Jump to content

User talk:AtlasReviewer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my Talk page!

[edit]

Hi, thanks for visiting my talk page. I’m still learning and always open to constructive feedback. Please feel free to leave me a message here — I’ll do my best to reply promptly.

--~~~~ AtlasReviewer (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

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

Hello, AtlasReviewer, 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! CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 14:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CREditzWiki,
Thanks so much for the warm welcome! I really appreciate the helpful links and resources.
(~~~~) AtlasReviewer (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New editor seeking constructive feedback

[edit]

Hello,

I’ve been working on a number of edits recently, including adding sourced content to articles such as Giampiero Pinzi (Lazio period), Carla Bruni (witness tampering case), and United States Soccer Federation (1950 England upset). I’ve also added references and context to pages like Ana Sofía Sánchez, Molly Huddle, and Norway national football team.

As I’m still learning, I’d really appreciate any constructive feedback on whether my edits meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, sourcing, and style. In particular, I’d like to know if my use of external references is appropriate and if there are areas I could improve on for future contributions.

Thank you in advance for your guidance! AtlasReviewer (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jay8g. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, 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. Thanks. Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:08, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay8g, thanks for taking the time to give me feedback — it's much appreciated . After rereading my own edit, I actually spotted a small spelling mistake I had made, which I doubt a [WP:AI|AI tool]] would allow it. Just to clarify, one of the references I included was from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, which is a highly reputable,and I suspect in in line with [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]] expectations. The second link was indeed my error — I accidentally pasted the wrong URL (duh) - so that's on me. I will continue to stick closely to [[WP:V|verifiability]] and [[WP:NOR|no original research]] when cointributing and be more careful with my citations moving forward.
Regards,
AtlasReviewer AtlasReviewer (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Men's 100m Progression times and future scope

[edit]

I’m really curious right now about where 100m sprint times will go in the next few years. It’s crazy to see that 5 out of 7 sprinters in the Tokyo World Champs going under 10 seconds, and even the other two were right there at 10.00 and 10.05. I was reading through the Men’s 100 metres world record progression page, and it’s fascinating to see the patterns over time. I remember watching Bolt sprinting and was thinking at the time, that running that fast in the future, consistently, won't be possible. But hey, anything is possible! Maybe a project to be involved in the near future! AtlasReviewer (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had a go at reviewing draft articles - Reading through policy takes so long!

[edit]

Recently, I’ve been spending time reviewing draft articles and helping flag areas where they don’t yet meet Wikipedia’s content standards. This has mostly involved pointing out heavy reliance on self-published or primary sources, identifying where independent coverage is needed to establish notability, and noting sections that read more like promotion than neutral encyclopedic writing. Where appropriate, I’ve added maintenance tags related to sourcing, tone, and biographies of living persons to help guide future editors on what needs attention. My aim has been to be constructive and policy-based, and to help move drafts closer to being ready for mainspace. It has been rather interesting to say the least! AtlasReviewer (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Columbia Trailmasters (December 14)

[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 MCE89 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.
MCE89 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, AtlasReviewer! Having an article draft 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! MCE89 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Columbia Trailmasters (December 16)

[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 Pythoncoder was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to 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.
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.
—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pythoncoder,
Thank you for your feedback. This article was written from scratch in a word-processing editor. The editor has AI tools, but they were not enabled. I used the syntax, grammar, and spelling tools of the software, which are not AI-based. I’ve just read through it again and noticed it actually has lots of inconsistencies, which I suspect an AI tool would not allow.
Moving forward, eliminating any AI-related issues (though I’m not sure how to remove something that wasn’t there originally), and considering that the topic has wide coverage in major news sources in Thailand, would you be able to provide solid advice on how to prepare it for submission? I’m asking because I need support to ensure it is in the correct shape and form for further submissions.
Thank you so much for your support!
Regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am dubious of your claim that no AI was used. It simply does not line up with the draft text in front of me right now, which has a writing style that strongly suggests a LLM was used. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Pythoncoder, thank you for yor reply.I modelled the article’s layout and style on another piece I read, and I’m currently trying to find it so I can share the link (not sure there’s much point to that anyway tbh).In the meantime, could you please provide specific, actionable suggestions for improving this article? I look forward to your feedback. Thank again! Regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Berlin Friedrichstraße station

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Berlin Friedrichstraße station, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A 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)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edited citation and added title. I did notice however that the particular URL fails to resolve at times. Not sure why; I'll go back and check again. Thanks. AtlasReviewer (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Vgbyp. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Foreign exchange company have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Vgbyp (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vgbyp, thank you for your comment. If not mistaken it was a picture already suggested as an example of what table of exchange rates look like. To be honest, I didn’t think in a way of it being of promotional nature but if it does, I respect your decision. Thank you and have a good day. Regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of Gilda Gray

