Hi EdithVane! 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:

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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to SmartQ 5 when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Duly noted! Thank you for pointing that out :) I'll double check in the future. EdithVane (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello EdithVane. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:EdithVane. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=EdithVane|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi DoubleGrazing, thanks for the note. I have absolutely no financial or professional connection to any topic related topic that I wrote about, or intent to write about in the future. Nobody is paying or compensating me in any way --directly or indirectly-- for these edits. ~~~~ EdithVane (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see. But I assume there's a reason you're writing about Huang Wang's businesses – how are you connected to them, or him? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not in the slightest! :) I'm Europe based. I have no connection to China, or any kind of businessman anywhere really for that matter. The only reason I updated the SmartQ article was because I've owned one when I was young of these, and the old version of the article looked a bit rough and outdated. So I updated that. And then I saw that there was no Wikipedia article about the company Smart Devices, which I thought was notable enough, everything considered. During the research I kept bumping into this guy, and that he basically ended up creating Zepp Health, which I didn't know, and then I realized there was no article about that. Which I thought was strange because it did turn out to be a stock market noted company. So it was just mostly that through the research one thing led to another. Plus the fact that I can remember I actually Googled Zepp like a year ago and I remember noticing that there was no Wikipedia article. I just got curious how all these companies were connected and which people were involved in it. I do hope that my coverage was evenhanded though EdithVane (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thank you for explaining that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Glad I could clarify EdithVane (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Snuish2. An edit that you recently made to Talk:WikiIslam seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is not allowed on Wikipedia, 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, or ask your questions at the Teahouse, a friendly place for new users. Thanks. Snuish (talk) 03:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. I ran my own draft through an AI assistant for copyediting since I have a bad habit of dropping words when I write. I can say with full confidence that the sources and the actual argument were entirely mine. There is a fair point to make that it was too long regardless and probably running into WP:WALLOFTEXT. I'll post a shorter version rather than contest the collapse EdithVane (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Smart Devices (company), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been accepted!

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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

• See the quality assessment scheme to find out how to improve the article.

Future articles

• Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without submitting a draft for review. However, you may continue submitting drafts to Articles for creation if you prefer.

• 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.

Next steps

• Find other Wikipedia articles related to your topic and add links pointing to the new article. This helps readers find it.
• