User talk:ChrysGalley: Difference between revisions

 

Line 176: Line 176:

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Thanks again, and happy editing!

[[User:GoldRomean|GoldRomean]] ([[User talk:GoldRomean|talk]]) 20:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)</div><!–Template:AfC accept–>

[[User:GoldRomean|GoldRomean]] ([[User talk:GoldRomean|talk]]) 20:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)</div><!–Template:AfC accept–>

== November 2025 ==

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/ChrysGalley|your contributions]] to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from [[:Draft:William Tudor (surgeon)]] into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia’s content (here or elsewhere), [[WP:Copyrights|Wikipedia’s licensing]] requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).{{pb}} When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]] at the page into which you’ve copied content, disclosing the copying and [[Help:Link#Wikilinks|linking]] to the copied page, e.g., <code>copied content from <nowiki>[[page name]]</nowiki>; see that page’s history for attribution</code>. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{tl|copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.{{pb}} Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at [[Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia]]. Thank you. <!– Template:uw-copying –> [[User: Tenshi Hinanawi|Tenshi!]] ([[User talk: Tenshi Hinanawi|Talk page]]) 00:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alphonse Steinès, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ahn.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ChrysGalley, for the review. In light of the concern that parts read like LLM/AI output, I have rewritten the draft by hand for a neutral tone, clarity, and verifiability. Key changes:

• Neutral, human-written prose – removed evaluative/advertising wording and rephrased into plain descriptive statements supported by sources.
• Sourcing tightened – the lead and core claims now rely on independent, higher-quality sources.

I have a declared COI and I am working to keep the draft strictly compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOTPROMO. Further suggestions are welcome; I’m happy to adjust any specific sentences or sources. Thanks again for taking another look. Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, and I have had a look. I removed the YouTube link, since it appears to be under the name of the abbot, as a personal site, and promoting his work, rather than belonging to the monastery. This then poses copyright restrictions – who owns what material? So to avoid difficulties it is best removed. If the monastery had an official channel under its own name that may well be different.

The Social work section looks a little promotional, but also has pile up on 5 references – it’s best to have say 2 references there and cut it down to the best representatives. It’s not a major issue though, just my view.

At this stage I think it is best another editor has a look at this. I can see it has gone in the right direction, but the article is now best served by another reviewer looking at this. Thanking you for your patience in the mean time. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you – I’ve noted both points.

The statements in the “Social work” section have been trimmed and the citations reduced to three independent sources.

If anything still reads promotional or over-cited, I’m happy to adjust further. Many thanks for the guidance. Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ChrysGalley! I’ve carefully refined the draft and added the Facebook page to the external links. When you have a moment, could you please take another look and share any feedback? Your experience would be very valuable in helping me improve the article. Thanks and best regards. Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I have released the article into mainspace. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @ChrysGalley very much for reviewing the article – your consideration gives me more motivation to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Sincerely! Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 10:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrysGalley, could you please take a look at the AfD discussion for Chùa Phổ Lại? I’m not sure why the article was nominated for deletion and would appreciate your view on whether the reasons are well-founded. Thank you very much for your time. Nguyenngocthanhtoan (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrysGalley, I’ve made the changes you recommended on the Ecocem Wikipedia Submission for your review. Really appreciate the detailed feedback you provided and that you went the extra mile to provide specific instructions. Really helpful, thank you. Mkellyecocem (talk) 10:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrysGalley, thank you very much for your review. I note on our published article there’s a tag at the top that states “This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia’s content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.(November 2024)”

Are there any steps that we can take so the article complies with Wikipedia’s content policies and remove the “It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia’s content policies, particularly neutral point of view.” part or is this something that will always live there as it was created by an employee of the company itself?

Thanks again for your time. Mkellyecocem (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice. The banner stays there until other editors, independent of the company, make sufficient changes that your text isn’t critical any more. As I am sure you appreciate, this is now in the public domain and now your ability to edit the article becomes quite limited – it is now over to independent editors to update, so long as there is a reliable source. You can use the Talk page to mention things or ask for corrections, but then it is up to another editor to take it onboard. It would not be unusual if some of the text ends up mentioning some negative aspects of the company, for example. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jenny Wynter – Thanks for your comments ChrysGalley – I’ve (hopefully) addressed the points you raised. Thanks for the specific suggestions. Love your work. Jonmwilson (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Fionn Laird – Hello ChrysGalley, I really appreciate the thoughtful pointers. Let me know if the changes I provided help the draft. Kurze343 (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank @Kurze343, that’s much better. Please submit again. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks again. Kurze343 (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @ChrysGalley, thanks for reviewing the article. I have not used LLM at all when drafting it. Can you please explain what I can edit? It is already the 4th submission and previously the issues were only related to some additional references that I have since taken out. Best regards, Ana

Anasophiesh (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How did you get the phrase “Muhannad Shono’s artistic practice investigates the persistence of ideas and the power of imagination to shape reality” ? I don’t see any wording like this in the two sources? The sources are supposed to support that quote. I actually agree the subject is notable, and that the sources are OK. So it’s now just the text, the earlier work that you did was useful. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. This is actually from a talk the artist gave. If that formulation needs a quote, then maybe I can rephrase it to “Muhannad Shono’s artistic practice examines the power of ideas and of the imagination to shape reality.” Would this work? Thanks so much. Anasophiesh (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for your response. This goes to the heart of the sourcing issue. If he said that then he needs to be quoted or paraphrased, and critically, the fact added that he said that. Moreover it needs to have a reliable source to the quote/paraphrase. The two sources that were used don’t say that, hence the problem. So either your wording needs a source, or you find something similar from the two sources that cover similar ground. This is all due to the fact that this is a living person, so they could sue if we get this wrong, or object to the wording. But that is unlikely to happen if it was sourced to someone else who was considered reliable. And that applies throughout, we need a fairly close tie between statements and source. This approach is less rigorous with deceased people or if the statement is routine.

You would be on stronger ground, for example, if you said the subject’s works: “pushes boundaries and invites the spectator to reimagine the relationship with culture and identity”, to take one possible example, since you have a clear source to that.

The other approach is to be a little less specific or shorter when starting the article, other editors over time will find more sources to get to probably somewhere close to where you are currently. The notability comes from just a few of your sources (e.g. the French award and sourced by the SPA) so it may be a case where “less is more”. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good, thank you very much! Will edit accordingly and resubmit. And well understood about the wordings needing a source.

ALl best, Ana Anasophiesh (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrysGalley, Thanks very much for your review on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Southern_Arterial_Route

I’ve drafted it further and added many new secondary sources which I believe firmly establish the notability. If you’re able to review it again through the difference between revisions I’d greatly appreciate it.

I’m unfortunately not very familiar with the etiquette around talk pages, please feel free to give me feedback for in future.

Thanks,
Jake Jakecopp (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will look at it properly later today (in the UK) and I will revert with comments. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And now released. Thanks for this article @Jakecopp, which is, to say the least, very well documented. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jakecopp (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I wanted to let you know that I’ve declined your G15 speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Brad Owen (poker). G15 does not apply to all articles written by an LLM such as ChatGPT. Rather, G15 only applies to LLM-generated articles without reasonable human review, as evidenced by communication intended for the user, implausible non-existent references, and/or nonsensical citations. Although I may have erred, I did not see these signs and thus, have declined the speedy deletion. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that @Significa liberdade. But to give one of several examples, in the section “Owen is primarily known as a cash game specialist, having progressed from low-stakes games to high-stakes sessions. He has played in notable cash game venues including Bobby’s Room at the Bellagio and regularly participates in high-stakes games at The Lodge Card Club.” The only source given is:

https://jonathanlittlepoker.com/wph-471-146800-brad-owens-biggest-ever-pot/

The text of the source, which is somewhat doubtful as RS, certainly makes him out to be a high stakes enthusiast but does not support the quote. But Co-Pilot comes up with this wording regardless.

That said, I certainly recognise this falls into “maybe yes, maybe no”. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand your concern! However, this doesn’t fall under the guidelines “implausible non-existent references” or “nonsensical citations”. The citation is live and adjacent to the content, even if it does not verify the information. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filling in the refs for Draft:Momentum Worldwide. I’m still waiting to see if the editor wants to add more info before submitting. I pinged them but they didn’t respond. In the meantime, I use reFill but it isn’t always accurate. Your references look way better, and you included the archived links. Do you use a tool? I’m working on a document to help new users with connected edit requests, and one step is to show them how to do referencing without the drudgery. See User:STEMinfo/COI edit requests. I’m always looking for ways to improve it. STEMinfo (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello there and thanks for the reply. No I don’t use a tool, I just have a blank text template of my personal minimum standard, it’s in my sandbox as it happens but it would be more efficient if it was in a text file. For things like The Guardian or the New York Times I have semi-prepared templates to make it easier still. So when I have the source open I just quickly rattle down the items and fill them in “by hand”. If you have the source open and you are programmed as to what comes next, it really doesn’t take long. The exception is Wayback which is soooo slow but I set that off first in another window, and by the time I’ve filled in the other items it’s possible that I have a Wayback link ready (sometimes). I participated in some RFD discussions a few months ago where link rot had made an article non-notable and there were LLM suggestions as a result. Those articles have now left the building purely because of that, since all the Delete non-votes had been cast before I realised what had happened. They were BLPs so I didn’t lose much sleep, someone will recreate those articles if it’s that important. But then I read about another editor who had a disabled son, and she explained how important “language=es” and “trans-title” were for adaptive technologies. Many of my favourite subjects (not media companies!) are offline book based so it’s even more important there.
• So I think your guide is going to be useful, since it is a bit of a wall to climb, for new editors. My only comment would be that while you give a quick way for basic referencing, and gives a link better than a bare URL, it’s still someway short of what I personally would like to see. One thing you could add is a paragraph after that explaining that there are benefits in filling in some more details, since it would be a pity if link rot undid the hard work of editing, a few minutes with Wayback can keep an article alive for the foreseeable. And perhaps add a link or example to what full details look like for any enquiring minds. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the detailed info. I was hoping you’d been using a specialized bot, since filling out refs is one of my least favorite tasks, but it’s a necessary one. I’m familiar with archive.is (or its variant archive.ph) to make paywalled content accessible, but will look at the Wayback machine. Not sure which is faster. Using reFill may actually wind up taking more time, since you don’t know what format the resultant ref will be delivered in, and you still need to cut and paste to fill it out. When I get time, I’ll add more info about the importance of referencing, such as for accessibility as you mention. I think I can make a case to new editors that if a COI request includes a nice fully formed ref, the volunteers are more likely to be willing to help implement the request. In the meantime, I added one of the refs you filled in for Momentum Worldwide to my user page to help me remember what fields to include. STEMinfo (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Draft:William Tudor (surgeon) into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia’s content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia’s licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).

When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in an edit summary at the page into which you’ve copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.

Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]