording are my own work.

Would you mind taking another look when you have a chance? Vkatsenelson (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

One more thought: Is the “Articles and Commentary” section appropriate for this page? Vkatsenelson (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, Jan. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm writing regarding the Cosentino Group Draft. As mentioned here after your moderation, the page mentions a fairly well-known company in Spain and worldwide in the field of surface areas. In any case, I followed your advice, removed everything promotional, everything about their brands, and looked for references from highly credible media outlets (I've now included 59 references). I've participated on my user page in the Help Desk, confirmed that it's not a promotional post, and changed everything you indicated. Thanks for that help, by the way. Since you marked the page as "rejected," the Help Desk tells me that only you can unmark it as such and request a review. So, please review the page and ensure it's 100% informative, or at least allow another moderator to review it for publication. Thank you very much! Rahoman (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Rahoman (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I read your draft again; the company appears notable and the promotional language has been toned down, so I’ll go ahead and resubmit it on your behalf for another user to review. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! Rahoman (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pythoncoder, Thanks so much for your feedback and for helping editors like me who are still learning. I really appreciate your time and care.I’m here to grow and improve, and I want to follow Wikipedia’s standards as best I can. If anything I’ve written feels too AI-like or not quite right, I’d be grateful if you could point it out so I can fix it. I try hard to keep things neutral and avoid praise or promotional tone, and I take those guidelines seriously. Thanks again for your support. I’d welcome any tips or suggestions you have. Vodnir (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I hope this meets you well, Draft:X-Dynasty was rejected by you earlier, not going against your authority but I humbly implore you to re-go through the drafted article and you will find out that that entity is notable and was not just mentioned briefly on references,the entity had a dedicated article to it on the reference thus which I consider notable. Thank you. Regards Bhetyic3 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The Metro article reads like AI slop, and the other one looks like an undisclosed advertisement. Neither of those sources are usable. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources#Goals here is the list of generally accepted sources/references here in Wikipedia. Bhetyic3 (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

The list I uploaded above are reputable and Wikipedia perused sources. Thanks. Regards Bhetyic3 (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

With due respect..I suggest you peruse The Metro website and you’ll find out its reliability. Thanks Bhetyic3 (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I just read the page you linked plus both sources. You're correct about This Day; since the article has a profile/interview format, some editorializing is acceptable, but regardless of the article's tone, it would be considered a primary source and so doesn't count for notability. As for The Metro, I perused its website as you suggested, and it's even worse than I initially thought. I found this "article" that is blatantly copy-pasted from a large language model, because they didn't even bother to take out the LLM's intro:

Furthermore, said intro suggests their prompt consisted of text copy-pasted from a more reputable source that they then directed the LLM to rewrite to obscure their copyright infringement. I've gone ahead and added it to the "unreliable" section of WP:RSNG for that reason. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I received notice of the denial of publication on my draft of the page for Todyl, Inc. stating that it looked like AI generated content. This is the same message I received from a prior reviewer. After that I spent at least half a day trying to rewrite the content so that it would not flag again as appearing like LLM authorship. I'm now at a loss as to how to rewrite this content and frankly am very frustrated by these "it appears to be LLM" allegations that are not true but for which I can't prove a negative. I would appreciate it if you would please take a second look at the article and see if you can change your decision. Thank you.

P.S. I'm a college professor. I write in a formal tone. Could that be the issue? Absent.Editor (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m having trouble squaring your comment with the draft’s contents. While you may have revised the text yourself, it still reads like it was AI-generated. The “see also” section linked to a nonexistent article, there are no links to other articles in the body text at all, and many of the sentences are structured in ChatGPT’s “hit you over the head with notability” style where it mentions which source it’s citing in the body text even when that’s not necessary. Care to explain? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

• Jamie at APIContext (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:APIContext (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Your note on my draft stated that it has signs of being generated by an LLM. It was not, I hand wrote the entire revision. I can't speak to the previous draft, but I edited the previous draft pretty extensively.

Can you share any specifics about why you believe it was generated by an LLM? I am happy to revise, but I am not sure what to change since I wrote it all myself (and I am a human!). I would prefer a response on my Talk page. Thanks! Jamie at APIContext (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Jamie at APIContext (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I just read the draft again and now I’m thinking it is legit after all. I’ll go ahead and revert my last decline. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 06:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! You left a comment on the draft page I have written and uploaded and I wanted to respond. I wrote the page myself so I can assure you I didn't use an LLM to write it. I did use one to format the references but that's it :) Could you let me know what made it read as LLM-generated, please? Not sure what changes I can make but happy to make any edits you suggest. Charlottegwf (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was one the fence about whether it was written by a human or not, hence why I left a note to other reviewers that it might be LLM-generated, rather than declining it outright and giving that reason. I recommend adding some more links to other Wikipedia articles. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Ok I will do, thank you very much. Charlottegwf (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This is the page I'm working on creating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Carmine_Sabia. I got as much information as I could from sources and what Carmine has posted publicly. I did use ChatGPT but only for formatting as I have never done one of these before. Are there any tips you could give me? NJHistorian27 (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to Wikipedia.

Now then, I recommend not using ChatGPT even for formatting, because if you scroll down to the references section, you'll see a bunch of errors that it caused. The problem is that the access date (i.e. the date you read the source you're citing — you did read it, right?) is "October 2025" instead of the correct "October ##, 2025". Please fix all of these errors.

In the future, if you find wikicode daunting, Wikipedia's Visual Editor offers a more beginning-friendly experience similar to word processors like Microsoft Word or Google Docs. In particular, you may find its reference-generation tool useful: just paste in a web address, and it'll insert a properly formatted reference. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pythoncoder! Just letting you know that I've declined your G15 tag of this draft. The three ref errors were for references that actually exist elsewhere on the page that actually mention the company. I'm not gonna speedy delete a draft just for having ref errors, something even very experienced editors screw up regularly. Anyhow, please don't take this personally. I see you around a lot and appreciate all your good work. Toadspike [Talk] 16:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Oops! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello @Pythoncoder, Thank you very much for reviewing my draft: Draft:Nika Sandler I would like to clarify that the article text was written entirely by me, not by a large language model. I am a contemporary visual artist working primarily with photography projects, and I aimed to summarize verifiable information from independent publications about my work. All statements in the draft are based on reliable sources, which are cited in the references section. I understand your concerns about tone and neutrality and would be happy to adjust any specific parts that might appear too editorial or promotional if you could please point them out. Thank you for your time, understanding, and for the work you do in reviewing new articles. Warm regards, Nika Sandler ~~~~ Nikasandler (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

(X) Doubt —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Pythoncoder,

I have re edited the draft according to the suggestions you made. Appreciate if you could check and update if it is par with Wikipedia guid lines.

Thank you in advance for the support and your time.

Kaundike ~~~~ Kaundike (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The draft will be reviewed sometime in the next few months, not necessarily by me. I know that may seem like a long time, but Wikipedia is a volunteer project and there are thousands of other drafts in the queue. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pythoncoder, thanks for your feedback and for pointing out the issues. I’ve gone through the whole draft again and rewrote every part by hand. All sources have been checked, and anything that looked unclear or too general was removed or replaced with verifiable references. The article doesn’t include any generated content. I only used a language tool earlier to tidy up the English phrasing. Everything else is my own work, written manually and checked against the cited sources. I’d appreciate it if you could take another look at the updated version when you have a moment.

Best regards, PolanskiW PolanskiW (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m highly skeptical of your claims here. Both your userpage and the draft definitely look LLM-generated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

My userpage is written with the help of an LLM for grammar reasons. I have now rewritten the complete draft with the help of a native speaker. I would like to ask you to check the new draft again.

Kindest regards,

Wpolanski PolanskiW (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@pythoncoder can you look over the article again (Gaspar Van Elmbt)? I hope this time it meets the guidelines you have talked about. I appreciate your contribution. Yours Truly, OpticExlorer. OpticExplorer (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your time! I wanted to express my sincere thanks for your earlier review and helpful feedback on my draft “Sadrolin Tam.”

I have now completely rewritten the article in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, removed all promotional language, and added verifiable references from independent Swedish and Polish media sources (Sydsvenskan, Kvällsposten, Dziennik Polski, etc.).

The structure, references, and external links have also been revised according to your comments. Thank you again for your valuable guidance and for supporting new editors who wish to contribute to Wikipedia in the right way. Kind regards,

Sadrolin (Sadri) Tam Sadri Tam (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I just looked at the current revision of the draft and it still looks like LLM output. Did you use AI in writing the draft, yes or no? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 08:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you once again for your time and review. I would like to add that several of the Swedish newspaper articles cited in the draft (such as Sydsvenskan, Kvällsposten, and Arbetet) are older printed editions from the 1990s. These are preserved in my private archive and can also be verified through the National Library of Sweden’s newspaper archive (Kungliga biblioteket – Svenska tidningsarkivet), which holds physical copies of these publications. The Polish sources (Dziennik Polski, Tygodnik Wielicki) are likewise verifiable through their respective online and print archives. My intention has been to ensure that every reference listed in the article is genuine, published, and verifiable. Kind regards,

Sadrolin (Sadri) Tam Sadri Tam (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello @Pythoncoder, Thank you for reviewing my previous draft and for the feedback. I have now manually rewritten the draft to address the concern about AI-style wording and I have kept all the same independent sources (DFC, White House fact sheet, Africa Business+, Mining Review Africa, Cornell legal analysis). I have resubmitted the draft at Draft:Chillerton_Group_Limited. Could you kindly take another look or advise any remaining changes needed for AfC acceptance? For transparency: I am Angeli Assomull from Chillerton Group Limited, and I have disclosed this affiliation on my user page. Thank you for your time and help. ~~~~ AngeliAssomull (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Stop using AI. Your draft WILL be declined again in its current state. And definitely don’t use LLMs to write talk page comments. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Pythoncoder

I have just edited the draft again with new wording. Can you please advise. Thank you AngeliAssomull (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The “new” revision is obviously still LLM generated. I have tagged it for deletion per CSD G15. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pythoncoder can you please advise how I can make this better AngeliAssomull (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pythoncoder I assure you that I have written the draft by myself. I only used AI to put together the sources together in the correct format but I assure you that the rest has been worded by me based on the sources. Please let me know the best next steps in order to not have the draft deleted. Thank you for your time and guidance. AngeliAssomull (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

The fact that your draft was indeed deleted per G15 would seem to debunk your claims. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Python Coder,

I only used LLMs to assist in the code aspects of the wiki, but I have re-written the article now fully manually and would like you to reconsider the review. Let me know any further improvements I can make. Have a nice day.

Harry3sidedcube (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

1) LLMs suck at wikicode. I suggest using the wp:VisualEditor instead. 2) The draft has abnormalities in its writing style that are indicative of LLM use. Your user page is also clearly LLM-generated. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 12:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Dear Pythoncoder, thank you for the review, but I want to kindly request additional details/advice -

the Wikipedia:Notability (people) clearly states, that a person is notable is: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or", we clearly have this criteria - both St. George's Order of Victory and Order of Friendship (Kazakhstan) are high state awards; also, Politicians and judges [...] or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels - Parliament of Georgia is the supreme national legislature of Georgia and clearly falls under this criteria. Vokaqhf95 (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so the subject appears to be notable, then — but the page still needs some more reliable sources, and there are some parts where the writing is too promotional. You can resubmit once you fix both of those issues. Let me know if you have any more questions. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I added another source and requested an additional review, also removed some parts that might seem promotional. If you could please point at any parts that seem too promotional to you, please tell me and I will gladly rewrite those.--Vokaqhf95 (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pythoncoder, the report is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Vlodiker Chimok / AI. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Pythoncoder.

I have confirmed that my draft (HealthCoreDaily) has been rejected again.

Despite revising and rewriting it to address the reasons you provided (suspicion of large language model-generated content, promotional language, speculative statements, etc.), I still do not fully understand the precise reason for rejection and respectfully inquire.

For reference, the HealthCoreDaily draft was not created using a large language model; I typed it myself. The content was also written based on known facts and reliable sources.

Could you please provide more specific guidance on what aspects I may have overlooked? If you identified issues with particular sentences, paragraphs, or referencing methods, I would appreciate your pointing them out so I can review and improve those sections.

