Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Happy editing! Cheers, Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 17:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, TraceySear840!
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!
Ruud Buitelaar (
talk) 03:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
|
You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. Continued promotion of the Portal will result in you being blocked. This is your last warning. Star Mississippi 21:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
TraceySear840, I am troubled by your edits to the article. The book you cite does not appear to mention either Portal Fernández Concha or Portal Sierra Bella. It includes architectural drawings of the Bolsa de Comercio de Santiago (I presume that's what you were referring to as the Stock Exchange), but where in the book do you find that that was initially established on an upper floor of Portal Fernández Concha? See the Policies and Guidelines link in the "Welcome" template you received (top of this page): one of our basic principles is that we try to provide a source for everything we state in an article. That's what references are primarily for; they aren't just an indication that the topic is important, or a place for the reader to find out more, although they also have both these functions. Also, more isn't necessarily better. Repeating the information about the history of the building in separate sections doesn't improve the article so much as make it repetitive. Lengthy coverage of accusations of criminal uses didn't improve it either. Encyclopedia articles tend to be shorter than news articles or book sections because they summarize what other sources say, and because they can use links to refer readers to explanations of other topics.
Some of your over-long writing in the article may be because you are a new editor. But your posts at Chris Troutman's user talk looked as if you were using ChatGPT or some other AI to create text. I don't know whether you kept looking at the section you started at the administrators' noticeboard (that's a link to the archive), but many editors there, not just Chris Troutman, believed you had been using AI, and we strongly discourage that anywhere on English Wikipedia. One reason is that such large language models have no controls for factuality; they sometimes write falsehoods, and they sometimes manufacture plausible-looking references that don't exist. Never use AI (or machine translation, for that matter) in Wikipedia articles. Was any of the text you added to Portal Fernández Concha generated using an AI program? Because that might explain the misuse of that book reference. The book exists, but it doesn't support what you added.
I wonder also whether you wanted to make the text longer in order to fit in more photos. I understand that it's a shame we can't use all the beautiful photos of places and buildings that are on Commons, but think about it: for many topics, there will be tens or even hundreds of images. Articles simply can't include all of them; that's why we link to the Commons category.
You asked
Star Mississippi above where the question about conflict of interest (COI) was asked. I can't find it, myself. The closest I can find is that at the noticeboard, Chris Troutman said that they believed you to be a paid editor: TraceySear840 is pushing a draft which I declined (weak sourcing and no claim to notability). I get walls of desperation-mode chatbot text in return. Why? New editor is probably
an undeclared paid editor not from an English-speaking country because regular fans and hobbyists don't respond that way to a declined draft.
So here are some links:
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, with definition. Key quotation: COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. ... Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead.
Note that "conflict of interest" is much broader than "paid", and that editors who are paid for any of their edits—whether in isolation or as a part of a job—are required to disclose that fact and who is paying. The relevant section on editing for pay is
here. (And that policy is important enough that it's also linked under "Tips" in the Welcome template you received.) So the question that Star Mississippi was referring to, which you may not have been directly asked, is basically: Do you have any personal or financial reason for writing the article on Portal Fernández Concha? (Star Mississippi is an admin, and I'm going to ping another admin who responded at the noticeboard,
El_C, because there may be some specific wording of the question that I haven't used.)
Yngvadottir (
talk) 03:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, TraceySear840. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. El_C 14:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
TraceySear840, I'm thrilled to see you started Draft:Teatro Municipal de Chillán to fill one of our gaps. Thank you! But I see that it's tagged as using the WMF translation tool. Use of the tool on English Wikipedia is strongly discouraged; you were able to use it to create a draft, but to make an article directly, you would have to be an "extended confirmed" editor (30 days and at least 500 edits): see Wikipedia:Content translation tool. The reason is that we have a lot of problems on English Wikipedia with machine translations (a huge backlog of well-meaning poor translations waiting to be checked), so we have a local policy requiring editors to either do the translating themselves, or completely check and fix the translated material before saving it in mainspace ( Help:Translation#Avoid unedited machine translations). Please don't use the tool; translate yourself.
That is presumably the reason you created a new Draft:Casa Colorada when we already have a stub article, Casa Colorada? I've redirected the draft to the existing article and left a note on the talk page; there's no reason to start a new draft when an article exists and can simply be made better. But the ban on the content translation tool means you can't use its output there; in any case, it would be faster to make your own expansion, either translating or not.
I'm sorry we have so many rules. But I won't show you that backlog page of bad translations because it's terrifying. Yngvadottir ( talk) 09:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.
The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.
