User talk:Writingflows321

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bobby Cohn were:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:AI Tools for Wholesale Sourcing on B2B Sites 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.

Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Bobby! Thank you for taking the time to review my article. I am a little lost in regards to the same comment about how it is reading like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. I took out all promotional and subjective phrases making sure that every single sentence was attributed to appropriate secondary sources. I am not sure why I am still getting the same comments about it reading like an essay?

I have read other Wikipedia articles and find that this reads just like them, so if you could kindly clarify what do you mean when you say it sounds like an essay?

If there are any unreliable secondary sources, please flag. There are no opinions in the article, I am not sure what that is referring to? Every single sentence is attributed to a secondary source with extensive attention paid to wordings to avoid any promotional, or non-neutral langauge.

I have not used any LLM's to write the article, if anything if it sounds like its written by an LLM its because I had to edit it extensively to take out any language that Wikipedia would deem not neutral, so if there is vaugeness it is because I am trying to follow your neutrality standard. What can I do to improve the article according to Wikipedia standards? Writingflows321 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Applications of artificial intelligence, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I fixed it, please check. Writingflows321 (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Writingflows321. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Drop shipping, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Writingflows321. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Writingflows321|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Sam! Thanks for your message. I am, in fact, not being paid for these edits to Wikipedia. I am contributing to pages that are focused on e-commerce and technology because it is an area that interests me. If you notice, my edits never mention only one company or one topic, for that matter; they revolve around the evolution of technology, AI, and their impact on e-commerce activities.

I am new to Wikipedia, so I am a little disappointed with this message because now it seems to be discouraging me from making additions to Wikipedia articles. I always try to make sure any edits I make add value to the article. If you feel I have failed in that endeavour, please enlighten me. Writingflows321 (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure: Enlightenment. Please do not make any further promotional edits that you have conflict of interest in. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, noted. Writingflows321 (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell us why you removed that paid-editing-disclosure from your userpage? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Writingflows321, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Readingcues (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2026 (UTC)