User talk:Thjortel

Your submission at Articles for creation: Merrelyn Emery (August 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nearlyevil665 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Merrelyn Emery and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Merrelyn Emery, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

nearlyevil665 14:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thjortel! Having an article 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! nearlyevil665 14:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Merrelyn Emery has been accepted

Merrelyn Emery, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open systems theory (August 6)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, FuzzyMagma, left the following feedback:

This draft is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires that all content be supported by reliable sources.

• Reliable sources include: reputable newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and books from respected publishers.
• Unacceptable sources include: personal blogs, social media, predatory publishers, most tabloids, and websites where anyone can contribute.

Replace any unreliable sources with high-quality sources. If you cannot find a reliable source for the material, it should be removed.

we need links for ref 4 to 14 to verify the draft content

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Open systems theory to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@FuzzyMagma:

Thank you for the review of Draft:Open systems theory (Emery) on 6 August. I have addressed your feedback by adding verifiable links to references 4–14 as well as I could. Was not aware of this requirement, sorry. No other changes were made; the article content itself was unchanged, only the reference URLs.

The draft has been resubmitted. If you would be willing to take a quick look to see if the reference verifiability issue is now resolved, I would appreciate it. If not, no worries — the resubmission is in the AfC queue.

Thanks again for the earlier review.

Trond Hjorteland (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open systems theory (August 7)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Sulfurboy, left the following feedback:

This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content.

LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

See the advice page on large language models for more information.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Open systems theory to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy:

Thank you for the review of Draft:Open systems theory (Emery). You are right that an LLM was used in initial drafting for that article. I have now:

• Added a disclosure of LLM use to my user page and to [[Talk:Draft:Open systems theory (Emery)|the draft's talk page]] in accordance with WP:LLM.
• Documented that the content was reviewed and substantively revised across four rounds by Merrelyn Emery, the co-developer of OST and the primary living authority on the framework.

The review record is real and includes specific revisions from Merrelyn Emery on origins narrative, chronology, vocabulary, statistical methods description, and reference selection. I take responsibility for the content and can defend it against sources.

If there are specific passages that still read as LLM-generated in your view, I would be grateful for a pointer to those and will revise them in my own voice.

Trond Hjorteland (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It all reads like an LLM because it was generated using one, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Further, multiple people cannot contribute on the same account. This is some very concerning behavior. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sulfurboy:

To clarify one factual point: the Thjortel account is used only by me. Merrelyn Emery's contribution to the draft consisted of feedback provided via email and a Word document that I then integrated into the draft. She has not edited, logged into, or otherwise used my account. That is disclosed accurately in the drafting-process note on the draft's talk page.

Regarding LLM use, I have disclosed this in accordance with WP:LLM on both my user page and the draft's talk page. I understand your view is that the resulting text remains unacceptable, and I will not resubmit the draft in its current form. It has been thoroughly vetted by an expert in the field in a way an LLM never could as this is very narrow academic material. Thank you for the review.

Trond Hjorteland (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean that you have "disclosed this in accordance with WP:LLM"? Where does it say that, or more accurately, did you get that from a chatbot? ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in. I fully understand that we all want to avoid having Wikipedia filled with AI slop, something I fully support. Nothing in this reply is written by an LLM. I hope the last few sentences in this policy are considered as well:

"The writing style of some editors may appear similar to the output of LLMs, meaning that the imposition of sanctions requires evidence beyond basic stylistic or linguistic indications. When evaluating possible LLM use, it is best to consider the full pattern of the editor's recent edits and whether the edits comply with core content policies."

Trond Hjorteland (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but can you explain what you meant with "in accordance with WP:LLM" and why you thought that? I don't think anybody is claiming that you are using an AI to communicate (the guideline for that is WP:AITALK, just that your draft is AI-generated, which you have disclosed to be the case. ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstood you then. The draft content is not AI-generated; that is what I'm trying to get across. It is written by expert Merrelyn Emery and me in collaboration, as stated on my page and the Draft's talk page, and an LLM has only been used as a drafting aid in the initial phases to have a starting point that covered the field well enough. Then a full rewrite was done by Merrelyn and me. It is a unique opportunity for us all that the content is vetted like this by an expert and experienced writer like her. Unfortunate that me using the LLM to make the process smoother stops the inclusion on Wikipedia. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that means that it is AI-generated by our standards. The advice that you got in the WP:TEAHOUSE is correct, it needs to be redone without AI if you want to submit it to AfC. But can you clarify what you meant by "in accordance with WP:LLM" and where you got that from? ‑‑gurkubondinn 16:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd also note that you claimed something else in the teahouse and on your userpage, where you said that you had you had used an LLM as a synthesis and drafting assistant, to pull in references, and that the draft had been reviewed and revised by yourself.