Thank you for your assistance despite your busy schedule. I kindly request further guidance.

Thank you. Psychophysiological86 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Right you are. I can see that you rewrote the draft and it no longer appears to be AI-generated (while we're here, don't use AI to generate edit summaries either). I have changed the decline reason to reflect the fact that the draft needs more reliable sources to establish its notability. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have a question regarding the ‘more reliable sources’ you mentioned. I would like to know whether the reports from Korean news outlets currently included in the draft are not considered reliable sources, or if Wikipedia has separate criteria for judging the reliability of sources.

If there are specific criteria or a reference guide available, I will incorporate that information and improve the content to align with Wikipedia's standards. Thank you for your guidance despite your busy schedule. Psychophysiological86 (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with either news outlet you cited. However, I did machine translate both pages, and the texts appear to be quite similar to each other. Did they both publish (or slightly reword) the same press release? If so, press releases can be cited for uncontroversial facts about the subject, but they don't count towards notability. In general, draft reviewers like me look for at least three reliable, independent, secondary sources. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. Should I find a reliable and independent secondary source, I will respectfully request a reconsideration. Thank you once again for your guidance. Psychophysiological86 (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

you declined this article saying it had shown signs of being LLM generated. It had been extensively rewritten and edited. Can you please point out what element you find issue with?

If it was the inclusion of the redlinks I had not realised that was not appropriate as I thought they were topics which were important to link to and how I had seen it conducted on other templates. All redlinks have been removed.

The overall tone, structure and writing of the article seems to be within the expectations of a good wiki article so I am wondering what the issue is. Should I just write differently or something? Fivelidz5lidz (talk) 03:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

While you may have revised the draft by hand, it still reads like LLM output because its body text is focused on proving how notable the subject is (rather than being an encyclopedia article that demonstrates notability through its references). Take this sentence: “In 2025, trade and business outlets reported additional financing activity and product positioning in the wearables and digital-health market.” What’s wrong with that sentence, and how can you fix it?

(I should also note that fixing LLM output like this will almost always be more time-consuming than just writing the article yourself the first time around.) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, this element was added as I had gotten rid of all other material which could have been deemed to be promotional and focused on notability as that was the failing test on previous drafts.

Fair enough and thanks for the feedback.

I'll do a complete restructure at some point and will factor this in. I had been stressing trying to establish notability too greatly when that should speak for itself in the references.

It's relatively hard to write an objective piece in such a manner stressing the validity of the subject without it sounding jilted.

Thank you for identifying the specific issues of note.I was trying to use other organisation articles as inspiration.

In your opinion are these references enough to qualify for notability?

• "Sahha bounces onto health & wellbeing trend with $1.3m raise". The National Business Review. 25 July 2025.
• "Mental health-tracking app gets backing". Otago Daily Times. 7 September 2021.
• "Sahha、ウェアラブルデバイスのデータから健康状態を分析するAPI". IoT News Japan (in Japanese). 2024.
• "Mental health-improving startup gains funding". Otago Daily Times. 20 October 2023.
• "Sahha introduces Archetypes to simplify complex wellness data". Athletech News. 27 May 2025.

I see the challenges of other AI startup companies that are huge now such as 'Lovable' even passing the notability test. At the same time I have also seen totally dead companies kicking around from articles pre 2010.

The significance for Sahha here is that this is the only company in the health space that creates behavioural data from wearable and phone data that provides the back end to many other companies. I found it challenging to even write on this without it sounding promotional.

I suppose in the sentence you highlighted I would Focus on the above point and refer to how the product prominence resulted in more funding in 2025. Fivelidz5lidz (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have re-submitted my draft after making a more careful attempt for copyediting. Although the draft has not been created through AI assisted tools, I can see that there were sections that looked very vague, and quite generic indeed. I tried to keep the draft only within the in-line sources, and I think now it is much more concrete than before, and that notability is established only through sources. For notability, when you check the draft again, you can see clearly that there are sources that provide an in-depth, reliable, and secondary analysis, and you can also check the Iceland version of Hjallastefnan and Margrét Pála Ólafsdóttir. Chiserc (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve carefully addressed all the feedback on the Sensofar draft, ensuring a neutral tone and referencing multiple independent, reliable sources. Metrology.editor (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi pythoncoder,

Thank you for taking the time to review my article. Please allow me to clarify that I did not use an LLM to generate it, but I understand that some of the claims in the article may sound vague.

I have addressed all the points you raised and rewrote the entire article, which now is more concise and short.

Except for one reference—which is a physical book—the two remaining references now link directly to the specific pages and PDFs where you can verify that the information in the article is factual or at least academically verified.

Regards D◉ppelgänger 21:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I just read through the draft again and I’m not sure what I was thinking the other day when I declined it. Sorry about that. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 07:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for reconsidering the article and removing the AI-generated template from it. D◉ppelgänger^talk 11:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello

First of all thank you for a fast review of the draft. This is the first time I am contributing to Wikipeida and I have a question regarding your feedback "Need at least one more reliable source". The linked references, news paper reporting from Mathrubhumi, and Deshabhimani are two of the leading Newspapers in Kerala, India. To increase the chances of this draft getting approved, could you please give some examples of what would qualify as a good reliable secondary source in this case?

Thank you Emaaus (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The existing sources look good; we just need at least 1 more source like that, please. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response.

I added two more reliable secondary sources. This time included one more main stream news source. Emaaus (talk) 09:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

Can you take another look at the article please? Emaaus (talk) 11:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hia @Pythoncoder. Firstly, you do really excellent work at AfC and we appreciate it!

I've had several drafts declined for LLM usage where the draft author has (via Discord, IRC live chat, AfC HD) told me they did not use an LLM / minimally used an LLM to help write the draft, or through a second review by myself I couldn't see any concrete evidence of LLM usage.

This makes me think you could be a bit hasty when using the LLM decline. I tend to only decline for LLM usage when it is very obvious an LLM has had a hand in writing a draft.

What are your thoughts? qcne (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, as you've probably figured out by now, I don't use AfC and I'm not on the Wikipedia Discord, so I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Some of these editors do post on my talk page (or the talk pages of the drafts they submitted), and I have found that sometimes they are not entirely forthcoming about their actual methods for writing drafts. You're a better AfC reviewer than me, so you're probably right about all this, but do you have any specific examples of drafts you think were wrongly declined? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

A couple I've pinged you at AFCHD before over the last few months, I forget the ones in question, plus Draft:Sam Badi and Draft:Dushyant Dubey which came to my attention the last two days.

Do continue to decline for LLM use when it's obvious, but perhaps if it's borderline check if it meets any other failure reason (notability, tone etc) and then use two decline notices. That might make it a better experience for the newbie editors. qcne (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk page lurker. I'm very active at WP:AIC and figured I'd take a look at these given I appreciate pythoncoder's work. I agree that Draft:Sam Badi was unlikely to involve much if any LLM usage. But it is almost certain that Draft:Dushyant Dubey was LLM-generated. Also see the chatbot response that draft's author left at the end of this edit on their talk page, which they then removed. NicheSports (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Urgh, thanks for digging into that one. I need to stop taking users at face value. qcne (talk) 17:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I also think the Dubey draft was generated using a latest generation LLM. One tell from these newer LLMs is the focus on attribution: "Multiple media outlets have referred to him as..." "multiple media reports mentioned Dubey's age..." etc. Plus you still have some puffery "This event profoundly affected Dubey, motivating him to start initiatives..." and the LLM favorite "gained initial prominence". Also if you're on the fence I recommend quickly checking the draft author's edit summaries and user talk page comments bc I often find that editors who are non-native English speakers will occasionally use their own voice in those, which then removes any doubt about whether an LLM was used for the draft. That wasn't the case here, but I still found something notable in the chatbot response. NicheSports (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I wonder, then, @Pythoncoder, if you just leave a short custom message when declining for LLM usage briefly outlining what you think the LLM tells are? Will hopefully cut down on the amount of authors then asking why it was declined. qcne (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I could support this but am also worried about WP:BEANS. Tough to find the right balance. I am happy to add a third opinion on a draft if either of you ever want. NicheSports (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@NicheSports: Thanks for the additional input here. Another reason I find edit summaries useful when I'm on the fence about whether a draft is LLM-generated is that the "LLM edit summary style" tends to stick out even more than the body text. You are right on the money about why I tend to avoid providing specific information on the specific LLM tells unless specifically prompted — I'd rather not hand LLM users free tips on how to make LLM output harder to detect. I will say that the overemphasis on attribution is one of the most common tells I'm spotting these days, and as such, I added it to WP:AISIGNS. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi - are you able to resubmit the original at Juan_Andres_Caro? It doesn’t let me/I don’t know how. Also the extra links it has are broken. Maybe they work for you? Three of them sent me to broken Puerto Rico based press organizations with errors. I was able to add a politico E&E article to both drafts. Thank you for your help. ArticlePilot42 (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the broken links and resubmitted the draft on your behalf. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh awesome - thank you! @Jherbert3 please disregard. ArticlePilot42 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jherbert3 is the original draft. Jherbert3 are you able to publish the current edits? 15:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC) ArticlePilot42 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The original creator shouldn't need to do anything, since I already submitted the draft for you. For future reference, if you want to notify a user that you mentioned them, you can use the {{ping}} template. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Testing the Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. feature. Made some more edits to the page. Would appreciate your opinion. ArticlePilot42 (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC) ArticlePilot42 (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Submission_template_seems_broken. Yes /v/ will work as well as /b/ in mainspace but it breaks the AfC submission template so it does not get fully categorized. The name in draft was just a temporary. KylieTastic (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know that. I just moved it back. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

