User talk:ChrysGalley

Article Creation

Hello, User:ChrysGalley, I am a new user on Wikipedia I want add more articles related to history prefer Punjab. I am using AI to find detail can i convert it to human write or write myself.Please help me in this situation. Thanks, Regards Prabhbajwa0 (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@Prabhbajwa0 - The problem with those two articles - Draft:Hamir Singh of Nabha and Draft:Jaswant Singh of Nabha is that they are very clearly 100% LLM in origin. There is no evidence of a human re-write other than one or two words swapped over. LLM is not your friend. What we have found, in a recent survey of this, is that LLM kind of contaminates articles, you can't just alter what LLM has done, it take so long that you may as well start again without LLM. See also this essay WP:BACKWARDS. And you may want to initially amend existing articles to get practice, but do this editing without LLM. Don't worry about how your English looks, that is very easy to fix, LLM is a nightmare to fix.

Here is how I write a new article (it's hard work, by the way). I find say 3 good sources. Yes you can use LLM just for that task, but the danger is LLM puts some obscure rubbish as one of the 3 sources just because LLM is lazy and it's the first thing they find. I use Google, my university library and WorldCat a lot to find sources. So I then read those sources, perhaps twice. What you were doing was letting LLM do that reading for you, and that's wrong. Having read the sources I then put them out of sight and write some bullet points, maybe three bullet points, maybe ten, depending on how detailed the sourcing is. You don't want too many bullet points, you are just summarising the information. Being bullet points you don't need to worry about language. Then I open the source again and double check what my summary says is close to what the source said, to prevent errors. The old guide of Who? What? When? Where? Why? - that has its own article: Five Ws. With that in mind the bullet points should be easy.

Here is a recent example of my bullet points (though I wrote them on pen and paper originally)

a) She was born x, she married in y to z. She died in 1922 and is buried in Hampstead Cemetery. She had one son, also a writer.

b) She wrote x books, the one most known is book z, translated into n languages, and a school text book in the UK until 1940.

c) She found out her husband was stealing her royalty payments in 1899 and divorced him for adultery, though she confirmed in 1920 that there was no adultery.

d) Her book z dealt with European history in the Middle Ages, it has been out of print since 1960. It has been more recently criticised by historians, for focusing too heavily on certain areas of Europe to support her narrative.

Now if I did that to the other two sources I would quickly have 3 summaries in bullet points, probably some overlaps. Then I can shuffle the bullet points around to get a chronological order, though actually Wikipedia does not require articles to be written like that. Then the last stage, doing the draft, should be quite quick: do the references first, give each one a "ref name=sourceA", then put in the bullet points but this time in flowing English. Then use the ref names to allocate a source to the text. Read up about ref names, it makes life so much easier if you do that early in the process, see WP:REFNAME.

And to repeat, it's hard work! ChrysGalley (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi ChrysGalley, thank you for reviewing the draft for Prompt Magazine.

I have revised the article to make it shorter, more neutral, and more strictly based on independent sources. I understand the concerns about tone, sourcing, and conflict of interest, and I am trying to improve the draft according to Wikipedia’s standards.

Prompt Magazine is an independent print publication connected to the digital art and AI art field, and it has been mentioned or covered by sources such as Forbes, Ville&Casali, NightCafe and other cultural partners. I would be grateful if you could let me know which parts of the draft still need to be improved, or which sources you think are not strong enough for notability.

I am not trying to use Wikipedia for promotion; I would like to understand how to make the article neutral, properly sourced, and acceptable for review.

Thank you for your time and help. Marco pittarello (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Request

Thank you for taking the time to review my Draft: Indigenous People's Forum. I would like to clarify that the article was written manually by me. While I may have used AI occasionally for grammar or wording suggestions, the research, structure, and content were prepared by me using reliable, independent sources.

If there are any specific passages that appear to be machine-generated, I would be grateful if you could point them out so that I can rewrite them in my own words and ensure the draft fully complies with Wikipedia's content policies.

I have revised the draft with care and would kindly request that you review it once again when you have the opportunity. I appreciate your time and feedback. Thank you. Vankal (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Vankal - the above response is LLM generated, I know because we get almost identical replies to similar requests from other people who have used AI. It's also what we call a non-denial. You "may" have used AI occasionally - surely you actually know. In any case it's banned in this scenario, you can't used LLM for this sort of editing. Now the good news is that if you rewrite it fully yourself (don't worry about grammar, I don't and no-one is perfect) and resubmit, another editor will review it and come to an independent point of view. What we don't do is tell LLM where LLM has screwed up. ChrysGalley (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Goosebumps🙏 You deserve to be an admin. Thank you and proud of you🙏 Vankal (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that you’re really good to people. You treat everyone with kindness and respect, and honestly, it shows that you’re a genuinely good person. May God bless you🙏 Vankal (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Resubmitted Draft:Night Owl Video, I don't see the issue...