Information icon Hello! Your image was inserted successfully on the page Concision, but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Your edit summary says that adding the photo of this dancer to the article was an "app suggested edit", but you're expected to consider whether these suggestions are meaningful. It's a publicity still from a show called "Broadway Brevities", but that doesn't give it any relevance to an article about brevity in writing. --Belbury (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Belbury Thank you for the feedback and my apologies, I should have been more precise, in double checking the image. I will be more careful and thorough moving forwards. Best regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've now added File:Sarah Amanda Clayton Blake.png (a photo of someone called Sarah Amanda Clayton Blake taken in 1938) to the article about Amanda Clayton, a soap opera actress who was born in 1981.
I appreciate your enthusiasm for adding images to Wikipedia, but you must check that they are relevant to the article. Belbury (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for double checking this, as I am not sure how I got this wrong. I will take a break and double check things again. Apologies if this has caused extra work and thanks for letting me know on how to improve. I am working on improving. Regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen minutes after that comment you illustrated an article about Malaysian actor Soffi Jikan with File:Sofi.jpg, which is a map of the Sofia region of Madagascar.
I don't know what your process is here, but yes, you are generating extra cleanup work for other editors (and confusing the readers) by adding app-suggested images to articles without checking sufficiently that they are relevant. I'd recommend going back and triple-checking your past image additions before adding any more. Belbury (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi@Belbury, thank you for your
reply. I do remember seeing the picture of Sofia region in Madagascar, but I click next, or which ever button it was for irrelevant. If remember right, the app froze or did something odd (it has done a few times actually). I am not sure if there was a tech error with the app at the time. Most definitely, I won’t be linking a person to a map. I’d say something wasn’t right there in registering the image, it’s pretty clear to be honest. Apologies for the extra work but it may not be user entry issue. Thank again and regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Belbury,
I figured out how to submit a bug report via the app. I think it may be something to do with the sequence of tapping and how the picture was registered at the time. Regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Alexcalamaro. An edit that you recently made to Taurus Model 85 seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, 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. Thanks. Alexcalamaro (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alexcalamaro, thanks for your reply. I don't think I wrote anything. I only added a couple of external references that I found, using just the google search engine and key words. Would you mind giving a bit more guidance as to what has been produced using Ai? That would help me understand better and avoid doing the same mistake again. Regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Columbia Trailmasters (December 19)

[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 Juxlos was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to 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:
No significant changes from the previous rejected version. LLM indicators ("Subsequent reporting indicated that"; "the event was regularly referenced in coverage of"; "have been recorded by official timing services") still very much present.
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.
Juxlos (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Juxlos,
thank you for your feedback. I have now gone through the article once more and changed anything that could have been potentially flagged as an LLM indicator. All areas suggested in the previous submission to be checked, have now been rectified and more or less every paragraph had changes for the article to read well and flow through. I have also run it through the academic tool Turnitin for plagiarism and identification of AI elements. It has now given a much lower score than before, which almost suggests that is very unlikely there is anything LLM.
I would appreciate if you read through once more and let me know what you think. Your help and support is much appreciated.
Regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progress and what I've worked over the past months

[edit]

It's been a busy three months and when I've been off from work, I have been able to dedicate many hours, into editing. I have focused primarily on improving sourcing, historical context, and policy compliance across a range of articles. This includes expanding the Serbia women’s national football team article with additional UEFA-backed references, early competitive history, and clarified some context, via expansions and visual edits. I have also added appropriate maintenance templates (e.g. {BLP sources}, {Notability}, {Primary sources}, {Tone}) to drafts where sourcing or neutrality issues I spotted, with the aim of helping towards further improvement, rather than removing content. In football and sport related articles, my edits have generally centred on replacing, where I could fine ones, or supplementing weak citations with reputable ones, such as FIFA for example or reputable database sources of results, while keeping language neutral. I’m happy for other editors to refine or improve on these contributions where stronger secondary sourcing is possible.

I have, of course made mistakes along the way. I feel this is normal and no progress can be made unless reflection happens on what has gone wrong. Thank you to fellow editors for leaving me comments. I always read through and action, again, once my free time allows.

Have a good day! AtlasReviewer (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Columbia Trailmasters (December 19)

[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 Ktkvtsh 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.
Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ktkvtsh
Fixed URL issues and linked to national-level news agency citations.
I have corrected and replaced several non-working citations so that they link to the original articles rather than generic pages, particularly for sources from The Nation and Pattaya Mail. Where appropriate, I also added verifiable event listings from the International Trail Running Association (ITRA). The Nation is a national-level news agency in Thailand, and these edits were made to improve citation reliability in line with WP:V and WP:RS. Best regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Columbia Trailmasters (December 19)

[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 Fermiboson 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 all four of 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:
No significant changes from last submission other than some cite fixing. Do not repeatedly resubmit with minimal changes.
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.
Fermiboson (talk) 10:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you@Fermiboson for your feedback, I will have another careful look through and research in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary and strictly independent of the subject references.
Best regards, AtlasReviewer (talk) 11:24, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, AtlasReviewer!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

AtlasReviewer,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

BhikhariInformer (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Have an awesome year too! All the best, AtlasReviewer (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AtlasReviewer&oldid=1330754712"