User talk:George.kane.matthias: Difference between revisions

 

Line 67: Line 67:

::Nope, not at all. [[WP:NORG]] requires coverage ”of the organization itself”, not reports it might issue. And please answer my question above about potential conflicts of interest. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 18:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

::Nope, not at all. [[WP:NORG]] requires coverage ”of the organization itself”, not reports it might issue. And please answer my question above about potential conflicts of interest. [[User:Dclemens1971|Dclemens1971]] ([[User talk:Dclemens1971|talk]]) 18:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you. Independent media and academic sources provide significant coverage of the organisation itself, not just its reports, satisfying [[WP:NORG]] and [[WP:GNG]]. I have further updated the article. I have no conflict of interest, other than being an educationalist mapping connections across the New Zealand education sector and working systematically through key figures, organisations, and educational matters. [[User:George.kane.matthias|George.kane.matthias]] ([[User talk:George.kane.matthias#top|talk]]) 19:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you. Independent media and academic sources provide significant coverage of the organisation itself, not just its reports, satisfying [[WP:NORG]] and [[WP:GNG]]. I have further updated the article. I have no conflict of interest, other than being an educationalist mapping connections across the New Zealand education sector and working systematically through key figures, organisations, and educational matters. [[User:George.kane.matthias|George.kane.matthias]] ([[User talk:George.kane.matthias#top|talk]]) 19:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|Speedy deletion]] nomination of [[:Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education (RECE)]]==

[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|left|alt=|link=]]

{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read [[WP:Your first article|the guide to writing your first article]].</p><p>You may want to consider using the [[Wikipedia:Article wizard|Article Wizard]] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}

A tag has been placed on [[:Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education (RECE)]] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under [[WP:CSD#G15|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 model]]s (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 [[Wikipedia:Link rot|dead]] on arrival, [[ISBN]]s with invalid [[checksum]]s, and unresolvable [[Digital Object Identifiers|DOI]]s. 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 [[Wikipedia:Large language models#Risks and relevant policies|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 [[:Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education (RECE)|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:List of policies|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 [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|Teahouse]], and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions.<!– Template:Db-llm-notice –> <!– Template:Db-csd-notice-custom –> [[User:JTtheOG|JTtheOG]] ([[User talk:JTtheOG|talk]]) 19:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi George.kane.matthias! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! JohnDavies9612 (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello George.kane.matthias, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I’ve started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it’s not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. And don’t forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George.kane.matthias. Thank you for your work on Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for your work on this article. Unfortunately, it has no sources and fails to establish notability. I have marked it for deletion, but you can of course fix these issues before it is deleted. Have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, George.kane.matthias. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Marek Tesar, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation‘s terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You have also edited almost exclusively about Tesar, his partner Nina Hood, his journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, his organisation Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia, and Hood’s organisation The Education Hub. If you have a conflict of interest here, you must declare it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. The article now includes independent, reliable sources showing WP:SIGCOV. RNZ and the New Zealand Herald have given national coverage to its literacy and inclusion reports. In addition, peer-reviewed scholarship cites The Education Hub in areas such as curriculum (McPhail 2023, 2025), literacy (Boyask 2023; Fjørtoft 2024), inclusion (Griffin 2025), and pandemic pedagogy (Jandrić 2020). This combination of mainstream media and academic recognition demonstrates clear notability under WP:GNG and WP:NORG. George.kane.matthias (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not at all. WP:NORG requires coverage of the organization itself, not reports it might issue. And please answer my question above about potential conflicts of interest. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Independent media and academic sources provide significant coverage of the organisation itself, not just its reports, satisfying WP:NORG and WP:GNG. I have further updated the article. I have no conflict of interest, other than being an educationalist mapping connections across the New Zealand education sector and working systematically through key figures, organisations, and educational matters. George.kane.matthias (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education (RECE) 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. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]