Jump to content

User talk:Enigmainkwell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Enigmainkwell, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Enigmainkwell/sandbox, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! jlwoodwa (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Enigmainkwell/sandbox

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Enigmainkwell/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was insanely crazy and weird. I just created the account about an hour ago and I am reading and learning as I go along in the "sandbox" environment. Why would you delete my "sandbox" where I am supposed to learn as I read the articles and learn what to do? I just learned how to make a heading and paragraph. Give me a moment to learn. Enigmainkwell (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, but please be civil. Many new editors use their sandboxes as if it were a web-hosting area for something they wrote; under criterion U5, if they've made no other edits, those pages can be deleted. I added a tag to your sandbox saying that it met that criterion; an administrator saw that tag, agreed, and deleted it. You can always recreate your sandbox, or if you want its previous contents back, you can ask the deleting administrator. You can also use the Wikipedia:Sandbox for experiments. Now that we've had this discussion, your sandbox shouldn't be deleted again. I apologize if this interrupted your learning. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Configa (March 24)

[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) 05:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Enigmainkwell! 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) 05:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Configa (April 2)

[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 AlphaBetaGamma was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
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.
AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 07:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your user page may not meet Wikipedia's user page guidelines. It is intended for basic information about yourself, your interests and goals as they relate to editing Wikipedia, as well as disclosures of conflicts of interest and paid editing. Although a lot of freedom is allowed in personalizing your user page, it is not:

The user page guidelines have additional information on what is and what is not considered acceptable content. Please use your user sandbox or the draft article space to practice editing or to create new articles. Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Configa has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Configa. Thanks! bonadea contributions talk 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Configa (April 8)

[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 Bobby Cohn 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.
Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing my draft article on Configa. I respectfully disagree with the assessment that it was generated by an LLM. This article was carefully crafted to:
1. Present verifiable facts from reliable sources, with each claim properly cited
2. Use formal, encyclopedic language without promotional terms
3. Organize information chronologically in standard Wikipedia format
4. Include only information that can be verified through the cited sources
All references are genuine and can be verified. The subject is a real British hip hop producer with documented collaborations with notable artists like Arrested Development and Chuck D, and has published academic work on hip hop culture.
I'm happy to address specific concerns about any particular sections or claims in the article. Could you please provide more specific feedback about which aspects of the article triggered the LLM detection, so I can address them directly?
Thank you for your consideration. Enigmainkwell (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Configa (April 11)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The draft is a mess, visually and structurally. Please don't submit drafts that are this difficult to read – Wikipedia can't possibly publish a text that's almost unreadable, it does not benefit the reader in any way. There's a huge number of sources, but many (most, in fact) of them are unreliable or otherwise inappropriate and must be removed. Such sources include (but are not limited to) Apple music, Bandcamp, and other music streaming or hosting websites; websites hosted by Wordpress and other self-publishing platforms; Medium, IMDB, and Discogs.
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.
bonadea contributions talk 11:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
```
Thank you for the review feedback regarding notability standards and source quality.
Regarding your characterization of the draft as "a mess" and "almost unreadable" - this assessment is puzzling and below the standard of professionalism expected from a Wikipedia professional. The draft used standard Wikipedia formatting with clear section headings, consistent paragraph structure, and proper citation formatting. Such subjective characterizations are less helpful than specific structural guidance.
I will address the notability concerns by focusing on independent secondary sources that provide substantial coverage. The subject has received coverage in established publications including People Magazine, has been featured on BBC Radio programs, and has academic credentials with published research through Loughborough University.
I'll remove references from streaming platforms as suggested, though I note that many existing Wikipedia articles on musicians routinely use such sources for basic discography information.
My next submission will be more concise while maintaining proper encyclopedic standards. I appreciate constructive feedback that helps improve the article's quality and adherence to Wikipedia policies.
``` Enigmainkwell (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a "Wikipedia professional"! For the third time: look at the draft and fix the messed-up formatting. A few days ago, you were given specific feedback about this in a comment on the draft itself – it's not a subjective characterisation, and it's probably what gave another volunteer reviewer the impression that the draft is LLM generated.
What is your connection to the person the draft is about? --bonadea contributions talk 17:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your continued review of this draft. I'd like to address several points with reference to Wikipedia's policies:
: Regarding formatting: I've carefully reviewed the draft and will make necessary corrections. However, I note that Wikipedia's Manual of Style (WP:MOS) offers specific guidance on article structure, which I've attempted to follow. If there are specific formatting issues, direct identification would be helpful per Wikipedia's own feedback guidelines (WP:CONSTRUCTIVE): "Comments should be specific and clearly identify the problems they're addressing."
: Regarding my connection to the subject: I hereby affirm that I have no personal, professional, financial, or legal relationship with Andrew "Configa" Laidlaw, any business entities associated with him, or any organizations he is affiliated with. I am not employed by, related to, or personally acquainted with the subject of this article. I am simply a fan who discovered his work through his collaborations with the music group Arrested Development, whose music I have long appreciated. My interest is purely that of an enthusiast of hip hop music seeking to contribute knowledge about a notable producer to the encyclopedia. Under Wikipedia's own policy (WP:WHOCARES), "Wikipedia doesn't care who you are, only what your sources say," and I am committed to sourcing all information properly.
: This declaration is made in good faith and with full understanding of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy (WP:COI), which states that "Editors with a COI should be treated with assumption of good faith." I have no vested interest in the subject beyond my appreciation of his musical contributions.
: Regarding the inconsistent rejection reasons: This draft has received three different rejections with shifting rationales. Wikipedia's Article Creation process (WP:AFC) states that "Reviewers should provide specific, actionable feedback" and "Reviews should be consistent with policy." The progression from alleged LLM generation to formatting issues to notability concerns represents inconsistent evaluation standards. After each rejection, I've made good-faith efforts to address the specific concerns raised, per WP:LISTEN ("Consider whether, and how, you might respond to the legitimate concerns").
: Regarding communication style: Wikipedia's Civility policy (WP:CIVIL) notes that "Wikipedia members should interact in a respectful and civil manner" and "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Terms like "messed-up" without specific guidance could be considered unhelpful under WP:POLITE, which encourages "being respectful and civil in discussions."
: At this point, I am formally requesting a new reviewer pursuant to Wikipedia's policy on Second Opinions (WP:SECONDOPINION), which states that "Any editor may request a second opinion on any AFC submission." Furthermore, WP:HARASS indicates that "Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with others" and that "Harassment in any form is unacceptable." I believe the current review process has become counterproductive, with vague criticisms and shifting rationales creating an unwelcoming environment contrary to Wikipedia's Friendly Space policy (WP:FRIENDLY).
: I respectfully request that this discussion be tabled while I seek a new reviewer through the appropriate channels as outlined in WP:AFCHELP. I remain committed to creating a high-quality article that meets all Wikipedia standards and will address legitimate concerns in a collaborative environment that adheres to Wikipedia's foundational principles of assuming good faith (WP:AGF) and maintaining a supportive community atmosphere (WP:COMMUNITY).
: {{ping|bonadea}} Enigmainkwell (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I usually ignore LLM generated comments, I'll respond to this one. In what way is it looks like you have been trying to create headings and sections by using hash tags. Please go through the draft and fix this – the Manual of Style describes how. not specific? And why do you now suddenly claim not to be connected to the person, after having explicitly claimed to be in contact with them a couple of weeks ago? --bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the formatting issues. I should clarify that on April 8th, I received multiple comments and the rejection notice simultaneously. I mistakenly used hashtags instead of the Wiki markup with equal signs for section headings. The error occurred because I was more familiar with Markdown formatting, which uses hashtags for headers, rather than Wikipedia's specific syntax. I've now corrected this by implementing proper section formatting outlined in the Manual of Style (= for main headings, == for sections, === for subsections). As a new Wikipedia contributor unfamiliar with where to look for all reviewer comments, I overlooked your specific hashtag formatting note. It was a simple human error, not disregarding your guidance or an LLM model. That said, oversight doesn't justify the dismissive language used in subsequent communications ("messy," "unreadable"), which created an unnecessarily difficult and strained environment for a first-time contributor attempting to learn Wikipedia's systems.
Regarding your question about my connection to the subject, I categorically state that I have no personal, professional, financial, or legal relationship with Andrew "Configa" Laidlaw, any business entities associated with him, or any organizations he is affiliated with. I contacted him solely for image permission as explicitly required by Wikimedia Commons procedures. COM:OTRS mandates that "If you are not the copyright holder... you must obtain permission from the copyright holder" and "The copyright holder must send a message to permissions@wikimedia.org." This mandatory process for image permissions is entirely separate from article creation and is a standard procedure followed by thousands of Wikipedia editors. Per WP:COI, conflicts of interest involve "yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or financial relationships" - none of which apply in this case. Furthermore, WP:WHOCARES states that "Wikipedia doesn't care who you are, only what your sources say," emphasizing that article evaluation should focus on content quality rather than contributor identity.
As a first-time Wikipedia contributor, I've found the review process challenging. The feedback has shifted from LLM-generation concerns to formatting issues to notability questions, making it difficult to address all concerns systematically. I've attempted to implement each round of feedback in good faith, consistent with WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith) principles.
I've substantially revised the article to address formatting problems, removed unreliable sources as identified in your feedback, and focused on establishing notability through independent secondary sources as required by WP:N and WP:RS. I've also shortened the article considerably and eliminated any promotional language per WP:PEACOCK guidelines.
If you feel my revisions still don't meet Wikipedia's standards, I respectfully request specific guidance on the remaining issues or consideration of my earlier request for a different reviewer, as provided for in WP:AFCHELP and WP:SECONDOPINION.
: ~~~~ Enigmainkwell (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmainkwell&oldid=1285512259"