User talk:Alexagoodwin: Difference between revisions

Line 142: Line 142:

When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. [[User:Wikishovel|Wikishovel]] ([[User talk:Wikishovel|talk]]) 16:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

{{checkuserblock-account|sig=[[User:Ponyo|<span style=”color: Navy;”>”’Ponyo”'</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style=”color: Navy;”>”bons mots”</span>]]</sup> 20:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)}}

<div class=”user-block” style=”padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid var(–border-color-base, #a2ab91); background-color: var(–background-color-warning-subtle, #fef6e7); color:inherit; min-height: 40px”>[[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]]<div style=”margin-left:45px”>You have been ”'[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]”’ ”'[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]”’ from editing for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|abusing multiple accounts]]. Note that multiple accounts are [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses|allowed]], but ”’not for ”[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|illegitimate]]” reasons”’, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors|reverted]] or [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5|deleted]]. </div><div style=”margin-left:45px”>If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia’s [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!– Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. –><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>.  [[User:Ponyo|<span style=”color: Navy;”>”’Ponyo”'</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style=”color: Navy;”>”bons mots”</span>]]</sup> 20:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)</div></div><!– Template:uw-sockblock –>

Hello, and welcome to my talk page!

If you’d like to leave me a message:

Please sign your posts using ~~~~ so I know who wrote it and when (see how to sign your posts).
Start a new section for a new topic by clicking here → Leave a new message.
I reply **here on my talk page** to keep conversations in one place, unless you request otherwise.

I’m a new contributor to Wikipedia (joined August 2025) and I am contributing to articles related to healthcare technology and administration. This includes topics like practice management software, which sits at the intersection of healthcare, business operations, and public policy. I am particularly interested in how these technologies interact with and are regulated by government agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to administer public health programs.

My goals in this area:

Create and improve articles related to the systems that support the healthcare industry.
Ensure information about health IT standards and regulations is accurate and well-sourced.
Highlight the role of technology in the administration of public health programs.

If you have suggestions, edits, or concerns about my contributions:

For more about how Wikipedia works, see Wikipedia Help and Manual of Style.

Thanks for visiting! I look forward to collaborating with you to improve Wikipedia.
— Alexa Wilson.

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

“Replace with independent coverage; company site alone is insufficient.”

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.

Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alexagoodwin!
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! Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Jlwoodwa. An article that you recently made, Eligibility verification, seemed to be generated using a large language model (an “AI chatbot” or another application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. In particular, you should check each citation, and fictitious references must be removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jlwoodwa. Thanks for your review. I will review and update the content of the page. Alexagoodwin (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Eligibility verification. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it consists of machine-generated text and the only reference is about a different subject (eligibility for a health plan, something else entirely) which pretty much proves that the whole thing is LLM-generated.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page.
When the article is ready for publication, please click on the “Submit the draft for review!” button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Pichpich (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:TechMatter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (an “AI chatbot” or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., “Here is your Wikipedia article on…”), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., “Up to my last training update …”), self-insertion (e.g., “as a large language model”), and phrasal templates (e.g., “Smith was born on [Birth Date].”)
Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.

Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, 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 deleted 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. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at the Teahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

As I told you on the Help Desk: “you need to add reliable sources to all the statements that currently lack them.” You have not edited the article since then.

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.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 17:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pigsonthewing, I just wanted to clarify a few things.

The topic Coordination of Benefits (COB) is directly related to the Medical Billing and Insurance category. I understand that biographies and similar subjects require strong secondary reliable sources, but in this case COB is a technical and widely used concept in health insurance.

In my draft I did include multiple reliable references, for example official government sources like irs.gov, which I believe qualify as reliable per Wikipedia’s standards for official documents. If those aren’t acceptable, I’d appreciate guidance on which types of sources are considered valid for this kind of technical/industry-specific topic so I can revise properly.

My intention is to make the article accurate and well-sourced, not promotional. Please let me know which parts need stronger citations and I’ll be glad to fix them. Alexagoodwin (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say the citations need to be “stronger”; I said the parts with no citations need to be cited. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy’s edits 17:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Let me review and then submit. Thanks Alexagoodwin (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is your user page generated by AI? Hussain Romuzi _{Nothing to see here…} 23:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

really? Alexagoodwin (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on TechMatter requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Wikishovel (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to TechMatter. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply