Jump to content

User talk:SemperPrimus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello SemperPrimus! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

A lengthy welcome

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hi SemperPrimus. Thank you for your work on E-Creator. Another editor, 11wallisb, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

In its current revision, this article is not ready for mainspace viewing. The article would be better written in a more substantial paragraph form, rather than split into short essay-like sections as it currently is. Regarding the sourcing, they are all Zimbabwe specific sources and have not been thoroughly vetted by the project. iHarare was discussed here, however there isn't a consensus on its reliability at the moment. Based on this, I am going to return this article to draftspace so that the relevant changes can be made. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|11wallisb}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

11WB (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@11wallisb:
Thank you for taking the time to review the article and provide detailed feedback.
On the issue of sourcing, I would like to note that the alleged Ponzi scheme occurred in Zimbabwe and primarily affected Zimbabwean citizens and residents. For that reason, the majority of coverage comes from Zimbabwean outlets. The sources used are a combination of established mainstream publications, such as The Herald—which is the country’s oldest newspaper of record—and other internet-based publications that command a significant readership within Zimbabwe. The majority of these outlets have been cited repeatedly in other Wikipedia articles.
With regard to iHarare, I note your observation that there is no consensus on its reliability. However, the relevant discussion at WP:RSN did not result in a determination of unreliability or deprecation. In line with WP:RS, a lack of consensus does not equate to disqualification, and the source can still be used with caution and proper attribution, particularly where it provides coverage on topics of local significance. It is also worth noting that iHarare has been repeatedly cited across Wikipedia in other contexts.
I am unclear on what is meant by the statement that the sources "have not been thoroughly vetted." If the concern is that they are local in origin, I would respectfully point out that WP:RS and WP:V do not exclude sources simply because they are local or because international coverage is limited. In fact, when a subject is of primarily local significance, it is expected that most reliable coverage will come from within that country. Unless there is a specific determination that some of the cited outlets are unreliable, I believe the sources used fall within the scope of WP:RS.
Regarding article structure, I have already reduced the number of sections by about 50% and rewritten parts into more substantial paragraph form, in line with your guidance. Please advise if additional consolidation is still required, or if the current format is closer to what would be acceptable for mainspace.
Thank you again for your guidance and for helping to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. I am also happy to make further adjustments if the project has more specific recommendations. SemperPrimus (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That reply was generated by an LLM, however I will assume it is due to difficulty speaking the language. I apologise if I am mistaken about this. The sections are now more in keeping with traditional Wikipedia articles, this is a definite improvement. Unfortunately, I still have a cause for concern with the sources, as I am unfamiliar with all of them, and I don't know how reputable each Zimbabwe outlet is respectively. Fortunately, your article text is not flagged by LLM detection, which gives me some confidence that it has been written legitimately. 11WB (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that I have no difficulties whatsoever in speaking English. I do, however, have a compulsion to double-check everything for mistakes, which is why I sometimes use LLMs to proofread my work for errors.
May I also ask how we should proceed from here? You did not outline what needs to be done next. Do you intend to review each source individually in order to assess the reputability of the Zimbabwean news outlets cited, or would you prefer that I take certain steps to address this concern? I would be grateful if you could advise me on the specific actions required.
I also ask respectfully: is there a risk that unfamiliarity with foreign, in this case Zimbabwean, media could introduce subconscious bias into the assessment of sources? If so, how might this be addressed to ensure the evaluation remains fully consistent with Wikipedia’s standards rather than dependent on individual familiarity? SemperPrimus (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News outlets often include an information link at the bottom of their article pages detailing their editorial and fact-checking process, along with editorial teams if they have them. The sources used in this draft do not include this and some are not bylined at all. There is a serious concern here regarding reliability. Unfortunately, because of this, I can't in good faith mark this article as reviewed through NPP. I would advise you to submit the draft to WP:AfC and another reviewer there can determine whether the draft is suitable for mainspace. 11WB (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To comment on your question about subconscious bias, that is a tad unfair. Perhaps the way I worded my initial message was not the best. When I said "vetted", I meant these specific Zimbabwe sources (with the exception of iHarare) are unknown to the project. On further inspection, they appear to potentially lack editorial processes making their verifiability and reliability questionable. There is no bias toward news outlets from a specific country. I am simply following procedure and making sure what has been written is correct and backed up by reliable sources. 11WB (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies for that. Did not mean to question your integrity. I take back the comment and apologise unreservedly. SemperPrimus (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying your concerns. I believe the issue arose from how I referenced sources in earlier drafts. I have now reviewed and corrected all citations, and every source in the draft has a byline.
On the matter of editorial policies, some Zimbabwean outlets do not provide detailed “about us” or fact-checking pages. However, they are established publications and are regularly cited on Wikipedia. WP:RS does not require sources to publish editorial policy pages; what matters is their reputation and how they are used.
If NPP is unable to review the draft, I will follow your advice and submit it to WP:AfC for another reviewer’s assessment. SemperPrimus (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link below is from 2020 and shows an analysis of publications in Zimbabwe. Unfortunately, TechZim stopped publishing these kinds of articles in 2020.
https://www.techzim.co.zw/2020/07/halfway-through-2020-here-is-the-state-of-digital-news-in-zimbabwe/ SemperPrimus (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually asked for a second opinion on the NPP Discord and I received feedback relating to iHarare. My concerns regarding the reliability of these sources, I believe, are valid. An AfC reviewer will be able to make this call and also decide whether the subject itself is notable. 11WB (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, will wait for the AfC process. I hear your concerns, but for the record, I am really struggling to wrap my head around the fact that apparently, all the media houses in Zimbabwe seem to have reliability issues. All of them, wow. Really makes you think about the the whole process. On the notability of the issue, the people behind E-creator, orchestrated a Ponzi scam that affected thousands of people and defrauded them of as much as US$1 million dollars. This case has been making the headlines in the local newspapers and publications for the last two years and is still ongoing. In Zimbabwe, its definitely notable but since it's limited to Zimbabwe alone, it may be deemed not notable for the project. Also working on wrapping my head around that and am looking forward to hearing back on the notability issue. Once again, thank you for taking the time to respond and give feedback. Really appreciate it. SemperPrimus (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I have only just seen this. Unfortunately, it appears that @Pythoncoder has declined the draft. Their reasoning appears to be LLM related, which differs from the sourcing concerns I had. I will invite them to leave some feedback here. They have been a reviewer longer than I have, so their feedback I am sure will be helpful to us both. I am sorry that your draft is unsuitable for the project, however I encourage you to keep contributing! 11WB (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I hope to rediscover the passion I felt when I started, then I will be able to continue working on the project. To be fair, it's hard not to feel disillusioned at the moment. The approval process seems too subjective and depends on the reviewer. Feels like being in a game in which the rules are constantly changing. I noticed that the reasons advanced differ among reviewers, and in both cases, I have serious misgivings about the reasons offered. At the same time, it's energy-sapping to go back and forth through the help pages to make a case. Which becomes an issue on its own: instead of writing what you care about and editing, you end up focusing on justifying your case and challenging what you see as an obvious error, and in the end, it becomes taxing. The only way this works, at least from my perspective, is that it runs on passion, but this can be drained by subjective bureaucratic processes. Sorry for making this so long; it was not my intention. Once again, I appreciate the help and guidance that you offered. SemperPrimus (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand the feelings you are experiencing. Wikipedia is a challenging website to create content for, because of how stringent the rules for. But that is also what makes it one of the most reliable. I agree with you that it is more fun to write about things you are passionate about. That is exactly what I do. Sometimes the articles we create can't be kept for one reason or another, that is just how Wikipedia is. My advice would be to step back for a period of time and return with a refreshed mind! 11WB (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: E-Creator (October 26)

[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. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These 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) 15:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your quick review and feedback.
However, I am sorry to say, but may you please cite specific instances where there are issues that you claim. Have gone through the draft multiple times and there is no promotional tone or editorializing.
There is no instance of vague, generic or speculative statements. Everything is properly cited. All the references used in this draft are real, and can be confirmed by clicking on them and reading the source material. There are no hallucinations, as the subject matter is known and can be verified through the sources supplied.
References to Essay-like writing and close paraphrasing are vague and it would be helpful if specific occurences were cited.
Respectfully, the feedback in its current form is too generic and vague. I used an LLM to proofread the draft for errors and made sure to double check the output. SemperPrimus (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the draft again, and I think the LLM contributed more than you’re admitting to here. The “impact and aftermath” section is essay-like, and you’d think that a “proofreading” LLM would have said something about the generic “see also” links or the nonexistent category. (The far more likely explanation is that the LLM generated them both.) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 07:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. I am yet to use a "proofreading" LLM. However, what I did do is instruct an LLM to go through the copy and proofread for spelling, grammar, and language flow so that it would be ready for publishing. I am also not yet as proficient as I would like to be, so I also used an LLM to generate the MediaWiki code.
On the "See also" section, I am genuinely confused. Forgive my inexperience, but I genuinely believed that I needed to have such a section. I used the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMM_(Ponzi_scheme_company) as a rough guideline of what is expected. Its "See also" section has links to other Ponzi and pyramid schemes as well as scams that affected mainly Eastern European countries. However, in my particular case, the pyramid schemes which affected Zimbabweans are not documented on the project, hence the use of generic ones. This is one of the reasons why I was motivated to cover these financial crimes because there are virtually no pages on financial crimes which targeted Zimbabweans on the project. You will also notice that throughout the draft article, I was linking to pages which do not exist yet. I stand to be corrected on this, but my expectation was that once the draft is approved, I would get to work on creating the non-existing pages, to cover all the people who had prominent roles in this scam and how they contributed. From my perspective, which I am now realizing is probably erroneous, the red links represent things that need to be worked on. A to-do list, so to say.
However, I have removed the Financial scandals in Zimbabwe category and edited the Impact and aftermath section. Once again, thank you for your time and effort. Really appreciate it. SemperPrimus (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, SemperPrimus! 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! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:US/PS

[edit]

Hi @SemperPrimus! We had a conversation recently about Zimbabwean sources, and I genuinely felt bad that I couldn't determine their reliability. I have set up a page called WP:Undiscussed sources/Provisional sources for sources that have not been discussed anywhere on Wikipedia yet. I don't think it is good that most links are "unknown" to Wikipedia, and only the most mainstream sources get categorised through the various plugins and listed post consensus at WP:RS/PS and WP:NPPSG (which mandate discussion beforehand). I think WP:US/PS can serve as useful step before, not to bypass consensus, but to make sources known as being unreliable before an actual consensus forms later. Feel free to add the Zimbabwean sources to the page, and let me you know your feedback! 11WB (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS/N is the place to ask about the reliability of any source, I should add. In case another editor sees this, US/PS is an essay only and is at this time, an experiment, nothing more. 11WB (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SemperPrimus&oldid=1319526228"