Draft:Night Owl Video

Maybe some phrasing is off, but isn't that true for a lot of published Wikipedia articles? I understand the promotional tone issue, and fixed that. No AI was used. ~2026-40969-38 (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's true that a lot of articles, but actually poor phrasing on its own is not a reason to hold up a draft unless it is extreme. It's just the pattern of stating something via a source is something AI does. AI will cheerfully sau "According to the Washington Bugle, Lincoln was involved in a firearms event in a public entertainment facility", when in fact the Bugle needs only be mentioned as a source. Lincoln was shot, it needs a source, not a source needing a story. If you look at the two Guardian led attributions about the store then hopefully you can see my difficulty here. Now if you can confirm that zero AI was used in any shape or form, nor Grammarly or similar tools, then I can take another look at this for you. If in fact you did accept some assistance then I can also advise you what is the best way forward. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of greyhound racing venues in New South Wales

A tag has been placed on List of greyhound racing venues in New South Wales requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, ChrysGalley. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Requested moves, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft: Francisco Enrique "Jay" Bernardo III updated

Hi ChrysGalley, thank you again for reviewing Draft:Francisco Enrique "Jay" Bernardo III. I’ve revised the draft based on your feedback. I did another source review, added more independent secondary coverage, strengthened the article around the Philippine Star and AACSB sources, and reduced reliance on interview-based material.

You mentioned I could ping you after making updates, so I wanted to let you know the draft has been revised and resubmitted. I’d appreciate any further guidance when you have time. Thank you again for your patience and help. Rmv369 (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Rmv369 Yes, I did invite you to ping me, but I've been offline for a day or so. One of my review team colleagues has had a look and unfortunately there is not enough evidence of the WP:GOLDENRULE to give a clear view on notability. Unless the subject has the profile of Sir Richard Branson then it can be very difficult to get an article for a businessman or woman: most of their media contacts are either interviews or routine business dealings. Keep watching out for reliable sources, there is no deadline here, other than a requirement to update the article at least every 6 months. And there is a mechanism to restore the article even after that deadline, known as WP:REFUND. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

The Eastern (Atlanta) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to The Eastern (Atlanta). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it consists of machine-generated text. I have converted it 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. Czarking0 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Frank Krueger — answering your February question about a conflict of interest

Hello ChrysGalley,

In February you asked on Draft:Frank Krueger whether the submitting editor has a connection to the subject. The answer is yes — I am the subject. I should have replied then. I was simply unaware of the rule: I did not know that a conflict of interest has to be declared by the editor, rather than noted by the reviewer as part of the assessment. Having now read WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO, I understand why the declaration matters and why its absence was a reasonable thing to query.

It is now in place at User:XiyuanWFlora, with {{Connected contributor}} on the draft's talk page. I am not being paid, I will not move the draft to mainspace myself, and if it is accepted I will use edit requests rather than editing the article directly.

On your other point: you observed that WP:NACADEMIC was not demonstrated by the text and sources as they stood, and that some material was unsourced. Both observations were correct. The draft is now a short version — the unsourced material is gone, every remaining sentence is cited, and the case rests on WP:NPROF criterion 1 rather than on press coverage of the research. The reasoning and the citation figures are set out in an AfC comment at the top of the draft.

You have declined this twice and are under no obligation to look again. If you do have a view on whether the C1 case holds up, I would value it. Either way, thank you for the time you have already put into it.

XiyuanWFlora (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft Kimberly Baeth — citations updated

Hi ChrysGalley, thank you for reviewing the Kimberly Baeth draft and for flagging the citations. You were right that the references only had top-level domains. I've now replaced them with full article URLs and added access-dates so each source can be checked directly — including Business Record, the Times-Republican, Iowa State Daily and the SBA press release. Thanks again for your time. Daniel Khokhar (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

AfC August Backlog Drive: Only ten days left!

Our pending drafts!

Hi ChrysGalley, thanks for participating in the Articles for Creation August Backlog Drive! We've done amazing work so far, dropping the backlog by more than 3000 drafts already. We have around 1300 drafts outstanding, and we need your help to get that down to zero in the next 10 days. We can do this, but we need all hands on deck to help make it happen – if everyone who signed up to the drive reviewed just 1–2 drafts a day for the next ten days, we'd be down to zero in no time! A list of the pending drafts can be found at WP:AFCSORT, where you can select submissions in your area of interest, or you can find a random submission here. Thank you so much for your work so far, and happy reviewing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Question?

Hello mate, I see you have declined the draft King Kaly because of promo and such. I normally work around African media and music related content here on the encyclopaedia. I bookmarked the aforementioned draft to work on it later, but it seems you’ve beat me to it. Anyway, I did a little research on the subject and found enough in RS to sum up SIGCOV. I think the draft would’ve benefited a lot from clean-up + adequate improvement rather than being kept away from the mainspace. What’s your suggestion? dxneo (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dxneo Well it's over to you really, I normally let another reviewer take over the reins. The back story here is troubling, in terms of UPE and the promoted newspaper pieces, but so long as you are aware of that then it's all over you. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I just stumbled across this. Wow! dxneo (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC)