User talk:TheUnchozenOne

Welcome!

Hello, TheUnchozenOne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Jeff Johnson (South Carolina politician) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Tacyarg (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: S.C. House GOP (January 17)

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

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:

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

Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

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:S.C. House GOP 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.

Mikeycdiamond (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, TheUnchozenOne! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mikeycdiamond (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: S.C. House GOP (March 12)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, SocDoneLeft, left the following feedback:

This draft appears to be generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You should not use LLMs to write articles from scratch.

LLM-generated pages with the below issues may be deleted without notice.

These tools are prone to specific issues that violate our policies:

hallucinations: they often invent false information and cite non-existent references.
unencyclopedic tone: they tend to be vague, promotional, or essay-like, rather than neutral and factual.
copyright issues: they may closely paraphrase existing text, leading to copyright violations.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

See the advice page on large language models for more information.

This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.

Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers.
Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute.

Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed.

1. Nearly all of the references are WP:PRIMARY. Please provide reliable, secondary (WP:RS, WP:IS) sources for the "background and role" and "relationship" section. 2. LLM authorship. WP:OVERATTRIBUTION. "Broader media coverage has noted" "Covreage also identified". Rewrite to focus on content, not coverage.

Next steps

Edit Draft:S.C. House GOP to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

SocDoneLeft (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Good afternoon,

I wanted to inquire further on why this article is being declined again. I originally wrote this article from scratch in a word document, transferred it to ChatGPT to fix any grammar issues, and then copied it to Wikipedia, where I edited it more. Ive since gone through multiple times and edited the post to take out any bias. I am also a bit confused about why my sources are an issue. I am pulling this information directly from the state of South Carolinas official sites. The reason I haven't used other sources is because there is very little information about the SC republican causes out there, which is my reason for creating this article in the first place. I really want to get this article published, and would love any specific advice on how to do so as soon as possible. Thank you for your help! TheUnchozenOne (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @TheUnchozenOne: I take your point that there's little published information. On Wikipedia, we have to follow WP:notability. Few other articles about state house / state senate GOP parties exist: See List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) and Category:Republican Party (United States) by state, all of which focus on the state GOP, not the state house GOP or state senate GOP.

Perhaps your article's content could be merged into South Carolina Republican Party, especially South Carolina Republican Party § Current elected officials? :) SocDoneLeft (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

My argument to your point about merging this topic into the South Carolina Republican Party is that the South Carolina Freedom Caucus has its own wiki article. There are two separate caucuses under the republican party in South Carolina, but only one is being represented currently on Wikipedia. If the freedom caucus wiki was able to be published into its own article, then the SC House Causes should also be given the same opportunity. Many of the SC freedom causes sources are news article about different controversies or political decisions. If I add more news articles as sources to my post, would that make it so that its considered notable on your end? There are plenty of articles that I can use about my topic; I just wanted to use the most reliable sources possible which is why Ive been pulling directly from the States official sites. I appreciate your help and advice and want to be a better Wikipedian. TheUnchozenOne (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes! News coverage makes something notable. SocDoneLeft (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for your help. Ive gone through and made a few more edits and added additional sources in the form of new articles. Are you able to review this article again to see if its ready to be published? TheUnchozenOne (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles