User talk:Anthony Fanning

Welcome

G'day Anthony Fanning, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects. Wikimedia Australia your local chapter organises editor training workshops, meetups and other events. If you would like to know more, email help@wikimedia.org.au.

If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location-based notices, you can add location userboxes to your userpage.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, try the Wikipedia:Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Some other resources to help new Wikipedians include:

How to edit a page

Editing tutorial

Picture tutorial

How to write a great article

Article titles

Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! Kerry (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inline references

Hello, and thanks for your recent article creations, such as Anthony Saverio Appleton. You might find it useful to read Help:Referencing for beginners, which explains how to add inline citations to articles. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The referencing seemed to work for the previous two articles. Will fix this one up asap! 122.150.244.119 (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Anthony Saverio Appleton

Hello, Anthony Fanning,

Thank you for creating Anthony Saverio Appleton.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Notability is very thin here. There doesn't seem to be any quality independent sources covering him in any dept as a notable figure in history?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Aszx5000 (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aszx5000: Thank you I will work on your recommendations. ~~~~ Anthony Fanning (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve James Simpson Love

Hello, Anthony Fanning,

Thank you for creating James Simpson Love.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please do not cite Wikipedia as reference per WP:NOTASOURCE policy and avoid using AI tools for writing Wikipedia.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Agent VII}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Agent 007 (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Simpson Love moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to James Simpson Love. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text and several sections core very highly on the AI detector at https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector . 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. Northernhenge (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Anthony Saverio Appleton

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Anthony Saverio Appleton 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you cited a book "The Rise of the Queensland Outback" supposedly published by the University of Queensland Press in 1982. UQP ain't a small press. My battered paperback copy of Illywhacker has the UQP wordmark on it. It would probably only a few seconds to look up what date it was reprinted, via its printer's key. As for "The Rise of the Queensland Outback" - this book hasn't ever existed, has it? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of John Joseph Fanning

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John Joseph Fanning 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you have changed the sources almost entirely. I'm sort of at a loss as to how the page was so incorrectly sourced in the first instance, and wonder if you might be able to help me understand what went on? Are you using a large language model at all to write your articles? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a large online scrap book that has taken many years to collate and new to this so I didn't know how to reference. I'm quickly learning how to use it. Thanks Anthony Fanning (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That doesn't really explain the implausible references to irrelevant sources in the subsection Akbar and the 1911 Delhi Durbar in this version, which you have replaced by a single reference in this version. Why did you include the irrelevant references in the first place? If you are using a large language model or AI chat bot or similar to help you write content, please don't - they often invent content, or emit prose that is not backed up by the sources you use. For help with citing sources, WP:CITE is a useful read. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the "Akbar and the 1911 Delhi Durbar" section, I have nearly 30 references (27 actually) so I will have to revisit that section and update it. It has really been trial and error but I think I'm getting the hang of it. Thank you for your attention and collaboration. Anthony Fanning (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd always recommend picking the best three reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject, and trying to write the section from those, rather than trying to stitch together a patchwork of passing mentions. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Akbar story is quite an interesting one from nearly 115 years ago. Stitching together the journey of the horse and the different accounts is the story. The story has been lost over the years and there is a statue in front of Brisbane City Hall memorialising it that nobody has pieced together comprehensively. I will take your advice and appreciate the input. Thanks again! Anthony Fanning (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound an interesting story. But be careful that it does not violate Wikipedia's policy that forbids original research, which you may be getting close to. You must base articles on reliable published sources. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of James Atherton (pioneer)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on James Atherton (pioneer) 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the references and re-entering them. Would you mind bouncing the article back to draft please? Anthony Fanning (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar (horse) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Akbar (horse). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though this article suffers from the same problems as many of your others. Rather than nominate it for speedy deletion, I thought I would give you the opportunity to fix the references. I have seen in other articles that you have used things like Family Collection (Private Archive) as sources, and wanted to remind you that source material must have been published, and that you should cite them in as much detail as possible. It is helpful to include quotes from sources that you only have in hard copy and that don't exist online, e.g. old newspapers. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'm double checking the references, removing them and re-entering them. Anthony Fanning (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that the Walers book had an incorrect ISBN. I think that this might be a better citation:

Yarwood, A. T. (2015). Walers: Australian Horses Abroad. Melbourne University Publishing. ISBN 978-0-522-86890-6.

And I note that Google Books offers a preview, which helps verifiability. When you cite a book, it's always best to include the particlar page or pages that support the article content, rather than just cite the entire book. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the tip! Anthony Fanning (talk) 10:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Joseph Lowth moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Thomas Joseph Lowth. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it consists of machine-generated text. 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Atherton (pioneer) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to James Atherton (pioneer). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it consists of machine-generated text. 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. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]