User talk:KylieTastic
|
If you have a general question it may be quicker to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or Click this to start a New Question here |
|
AfC Drafts NOTE: To be fair to all submitters I do not review/re-review on request, I just pick new and old submissions at random... Current Backlog: 1,001 pending submissions |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Question regarding AFC Helper script.
[edit]Is it showing up on sandboxes for you? It is only showing on articles in draft space for me. Shadow311 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Shadow311, yes - my last review was one. KylieTastic (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Draft: Matthew Duran
[edit]Hello, KylieTastic. This page is being developed. Would you be able to rescind your rejection please? Ingenierofilantropo (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Ingenierofilantropo It's not rejected, just declined. You can improve and resubmit. All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). So at the moment not even close to showing notability and most claims unsourced. KylieTastic (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you so much! Ingenierofilantropo (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Conclusions on drafts
[edit]Hi Kylie, I noticed that you removed a "conclusion" section from an AfC draft for the obvious and sensible reason that encyclopedia articles don't have conclusions. However, since LLMs are completely obsessed with adding inappropriate conclusions, could I ask you not to do that, to make the AI slop easier to spot? I know, I know, it's a bit ABF, but... -- asilvering (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- I hadn't considered those as a tell, I usually go by the odd formatting, missing or junk sources and the general writing style. They are also a feature of COI editors "conclusion I'm great!". I'll keep it in mind. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, in the case I just saw (now WP:G11'd), it was both. A bingo! -- asilvering (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
The Draft:Arjunavivaha is now made redundant by Arjunawiwaha, so it should be deleted now itself, so please do that now. 117.245.96.129 (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is a redirect and not only are redirects cheap but it allows any of the editors who had worked on the draft to find the article if they wish to continue working on the subject there. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
You can delete this page
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_storms_named_Patty
It's not needed anymore. I accidently made a request to resubmit it. YoyoIveGotXP (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is a better page for it so feel free to delete it.
- I have already made a draft page for Rafael since it might get used for the 2024 season. YoyoIveGotXP (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_storms_named_Rafael
- Here it is in case if it gets used for this Atlantic Season. YoyoIveGotXP (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see the page is already deleted, so you either found the {{Db-author}} tag yourself or an admin happened to notice this post. It is looking possible a Rafael may appear soon. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Gikku Jacob Peter
[edit]Any suggestions on how to get this page approved?
I have added the links to the news articles, Malayalam film industry page links, and others in the latest submission. It would be good if you could let me know if more reliable resources and references are needed. DhanasreeShylendrakumar (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi DhanasreeShylendrakumar, all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). You currently have 3 sources: the first is good by just 2 sentences; the second is just a basic listing; the third is just a mention. So notability of the subject is not shown yet. The next problem is most of the claims are unsourced and for WP:Biographies of living persons this is a bigger issue. Lastly, it's not written from a WP:Neutral point of view with 'puff' words such as talented, substantial, "diverse and accomplished", vibrant that should not be used unless. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)