No worries - note there is also Template_talk:AfC_submission#Template-protected_edit_request_on_29_October_2025 that may fix the issue but I haven't had time to look properly. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pythoncoder, thank you for your previous note. I understand your concern about AI-generated drafts. This version of the Arina Hosai draft has been carefully rewritten and edited by hand, with AI tools used only as minor reference for style and clarity. All sources have been independently checked, and the text has been refined to ensure neutral tone and accuracy. I would greatly appreciate it if you could review it again when you have time. Daniel Heartfield (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pythoncoder, thanks for looking at the draft. I wrote the Duo Security page myself. I used Word for spell-check, but not an AI writer. My sources are Google search, and it helped me find Reuters, TechCrunch, and the University of Michigan interview. I looked for Gov documents like the FTC, the FedRAMP Marketplace and a company that gave them an award to keep it short and neutral. The decline said it looks AI generated and mentions promotional and essay style issues. I’ll remove the award and read it again to see what else needs fixing. Could you point to a what that read as promotional or vague so I can rewrite that part? But I don’t want to add typos on purpose to make it feel “less polished.” Thanks again for your time, I want to make sure I learn to do this right because I see other pages that would benefit people and have not been created yet.

Julio Fernandez (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I made the updates.

Julio Fernandez (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

First of all, spellcheck use is absolutely okay, and you should never feel like you have to insert intentional typos. I did notice a couple likely-unintentional typos that point to the text being human-written.

However, I have some doubts about your claim that AI was never used in any capacity, based on the presence of a red-linked category, and the initial edit summary and "reviewer note" on the draft's talk page sounding very close to ChatGPT's formula for writing such text. My general advice to all users is to just act like LLMs don't exist when editing Wikipedia.

With that out of the way, I do feel like Duo is quite widely used these days, and there's a decent chance there are enough sources out there to prove its notability, though the current sources do not show that, as they are either primary sources (official website, press release, interview) or routine coverage (reports on Cisco's acquisition). You'll need reliable, independent, secondary sources to get the draft accepted.

Stylistically, the "products and services" section is the one that jumps out to me the most. The start of the first sentence ("Duo’s cloud-based platform helps organizations") feels a bit promotional. Okay, I think I've written enough. Let me know if you have any more questions. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 10:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, very good feedback; thanks.

I was using the Splunk wikipedia page (another company acquired by Cisco) as an example and they have a "products" section; that is why I added it to Duo page. With over 80 external references for Splunk, I see how finding more independents sources improves the content. I'll work on that.

Julio Fernandez (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)