UrbanPlannerPh

Welcome!

Hi UrbanPlannerPh! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, @Kj cheetham! I’m new to this, but as a former student journalist, I’m really enjoying the copy reading and editing process. I do have a quick question, though—I created a sandbox page for an article, but I’ve managed to lose track of it! Could you help me find where it went? UrbanPlannerPh (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It's found at User:UrbanPlannerPh/sandbox. You can also see your previous edits if you look under "Contributions" on your profile. Also, I noticed that you recently made an edit and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Take a look at WP:MINOR. Hope this helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 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:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Incident is already covered at Bong Suntay#2001 assault charges. The section could potentially be expanded as long as it is done in a WP:NPOV manner.

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 it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:UrbanPlannerPh/sandbox 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, UrbanPlannerPh! 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! CNMall41 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Hello, I'm Matt Deres. An edit that you recently made to Secretary of Agrarian Reform 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. Matt Deres (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Matt! Thank you for the messages and for looking out for the quality of the encyclopedia. I want to clarify my recent edits, specifically on the Secretary of Agrarian Reform and Jesuit High School (New Orleans) articles.

I did not use an AI chatbot to generate new text, summarize information, or add citations. My edits were strictly related to basic copyediting—focusing on grammar, capitalization, spelling, and sentence readability. Because I did not add any new information, no new citations were needed, and absolutely no fictitious statements or citations were introduced. UrbanPlannerPh (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I do use a grammar-checking application to help catch oversights and assist with minor fixes like typos, punctuation, and basic subject-verb agreement. I understand that this kind of routine maintenance is encouraged as part of Wikipedia's basic copyediting. However, I want to assure you that I never use this app to rewrite sections, generate original content, or fabricate sources

I appreciate you bringing your concerns to my attention. Please let me know if there was a specific part of my formatting or copyediting that triggered the automated flag, so I can be mindful of it moving forward. Thank you! UrbanPlannerPh (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to unconstructively edit Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), as you did at Jesuit High School (New Orleans), you may be blocked from editing. Matt Deres (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@UrbanPlannerPh you have obviously been using a LLM to write your edit summaries. Please see WP:LLMTALK. While it does not explicitly mention edit summaries, the intention is that a editor must not use a LLM to communicate with other Wikipedia editors, and edit summaries are a way of communicating with other editors. Please write edit summaries in your own words. It would be best to avoid using a LLM for any purposes connected with editing Wikipedia. Editors are routinely blocked from editing if they use LLM inappropriately. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @CodeTalker. Thank you for the heads up. I honestly didnt realize that using a tool to clean up my edit summaries was against the rules, but I totally get your point about it being a form of coms. I'll stop using it for that immediately and just write them in simple ways. Thanks for pointing me to Wikipedia:LLMTALK! UrbanPlannerPh (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)