User talk:Tmcfarlandpr

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Welcome!

[edit]
A plate of chocolate chip cookies.
Welcome!

Hello, Tmcfarlandpr, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Tmcfarlandpr. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your username suggests that you are here as "T McFarland PR" and are paid to edit here. I am about to ask you a formal question about that. It will appear in another section. The question must be answered, please. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Tmcfarlandpr, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz: Belated thanks for getting back to me. I am taking all your advice into consideration. I am new to creating a Wikipedia page. While I've tried to absorb all the guidelines and regulations, I suspect I may be a bit out of compliance on some. To that end I could use help with the following:
- I don't have all the ciatations and links I think I should.
- Have I provided too much information that isn't relevant?
- My "conflict of interest": I run a small Public Relations firm, and The National Eagle Center in Wabasha, MN is a paying client. Preston Cook donated his Eagle collection to the Center. Cook, and was the initiator of the National Bird Initiative. My content is the result of researching Mr. Cook, and this issue, which obviously involves talking to him. Can you help me on the proper way to disclose this relationship?
- Finally, while the Preston Cook entry isn't finished, do you think it's ready enough to submit for approval, with the assumption that it will be DECLINED with specific changes noted, as opposed to REJECTED with no recourse?
I look forward to your response. Thank you. Teresa McFarland. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz: Thank you so much for your comments. I am obviously new to creating a Wikipedia page, so I could use all the help I can get. I want to address the observations you've made so far and come to an understanding. Are you the person I'd work with in the Teahouse? I hope so, because I'd love to work with the same person moving forward so I can avoid missteps, follow the rules, but also explain what we want to communicate. Please advise. And thank you! Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liz: Again, thank you. Is there any chance you can be more specific, and point to areas I need to revise? Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:National Bird Initiative, from its old location at User:Tmcfarlandpr/sandbox2User:Tmcfarlandpr/sandbox2. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 16:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to me. As a novice creator I'm slightly confused. Does this mean that it's being reviewed, but I can still provide edits? Or does it need more editing before it can be reviewed? Thank you! Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is not currently being reviewed. I have just moved it to the draft namespace for the reviewing script to work properly. You are welcome to continue working on it as you would like. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 19:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. One last question: I'd like to submit it for review now, AND keep the option of continuing to edit. Can I just hit PUBLISH? Thank you again. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are welcome to continue editing after submission. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 21:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for bugging you, but I have one more question regarding a 2nd article I wrote back in January that I thought I had successfully submitted for review back then. Here is the link: Draft:Preston Cook. I worry that I also mistakenly put this in the DRAFT format but never formally submitted (although I did ask about its progress and received a response that didn't sound generic). Did I do this one wrong as well? Can you confirm one way or the other? Please advise. And, again, thank you so much. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that one is submitted correctly. The queue is a little long right now (3,200+), but it will get reviewed soon. Although I will say that since the Preston Cook one is a biography of a living person, it is held up to higher standards for sourcing, and I noticed multiple sections have no citations at all (each paragraph should have at least one in it), just to save some headache in the future. Cheers, Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 21:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the confirmation, and the heads-up on the citations. I will get on that. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Preston Cook (June 2)

[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 Timtrent were:
This is three articles in one. You need to decide what it is about, and to consider creating three articles because we need 'one-article-one-topic':
  • Preston Cook
  • National Bird Initiative
  • Preston Cook American Eagle Collection
Please read WP:YOUTUBE to understand the very restricted circumstances in which Youtube may be used as a reference
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.
🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Bird Initiative (June 8)

[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 Ca were:
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:
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.
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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Majority of the article lack 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.
Ca talk to me! 15:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Bird Initiative (July 26)

[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 MediaKyle 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.
MediaKyle (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I find this somewhat discouraging. I've worked through three revisions with a Wikipedia reviewer to make sure I have cited sources that are reliable, verifiable, in-depth, and secondary, including independent and respected news outlets, links to official congressional sites, and legitimate NGOs. Here is the last comment from that reviewer: "The draft looks much better now--I recommend re-submitting it for review. I suggest just a few finishing touches." I addressed the finishing touches. Of course I understand the reviewer's recco that I re-submit is no guarantee of acceptance. SO, I will do the work to get this approved, however, it would help if you could offer specific examples where you think I've fallen short, either in the references themselves, how I created them, or where I need more. Help, please. Thank you! Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Preston Cook (July 30)

[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 RangersRus 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 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.
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.
RangersRus (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I feel like my mistake is I buried the lede here, because I don't mention why Preston Cook is noteworthy until the INTEREST IN EAGLES header. where I explain that his journey and accomplishment received SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE in multiple reliable national and international sources. . Should I move that to the top? I mean, he discovered the omission that the Bald Eagle wasn't the official national bird, wrote the legislation, found the congressional co-sponsors, and created the movement that ended up getting his bill signed into law by President Biden. He pursued this because of his deep interest in eagles - as witness by his 40,000 piece collection of eagle artifacts, memoribilia, and historical items, a collection now on display at the National Eagle Center. I sequenced the article this way because I was encouraged by an earlier reviewer to break up my first article into three - Preston Cook, National Bird Initiative, and Preston Cook American Eagle Collection. Was that my big mistake here (among other smaller ones)? Please help, thanks. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Preston Cook has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Preston Cook. Thanks! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon if I'm being redundant, but I have made what I hope is the necessary compensation disclosure on my user page. I saw that you flagged the draft for being written by an undisclosed paid contributor. Can that be removed now? If so can I resume editing? Thank you. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]
Information icon

Hello Tmcfarlandpr. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Tmcfarlandpr. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Tmcfarlandpr|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this reminder. I have not edited any further, though as you'll see I did respond to your other note. I will do the necessary. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Information icon

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Tmcfarlandpr, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Tmcfarlandpr|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of doing the necessary. Thank you for the reminder. And I apologize for not doing this sooner. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. The process is not hard. The first notice contains explicit instructions. I suggest most strongly that you do this now, at once 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just published a first draft (possibly acceptable) of my disclosure using the template you suggested. Now on the Tmcfarlandpr user page. Does someone review and approve/decline this? Again, thank you for the guidance, and sorry for the delay. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you remove the verbosity from it and make a separate, simple, declaration for each item you are paid to write. We require facts, not PR stuff, in declarations as well. What made you think we required explanations? The fields are clear in the template. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will un-promote the language and pare it back to the basics. There was a "more information" box that I thought might help add context. But now I know better. Again, thanks for the guidance. Sorry to be such a pain. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my being redundant if you saw my first message regarding this.
I have made what I hope is the necessary compensation disclosure on my user page. I saw that you flagged the draft for being written by an undisclosed paid contributor. Can that be removed now? If so can I resume editing? Thank you. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your disclosure has been noted on the paid for drafts. You have complied with the notice, albeit in a a promotional manner. Wikipedia does not allow promotion anywhere. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am plowing forward, I hope with your continued guidance. In my latest edit I've removed promotional language (including in the compensation disclosure statement), eliminated the two sections flagged for having no references, cut out citation-overload, addressed the few specific items in red, and continued to pare down the content to that which is most relevant to Mr. Cook's worthines for inclusion. That said . . . I"m still baffled by including biographical content that's so old there are no secondary sources available - like association and board memberships from decades ago. Or, because they're stated as facts, and there's a higher standard for living people bios do I cut them out as well? Sounds like the answer is, yes. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My guidance has reached its limit. See below. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bye. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Preston Cook has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Preston Cook. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know this. I have not gotten to it yet. In my last "publish" note I asked that there be no comments as I was not finished. I've been busy with other things. But I know how to remedy this - I admit I'm slow on the uptake. Thank you. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Preston Cook has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Preston Cook. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

As a paid editor you are expected as part of your remuneration to abide by all of the rules. You are paid to discover, learn, understand, and implement all relevant rules, policies, and procedures. Further, you are paid to write neutral and correctly referenced prose which passes these criteria. This is an amateur project. Amateur editors do not generally feel the need to assist paid editors to receive their pay.

