User talk:TheNonEditor

Do you like books?

I like books, yes I do! TheNonEditor (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Advanced Combinatorics (May 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cactusisme was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Advanced Combinatorics 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.

Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 05:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheNonEditor! 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! Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 05:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... Why was my draft "not having reliable sources?" Advanced Combinatorics will be on my math website I made, so that may be reliable enough. Please check other sources. (also, I made the draft from Copilot, the AI I use on my computer, that should be a reliable source!) Also, the draft is Draft:Advanced Combinatorics, sorry if it dosen't work. Also, sorry for maybe being useless with this message. TheNonEditor (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may use LLMs to help with writing material, but you must apply your own editorial efforts to make sure the results meet Wikipedia's conventions and standards. Thinking that Copilot is a reliable source is a major mistake, which means you probably need to revisit that and other aspects of Wikipedia policy, too.

Your draft seems like an essay one might write on a website - I can't quite imagine a class where it would be appropriate. It makes general statements, most of which can probably be supported, but you only have very general references at the bottom. Although general references are allowed, you'll have much more success with reviewers if it is clear where each of your statements is coming from - there should be a clear tie between each sentence and some source that supports it, shown with a footnote.

Also, a website you create is not something you, as a humble Wikipedia editor, would be able to point to when editing Wikipedia. If another editor finds the website meets the requirements for a reliable, published source, they might use it as a reference but you, as the website author, may not. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting me know! TheNonEditor (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i really hope this

You don't have to read or even acknowledge this. I'm writing this in MY talk page, anyway.

I spent an hour on Draft:Path to the Moon (1956 song) and added sources and references to the draft too. If it is declined, which I hope doesn't happen, it's another failed draft from me. I added many references and sources just to make it reliable!

It is fine if it's declined.

TheNonEditor (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

question

What percentage of Wikipedia pages get submitted and made real? TheNonEditor (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Path to the Moon (1956 song) (May 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sophisticatedevening was:

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.

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:Path to the Moon (1956 song) 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.

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Path to the Moon (1956 song) (May 9)

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 appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No reliable or independent sources, and entirely promotional in tone.

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:Path to the Moon (1956 song) 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.

bonadea contributions talk 05:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Even if I put my drafts up for people do see, can they see it or is it just me and the Wikipedia staff to see it? TheNonEditor (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yeah. 74.103.246.236 (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]