User talk:Jacktherabitt

August 2025

Hello, I'm Jlwoodwa. An article that you recently made, Draft:Thomas G. O'Neill, seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or another application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. In particular, you should check each citation, and fictitious references must be removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jlwoodwa, thank you reading the content. I wrote all the original content/biography. My concern was the strict rules surrounding neutrality and sourcing, and ensuring the article would not be rejected. Therefore, I tested and edited it through AI. Though, as noted, all content was originally written by me with my minor AI edits to ensure neutral language. I can re-edit it so everything is clearly my first-hand writing. Is this a solution? And thank you for your swift response and feedback; it is much appreciated. Best wishes, Jacktherabitt Jacktherabitt (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two fictitious references in the draft. I recommend eliminating or rewriting everything the AI introduced – AI can have subtle errors and hallucinations along with the obvious ones. In the future, please know that running a draft through AI rarely (if ever) makes it more suitable for Wikipedia. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi jlwoodwa, Thanks again for your feedback. I have gone through and edited all the text. And I have checked the sources and made a number of changes to improve them, i.e. more third-party references. If you have time, please let me know if the problems you identified have been resolved. Much appreciated, Jacktherabitt Jacktherabitt (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, Jlwoodwa. I have to re-review all the writing. I am a bit confused by the references as all 37 references were added by me and I consider them proper unless I am missing something. Note- I am a notive to this, so I am learning, and will adapt and work on the entry. I appreciate for your help. 2003:F1:C72C:C8D1:F1EF:9C9A:17ED:B631 (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas G. O'Neill (September 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon 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 people). 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.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is written from the viewpoint of the person who is the subject of the draft, focusing on what the subject or their employer says about them. Biographical notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject.

This draft does not establish biographical notability. See also Wikipedia is not for resumes. You may ask for advice about biographical notability at the Teahouse.

This page appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than to describe the subject neutrally. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

If this draft is resubmitted without being reworked, it may be nominated for deletion. You may ask for advice about the tone of articles at the Teahouse.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Thomas G. O'Neill and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jacktherabitt! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]