I am not averse to good paid editors. If you can write good, neutral, well referenced prose as a draft and submit it for review and acceptance, and receive payment for doing so, then good for you. I welcome you here

However

If you want to use the WP:AFC process to submit your draft more than once, thinking in your error that we will help you get paid, then you have another think coming.

If you are unable to create a draft that requires more than one corrective review, then I do not welcome you here. The only advice I will offer will be within my reviews. I will not otherwise help you to get paid.

If you create your draft as a live article or move your draft to become a live article, then you will discover that this is agaisnt the terms of being a paid editor. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I do not expect and have never considered getting help, assistance, guidance from you - or any other Wikipedia reviewer - as helping me get paid. Let alone hoping you'd write it for me. I'm getting paid a pittance for this, only because Mr. Cook insisted on compensating me for my time. I don't need the money. I am more interested in getting it right, and unfortunately I find some of the instructions conflicting and confusing. So maybe I'm slow, and I'm working it out slowly. To your credit I've gleaned enough info to work my way to getting it right eventually. As always, thank you, especially for your important parting warning. And frankly I'm as relieved that you've begged off as you must be. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral on this, not relieved in any way. You need to do more, and do it better, and ask less. Pay is pay. Your pittance may be another's fortune. Wikipedia is not about PR. It is about good research and good writing. Why does Cook want an article here? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Way back in the Spring I submitted my first article which focused on the National Bird Initiative. That's what Cook asked about, not an article on himself. MY mistake if I said Mr. Cook asked if I would write about him specifically. He asked that I write about the effort - because it's a noteworthy, but little known event in our country's history going forward. Your first response in June said I needed to break it up into three separate pieces because it wasn't focused. One of those pieces was (as you suggested) about Preston Cook. I realize I ask too many questions, but clearly this has been harder for me than I thought. Yet I've been respectful, grateful, even apologetic in my comments because I know I wasn't "getting it", though I was trying. You, on the other hand, may think you're being neutral and "not relieved in any way" but your later comments reveal your impatience, your frustration, and attitude - like "your pittance may be another's fortune" - an unnecessary, patronizing, and personal value judgement. And you told me "you're "not welcome here" if I don't get it right the second time around. So be it. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving payment. That payment includes learning how to get it right by your own paid for efforts. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Preston Cook has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Preston Cook. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:National Bird Initiative has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:National Bird Initiative. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Bird Initiative (August 15)

[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 Theroadislong was:
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:
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:
the issues have not been addressed.
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Preston Cook has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Preston Cook. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:National Bird Initiative has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:National Bird Initiative. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Preston Cook has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Preston Cook. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Preston Cook has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Preston Cook. Thanks! CNMall41 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Bird Initiative (October 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 Carolina2k22 was:
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:
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.
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.
Carolina2k22 • (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Preston Cook (November 4)

