Uncountableinfinity

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, Uncountableinfinity, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages that you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia or the Tutorial
• Create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• How to add those all-important references
• Simplified style guide

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, If you need help visit the Teahouse or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Alyo (chat·edits) 04:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: First Focus (August 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MediaKyle was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:First Focus and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

MediaKyle (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: First Focus (August 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Epsilon.Prota was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:First Focus and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Epsilon.Prota ^talk 21:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Epsilon.Prota:. Thank you for taking the time to review! I was wondering if you could provide some additional guidance regarding the decline of Draft:First Focus.

After the previous decline, I consulted the live help channel and implemented their recommendations to:

• Remove promotional language
• Verify citations against WP:CORP and WP:GNG guidelines

However, I'm still unclear about what specific content continues to read as promotional. I'm committed to making the necessary changes and doing the work required, but I would greatly appreciate being pointed in the right direction if you have the time.

This is my first Articles for Creation submission, so I'm learning a great deal and keen to get it right. My goal is to ensure future attempts are smoother and don't require multiple resubmissions that consume reviewer time unnecessarily.

Any guidance you can provide would be much appreciated. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Uncountableinfinity - thanks for reaching out! I declined Draft:First Focus in its current state as aside from the History section, unfortunately several portions of the article still read as excessively promotional. For example, none of the industry awards recieved outlined in the Recognition section really appear notable enough for inclusion and only serve as puffery for the company, and the Services section should be more descriptive of the company's structure than a generic list of its commercial offerings.

I should stress that this really was rather borderline, so please don't be discouraged by this current draft being declined! Epsilon.Prota ^talk 22:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time @Epsilon.Prota. I believe I have implemented your suggestions. I've removed the recognition section and re-written the "services" section as "Business model and operations" focusing only on what the sources say about the services.

I've resubmitted the article for review. Thanks again for your assistance! Uncountableinfinity (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Uncountableinfinity - as you'll see below I've accepted the article. Thanks very much for expanding Wikipedia with your work here! Epsilon.Prota ^talk 23:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Epsilon.Prota:. I will definitely take these skills forward to the next articles! Uncountableinfinity (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: First Focus has been accepted

First Focus, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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!

Epsilon.Prota ^talk 23:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your potential connection to another user. The thread is Possible disruptive editing by SpaceHelmetX1.

Do note though that I am notifying you as a formality. At this point, it seems that the user who made the claim was in error in doing so. Scratching this as the other user still wants you investigated (or at least that seems like how they put it. Feel free to review the discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC) (Amended)

@Super Goku V thankyou for letting me know. I'm not really sure how I ended up in the crossfire on this one. I came across the RfC and added my opinion.

I don't think there is any value replying on the admin noticeboard thread at the moment, if it gets taken any further, it will be very easy to show my independence from the situation, so I think I will steer clear of what looks to be a bit of a mess if I can. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, they find it suspicious that you participated as a new user in a discussion started by a user they have had content disputes with. Honestly, the whole thing is silly and it shouldn't be done this way. They should have taken you to SPI if they had concerns, and they would have gotten rebuffed on either a lack of evidence or for providing poor evidence. This should not have been something spilled into the RfC and the Admin Noticeboard. I am quite a bit frustrated with this, but I am hoping that their apology is sincere on this. You shouldn't have been treated this way and I am sorry that that this has happened. I will agree that this is a mess and add that it is for reasons that have nothing to do with you. Hopefully this is the bumpiest week that you have over the remaining year and that things end up smoother.

I would like to end this on the last sentence, but I do want to request that you ping me or otherwise let me know on my talk page if this somehow continues. You don't have to do so, but if it does continue, I intend on assisting in shutting it down. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Oral health in Australia

Hello, Uncountableinfinity. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Oral health in Australia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Oral health in Australia

Hello, Uncountableinfinity. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Oral health in Australia".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

LLM use

Please refrain from creating articles using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or another application using such a technology) in Wikipedia pages without carefully reviewing them, such as Integris IT, even if you intend to fix them later. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi JTtheOG, thanks for taking the time to review Integris IT.

As with the other MSP pages I've created and edited, this article was not generated using an LLM. I do use an LLM to format citations, but I review each one by hand before adding it to the article manually, and then check each one inline, top to bottom again before publishing.

Could you offer any guidance on what I should do from here? I've read Template:LLM and I'm confident the article meets the standard for removing the maintenance tag, but I'd value your feedback before doing so in case there's something I've missed. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello there, I appreciate the response. I hope you can understand why I would be a bit hesitant to explain exactly which part of the article caught my eye, but I'll say that it was some of the prose in particular.

The complete guidelines regarding LLM use can be found at WP:LLM, if you're interested in learning more. Would you mind telling me a bit more about how you use the help of LLMs during your process, so I can better understand? JTtheOG (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure thing, and I do appreciate your help with this. I genuinely want to address your concerns, I hope this helps.

When I'm looking at a new company (this one came up because of a recent acquisition on a page I'd created previously), I start by finding sources and listing them in a spreadsheet, collecting everything I can initially. I rank them to confirm there's enough independent coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. This one qualified, so I moved on to writing the article, using a wikitext plugin for formatting.

While drafting, I leave citations as plain cell-reference numbers and don't format them until the end. Once the prose is done, I run the citation spreadsheet through an LLM to turn those source entries into the formatted reference list you've seen. I then go through and replace each cell number with the actual reference (by hand), checking as I go that the title, date and author are correct.

I then export from the local editor, paste into the live article, and go top to bottom checking the wikilinks and citation formatting are correct, and a final check that each reference supports the claim it's attached to. Once I am happy, I post. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you; that all sounds pretty interesting. It seems like you've developed an efficient workflow. I trust that you will follow the appropriate guidelines going forward, now that you're caught up.

However, now that I've had a chance to dive deeper into the article, I've come across a few more troubling sentences. Are you sure you're not using spellcheckers like Grammarly, which have been known to alter text using AI without the user's permission? JTtheOG (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I am positive that my only use of generative AI was for the citation formatting I outlined above. I am also a bit troubled by your last reply, and I want to make sure I am being clear so there is no misunderstanding.

When you stated, “I trust that you will follow the appropriate guidelines going forward, now that you’re caught up,” this seemed to imply that I had not followed the appropriate guidelines initially, and that I had been unaware of them. That is not the case. I was aware that LLM usage for generating new content or editing content is not allowed. I have read the policies and was under the impression that the way I used LLMs (for source formatting) is not prohibited, provided that the manual work is done to verify that the references still link to the articles I expect and that every specific element of the formatted results is factual.

Have I missed something? The basis for my approach to using LLMs for formatting references is the statement "provided the LLM does not introduce content of its own" from WP:LLM. Uncountableinfinity (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)