The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.
Happy editing! Cheers, Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 17:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, TraceySear840!
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!
Ruud Buitelaar (
talk) 03:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
|
You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. Continued promotion of the Portal will result in you being blocked. This is your last warning. Star Mississippi 21:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
TraceySear840, I am troubled by your edits to the article. The book you cite does not appear to mention either Portal Fernández Concha or Portal Sierra Bella. It includes architectural drawings of the Bolsa de Comercio de Santiago (I presume that's what you were referring to as the Stock Exchange), but where in the book do you find that that was initially established on an upper floor of Portal Fernández Concha? See the Policies and Guidelines link in the "Welcome" template you received (top of this page): one of our basic principles is that we try to provide a source for everything we state in an article. That's what references are primarily for; they aren't just an indication that the topic is important, or a place for the reader to find out more, although they also have both these functions. Also, more isn't necessarily better. Repeating the information about the history of the building in separate sections doesn't improve the article so much as make it repetitive. Lengthy coverage of accusations of criminal uses didn't improve it either. Encyclopedia articles tend to be shorter than news articles or book sections because they summarize what other sources say, and because they can use links to refer readers to explanations of other topics.
Some of your over-long writing in the article may be because you are a new editor. But your posts at Chris Troutman's user talk looked as if you were using ChatGPT or some other AI to create text. I don't know whether you kept looking at the section you started at the administrators' noticeboard (that's a link to the archive), but many editors there, not just Chris Troutman, believed you had been using AI, and we strongly discourage that anywhere on English Wikipedia. One reason is that such large language models have no controls for factuality; they sometimes write falsehoods, and they sometimes manufacture plausible-looking references that don't exist. Never use AI (or machine translation, for that matter) in Wikipedia articles. Was any of the text you added to Portal Fernández Concha generated using an AI program? Because that might explain the misuse of that book reference. The book exists, but it doesn't support what you added.
I wonder also whether you wanted to make the text longer in order to fit in more photos. I understand that it's a shame we can't use all the beautiful photos of places and buildings that are on Commons, but think about it: for many topics, there will be tens or even hundreds of images. Articles simply can't include all of them; that's why we link to the Commons category.
You asked
Star Mississippi above where the question about conflict of interest (COI) was asked. I can't find it, myself. The closest I can find is that at the noticeboard, Chris Troutman said that they believed you to be a paid editor: TraceySear840 is pushing a draft which I declined (weak sourcing and no claim to notability). I get walls of desperation-mode chatbot text in return. Why? New editor is probably
an undeclared paid editor not from an English-speaking country because regular fans and hobbyists don't respond that way to a declined draft.
So here are some links:
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, with definition. Key quotation: COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. ... Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation. COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead.
Note that "conflict of interest" is much broader than "paid", and that editors who are paid for any of their edits—whether in isolation or as a part of a job—are required to disclose that fact and who is paying. The relevant section on editing for pay is
here. (And that policy is important enough that it's also linked under "Tips" in the Welcome template you received.) So the question that Star Mississippi was referring to, which you may not have been directly asked, is basically: Do you have any personal or financial reason for writing the article on Portal Fernández Concha? (Star Mississippi is an admin, and I'm going to ping another admin who responded at the noticeboard,
El_C, because there may be some specific wording of the question that I haven't used.)
Yngvadottir (
talk) 03:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, TraceySear840. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. El_C 14:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
TraceySear840, I'm thrilled to see you started Draft:Teatro Municipal de Chillán to fill one of our gaps. Thank you! But I see that it's tagged as using the WMF translation tool. Use of the tool on English Wikipedia is strongly discouraged; you were able to use it to create a draft, but to make an article directly, you would have to be an "extended confirmed" editor (30 days and at least 500 edits): see Wikipedia:Content translation tool. The reason is that we have a lot of problems on English Wikipedia with machine translations (a huge backlog of well-meaning poor translations waiting to be checked), so we have a local policy requiring editors to either do the translating themselves, or completely check and fix the translated material before saving it in mainspace ( Help:Translation#Avoid unedited machine translations). Please don't use the tool; translate yourself.
That is presumably the reason you created a new Draft:Casa Colorada when we already have a stub article, Casa Colorada? I've redirected the draft to the existing article and left a note on the talk page; there's no reason to start a new draft when an article exists and can simply be made better. But the ban on the content translation tool means you can't use its output there; in any case, it would be faster to make your own expansion, either translating or not.
I'm sorry we have so many rules. But I won't show you that backlog page of bad translations because it's terrifying. Yngvadottir ( talk) 09:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)