[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 ChrysGalley 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 is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Of the 14 sources, only two work correctly. For an article amended in the last few weeks this seems odd.
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.
ChrysGalley (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I respectfully have to say I am so, so discouraged. Please bear with me on this . . . If you track back on this entry I started writing it back in January, and have put it through an arduous (though admittedly not always correct) process of revising and editing and proofing according to reviewer comments and guidelines. My point is, this entry is so totally NOT AI or Chat generated. Also, through all the reviews this is the first time I've been told only two of my sources work correctly. AND I did not amend this in the past few weeks. I'm not sure how that shows up I LITERALLY submitted it months ago and was patiently waiting for a response. And now it's fast-tracked for deletion?? And it no longer appears on the draft page? I will admit I am clearly not good at this, but cheating is something I've never been accused of. Though I've clearly failed at writing this properly, Preston Cook is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. I will appeal the deletion, hopefully successfully, and plow forward. Tmcfarlandpr (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, as a paid editor, your pay is to learn how to do this. Please see above where at least my attitude to editors receiving payment is explained. There is really only just so much guidance you might expect fro this amateur project. If Cook passes WP:BIO your job is to prove it. Asserting it is insufficient.
To attract the attention of another editor, please read Help:Notifications, because I very much doubt they will see this message without using the system.
@ChrysGalley, I wonder if you would enter into a conversation with this editor, noting their WP:PAID declaration on their user page. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the ping @Timtrent and hello @Tmcfarlandpr. Yes my job as a reviewer is more about sources than content. So with every review that I undertake, I check every single source for a range of things, such as "is it reliable?", "is it really an advertisement?", "is it proving the point made in the article?". That's the time-consuming part. Now this article was last amended/submitted just over 8 weeks ago, there were 14 links in the article, which is about the right amount, incidentally, and 12 links went to 404 (so the site did not have content for the incoming URL) and a few did not resolve at all (so the URL didn't work on the website's structure). One of the two that worked I recall was from a government site under the wrap of Amy Klobucher, and the other was also a government site.
Now if it was one or two such issues it would probably be something known as link-rot, and I would either fix it myself, or mark it with a maintenance tag or just move on if I was being lazy. But when 12 out of 14 links do not work then I've run out of bandwidth to do much, and truly other editors should not be wasting time on that article either. For a paid editor this is invariably the sign of LLM, it is certainly the sign of someone not checking their own submission. I am definitely not accusing you of cheating, I imagine you worked very hard at the wording and structure, and for a new editor it is genuinely quite hard at the start (and I wince at some of my earlier contributions too). Using LLM on sources and/or article text is extremely common these days, it is not actually banned, let alone seen as cheating, but it does mean that the submitted article must be rigorously double checked. Being paid means, whether you like it or not, that yes I do expect your efforts to be better at checking than my efforts as a volunteer.
This isn't an arbitrary bit of rule enforcement, Wikipedia has a reputation to maintain, and it's actually in your subject's best interests that anything that is published, or not published, is done on the basis of checks and quality controls. For Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons then this critical since get it wrong and we could all get sued. See also WP:FAQAS since in many cases having an article can be a liability to the subject - the article when published is then open to other people to edit and to put criticism of the subject there, though of course this would also need to be backed by good quality sources that work.
Where you are now you I think you now have 3 options. One is to simply start again with a new draft. The other is to appeal the deletion. The third may be easier, a policy known as WP:REFUND which is where you can apply for an article to be put back into draft, this process is less debate-ridden. I have no idea which is best or will work here. Note that for any such biography you need to get over the notability hurdle set out in WP:ANYBIO and in particular clear WP:BASIC, which is much harder than it looks. Regardless of what has happened in this decline, sometimes there are a few knocks on the road, and we all live and we all learn. Strangely enough it was @Timtrent that did something similar for me quite recently. Editing does actually get quite enjoyable when the results look good, but as you probably appreciate, always check them sources! I am here for any further questions that you may have. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ChrysGalley. The level of detail in your response was more than I could ever have hoped for.
It is worth adding that while ChrysGalley nominated the draft for speedy deletion, they are not judge, jury, and executioner. Their nomination was vetted by CactusWriter, who accepted the nomination and deleted the draft. I have always believed that speedy deletion should be a 'two key process' and it was; it isn't alwasy so. You are always welcome to ask the deleting administrator to expand on their rationale. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Preston Cook

[edit]

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 Draft:Preston Cook to request its speedy deletion, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia and output must be carefully checked. For further information, see the section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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 it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. ChrysGalley (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tmcfarlandpr. The Draft:Preston Cook has been deleted for exhibiting signs that the text and sources were generated using an AI model. (i.e. a score of 75% by ChatGPTZero and 12 of 14 references linked to 404 errors.) However, the page is eligible for a WP:REFUND. It can be restored to the draft space if you want to edit the article in order to correct the noted problems. If you wish to do so, please make a request on my talk page. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]