User talk:Weilandofthefree

Your submission at Articles for creation: TJ Beisner (June 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jlwoodwa was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way to do it 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.
jlwoodwa (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Weilandofthefree! 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! jlwoodwa (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: T. J. Beisner (June 29)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanilla Wizard was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way to do it is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This page appears to be AI-generated. Some of the sources cited don't actually exist, others don't verify the claims being made, others are duplicated references. I can't approve a page with hallucinated citations.
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.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: T. J. Beisner (July 21)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Grahaml35 was:
Nothing was changed from previous reviewers regarding AI-generated content. Only a single source formatting was changed before it was re-submitted.
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.
Grahaml35 (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Weilandofthefree, 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 Houseofsteves (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. S0091 (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: T. J. Beisner (October 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please 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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
some of the sources are hallucinated because of AI
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notes. It appears some of the articles originally cited have been removed by the websites, so I replaced them with other news sources. Weilandofthefree (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]