..., the use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited, ...
— WP:NOLLM

To be clear, this is prohibited and you must write the draft yourself. If you want this other person to assist you with the draft, they should make a Wikipedia account and contribute to it here on Wikipedia, so that attribution can be maintained as required by the CC-BY-SA license. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Merrelyn is 86, and although she has an account here, she is sadly not able to submit herself. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Then you should probably make her contributions in separate edits and attribute them to her. You can find some information on how to do this somewhere in the documentation, but I'm not sure where.

But again, can you please explain what you meant by "in accordance with WP:LLM" and where you got that from? There's a similarly puzzling statement on Draft talk:Open systems theory § Drafting process disclosure where you say that ... in accordance with WP:LLM. I take responsibility for the content ..., and I'm not sure how that related to WP:LLM either. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said, googled it. Could have been Gemini respons; can't remember. Hard to get things right here; Wikipedia is not a trivial place to contribute to. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

"As I said" in Teahouse. I think I'll leave this for now. Unfortunate that there is so much wasted effort by Merrelyn and me, but I need to find inner strength to attempt this again. Wish you had looked at the content at least and considered the last few sentences in the WP:LLM page. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think we are unfamiliar with NOLLM? We know that this is LLM-generated, because you told us so. The community here has decided, with overwhelming consensus, that LLM-generated text is not allowed here. We have a lot of experience with it, and I can tell you that the draft they you submitted would have been recognised as such even if you had not disclosed it. There are no shortcuts to writing Wikipedia articles, and I suggest that you take the advice that you were given in the Teahouse. I see that you have blanked the draft and started over, and I think that's good. The guide that I showed you is a good starting point, just read the documentation as you. Perfection is not required, this is a collaborative project. ‑‑gurkubondinn 19:13, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Still want to make this clear: The end result had next to no trace of LLMs in it. It 60+ percent was Merrelyn's own words (she is a seasoned author); the rest was mine, with the help of Grammarly to get the wording right. The result was vetted by Merrelyn. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

August 2026

Hello, I'm Sulfurboy. An edit that you recently made to Draft:Open systems theory seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is not allowed on Wikipedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or ask your questions at the Teahouse, a friendly place for new users. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Thjortel. 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:Thjortel. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Thjortel|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. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I can confirm that I am not compensated by anyone for this or in any way financially involved with anyone related to OST. My day job is as an IT Consultant, doing architecture. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Open systems theory has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Open systems theory. Thanks! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Your COI declaration

It seems to me that you receive a benefit (broadly construed) from being a consultant in this area and writing a draft here on it.

Please familiarise yourself woth WP:PAID

I am about to ask you our standard formal question about paid editing. Please respond to it with precision. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Nomination of Merrelyn Emery for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Merrelyn Emery, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merrelyn Emery until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Thjortel! The thread you created at the Teahouse, LLM use, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open systems theory (August 28)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Dafootballguy, left the following feedback:

This draft appears to contain text generated by a large language model (such as ChatGPT). You cannot use LLMs to generate article content.

LLM-generated pages with certain obvious signs of being machine generated may be deleted without notice.

Instead, only summarize in your own words a range of independent, reliable, published sources that discuss the subject.

See the advice page on large language models for more information.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Open systems theory to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 23:31, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my submission. I appreciate the work that you do for a site of such importance. Especially now, it is so important to guard against unverified content generated by LLMs. I do not see how I can prove to you that no LLM has written any words of this entry, though, as proving a negative is basically impossible. The alternative seems to be to give up the effort altogether, unfortunately, unless you have some suggestions. OST, for sure, is worthy of an entry and happy to make it so. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

You can ask for advice here. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 17:27, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open systems theory (August 29)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Sulfurboy, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, not just brief mentions or routine announcements;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as interviews, press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Open systems theory to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Sulfurboy (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open systems theory (August 31)

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Zxcvbnm, left the following feedback:

This draft is not suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia, not a general publishing platform. We do not accept:

• essays or original research: personal views, advocacy, unpublished theories, or pre-prints;
• resumes or personal profiles: CVs, social networking pages, or memorials;
• directories or manuals: travel guides, catalogs, or how-to instructions;
• creative writing: fanfiction, worldbuilding, myths, or things you have made up.

The above list is not exhaustive. Please read What Wikipedia is not to understand what content is excluded.

Fails both WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK more specifically. The article must explain why this is relevant to the lay reader and why it is important to the world at large, which it currently does not.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Open systems theory to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:33, 31 August 2026 (UTC)