User Talk: ChrysGalley

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(20d)
| archive = User talk:ChrysGalley/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 100K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}{{Archives|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90}}


{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=360
| archiveprefix=User talk:Chrys/Archive
| numberstart=1
| maxarchsize=75000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| archivebox=no
| minkeepthreads=3
| minarchthreads=1
| format= %%i
}}

Article Creation

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2086003048}}
Hello, User:ChrysGalley,
I am a new user on Wikipedia ↗ I want add more articles related to history prefer Punjab ↗. I am using AI to find detail can i convert it to human write or write myself.Please help me in this situation.
Thanks,
Regards Prabhbajwa0 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

:@Prabhbajwa0 - The problem with those two articles - Draft:Hamir Singh of Nabha ↗ and Draft:Jaswant Singh of Nabha ↗ is that they are very clearly 100% LLM in origin. There is no evidence of a human re-write other than one or two words swapped over. LLM is not your friend. What we have found, in a recent survey of this, is that LLM kind of contaminates articles, you can't just alter what LLM has done, it take so long that you may as well start again without LLM. See also this essay WP:BACKWARDS ↗. And you may want to initially amend existing articles to get practice, but do this editing without LLM. Don't worry about how your English looks, that is very easy to fix, LLM is a nightmare to fix.
:Here is how I write a new article (it's hard work, by the way). I find say 3 good sources. Yes you can use LLM just for that task, but the danger is LLM puts some obscure rubbish as one of the 3 sources just because LLM is lazy and it's the first thing they find. I use Google, my university library and WorldCat a lot to find sources. So I then read those sources, perhaps twice. What you were doing was letting LLM do that reading for you, and that's wrong. Having read the sources I then put them out of sight and write some bullet points, maybe three bullet points, maybe ten, depending on how detailed the sourcing is. You don't want too many bullet points, you are just summarising the information. Being bullet points you don't need to worry about language. Then I open the source again and double check what my summary says is close to what the source said, to prevent errors. The old guide of Who? What? When? Where? Why? - that has its own article: Five Ws ↗. With that in mind the bullet points should be easy.
:Here is a recent example of my bullet points (though I wrote them on pen and paper originally)
:a) She was born x, she married in y to z. She died in 1922 and is buried in Hampstead Cemetery. She had one son, also a writer.
:b) She wrote x books, the one most known is book z, translated into n languages, and a school text book in the UK until 1940.
:c) She found out her husband was stealing her royalty payments in 1899 and divorced him for adultery, though she confirmed in 1920 that there was no adultery.
:d) Her book z dealt with European history in the Middle Ages, it has been out of print since 1960. It has been more recently criticised by historians, for focusing too heavily on certain areas of Europe to support her narrative.
:Now if I did that to the other two sources I would quickly have 3 summaries in bullet points, probably some overlaps. Then I can shuffle the bullet points around to get a chronological order, though actually Wikipedia does not require articles to be written like that. Then the last stage, doing the draft, should be quite quick: do the references first, give each one a "ref name=sourceA", then put in the bullet points but this time in flowing English. Then use the ref names to allocate a source to the text. Read up about ref names, it makes life so much easier if you do that early in the process, see WP:REFNAME ↗.
:And to repeat, it's hard work! ChrysGalley (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
:Hi ChrysGalley, thank you for reviewing the draft for Prompt Magazine.
:I have revised the article to make it shorter, more neutral, and more strictly based on independent sources. I understand the concerns about tone, sourcing, and conflict of interest, and I am trying to improve the draft according to Wikipedia’s standards.
:Prompt Magazine is an independent print publication connected to the digital art and AI art field, and it has been mentioned or covered by sources such as Forbes, Ville&Casali, NightCafe and other cultural partners. I would be grateful if you could let me know which parts of the draft still need to be improved, or which sources you think are not strong enough for notability.
:I am not trying to use Wikipedia for promotion; I would like to understand how to make the article neutral, properly sourced, and acceptable for review.
:Thank you for your time and help. Marco pittarello (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Scholarly Primitives

Hello if you get a chance could you look at the current state of Draft:Scholarly_primitives ↗ which you looked at in December. I hope it is now acceptable. many thanks david Dz3 (talk)

Thomas Gamel

Please could you tell me what sufficient sources you have found for Thomas Gamel ↗?

Thanks, GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

:@GoldenBootWizard276 The tag basically says "yes, there is presumed notability" given that some people don't appear to understand NPOL. But with just one source, ideally we would want more. I think the template could be better worded, but I don't get to choose that. So no I don't have any sufficient sources, but that's not what the template is for. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:USPS Postal Cities

Resubmitted draft with improved content

Yes {{ping|Block411}} that is an improvement. Allow me to suggest two more - cut out most of those External links, the first 2 or 3 are OK, the rest are not helping the article, some should just be references to text (as the other commentator has noted). The other thing you now need are some secondary sources - at the moment all the sources are primary. That's OK for verification but for notability we need something like some newspaper/magazine items, academic texts or books discussing the Postal Cities system. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi

Hi ChrysGalley! Thanks for taking the time to review my draft. As a college student, I'm still learning how Wikipedia's editorial process differs from academic writing. I totally understand that replacing an article isn't how it works here. I've left a note on the article's talk page to see if regular editors want to incorporate any of my sources. Have a great weekend! Best, SilentHalo (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

:@SilentHalo - yes that is one approach you can take, and a very good one. But equally read up on WP:BRD ↗ - you are at liberty to go through the existing article and amend what is there now. And in between that approach and your first suggestion is making specific suggestions in the Talk page for the article and then going ahead with them if you don't hear anything after say a week. And there are probably a few other approaches too. ChrysGalley (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

DYK for Norman Balon

{{ivmbox
|image = Updated DYK query.svg
|imagesize=40px
|image class=skin-invert
|text = On 6 July 2026 ↗, '''Did you know ↗''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''Norman Balon ↗''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''Norman Balon ↗''' revelled in his title as the "rudest landlord in London"?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Norman Balon ↗. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (Norman Balon ↗), and the hook may be added to the statistics page ↗ after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it ↗.
}} &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) ↗ 00:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

":Draft:Liptser (disambiguation) ↗" listed at Redirects for discussion ↗

30px ↗
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Liptser_(disambiguation)&redirect=no Draft:Liptser (disambiguation)] has been listed at redirects for discussion ↗ to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines ↗. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 6#Draft:Liptser (disambiguation)}}''' until a consensus is reached.  1isall (talk | contribs ↗) 15:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Renaud Barbaras

Hello there, I am hoping that you might have a look or review the page for Renaud Barbaras ↗. The BLP tag was put there in 2011. I stumbled on the page a few days ago and I have tried to address the issue. I won't say I feel great about my results so far but I think I might have made improvements. I tried to organize the page better and consult the other languages for help. I managed to find two or three secondary sources, but still a lot of the information is reliant on primary sources and institutional pages. I am hoping you might have some thoughts or advice. I'll appreciate any feedback. Thank you. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:@Jeffgriffinsignal - yes I have had a look, and actually I don't think it's too bad, bearing in mind the French Wikipedia entry isn't any better (and now worse on the sources). The criteria English Wikipedia will use here is WP:NACADEMIC ↗ and to my mind criteria 2 is fully met here. Probably criteria 1, 5 and 7 too though the evidence is weaker there. I bet he has some criteria 3 but in common with many French academics they tend not to list their fellow-equivalent memberships whereas the Anglosphere goes mad for them. The key point being, if you delve into the subject specific criteria, is that primary sourcing is often OK for these criteria, a unique carve out from the usual rules. Anyway I've removed the primary tag, which is 5 years old and when there were only 5 primary sources, so that was out of date before you started. If you did want to make further changes then at least to begin with NACADEMIC should be your lode-star. I vaguely recall an interview he did with le Point or l'Express but nothing is coming up when I search for them. In the absence of that, the other area to explore is reviews of his books, that counts as a good secondary source contributor. Thank you for improving the article. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, he does seem to meet all the criteria, except maybe 6. Thank you for this feedback. I feel like it's pretty good. Someone might be able to write it more cohesively. I did kind of wonder if the cited text from his book might be excessive. That's a big excerpt. granted, it's a big contribution to philosophical thought, so I guess it could be argued that since all articles and interviews about him tend to mention his work in that area, it is probably his biggest, and most notable, probably his most cited subject. Jeffgriffinsignal (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norman Balon ↗, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard III ↗ was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Updated

Hi, I have updated the Draft:House of Doriapur ↗ .I re-wrote it. added additional referance as indicated. Can you please re-check . Shwachy (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

:@Shwachy - thanks for updating the article. I generally leave second reviews to another reviewer so that you get the benefit of a fully independent editor. I have left a note to basically say that this article is no longer AI generated, but otherwise it's over to the next reviewer at this point. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you for the review and update. Because standard que takes long should it be move to main or should we wait ? Shwachy (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Well it's entirely your choice, AFC is effectively voluntary (except in a few cases), so you can move it to main. If you do, then it will get reviewed by a different process known as New Page Patrol, of which I am not a member. Their process is a bit different to AFC, so there is a risk that they will bounce your draft back to draftify, or even down for deletion, so that's the gamble you take. Anything going via AFC is unlikely to end up deleted (and won't happen here). ChrysGalley (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Thank you for the clarification. It’s better to wait then. Shwachy (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Dr. Poi Sonai ↗

Hi, please make sure you are checking for copyvio when reviewing. The draft was a copypaste from the subreddit which was linked within. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 01:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:I declined it under WP:RSP ↗ for using Reddit. It was also AI generated, missing NPOV, failed GNG and missing context. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::That doesn't change that you should be checking for copyvio. It's the first QF on the reviewing instructions ↗, that and it was a blatant hoax as well. Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:44, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::I'd prefer you to knock off the passive-aggressive tone, it is unhelpful and uncalled for. I am a volunteer here and if you check my AFC log you will see plenty of CV entries. I suggest you devote your spare time to improving the templates to allow more than 2 decline reasons. The topic was declined, and yes, if you like I will CV every single Insta, Facebook, X, Reddit copy, but that will be as helpful as your advice. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I apologise if I came across that way. I'm just trying to help reviewers understand that they made a mistake and how to recognise it for next time. I hope that it's helped. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Request on 11:29:20, 10 July 2026 for assistance on AfC ↗ submission by ShubhamVermaWiki

{{anchor|11:29:20, 10 July 2026 review of submission by ShubhamVermaWiki}}
{{Lafc|username=ShubhamVermaWiki|ts=11:29:20, 10 July 2026|declinedtalk=Draft:AKGEC_Skills_Foundation}}


kindly remove from the speedly deletion i will review my page again and belive me i wil make all the things correct.
ShubhamVermaWiki (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

:@ShubhamVermaWiki - I hope this wasn't too painful for you, but it was a very long AI written advertisement, not a crisp summary of existing reliable sources. Writing articles is hard work, but it has to be done through human endeavour. I didn't put this through speedy deletion, I am not an administrator. But kindly liaise with Deb by writing to them here: User talk:Deb and hopefully you can work something out. Good luck. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)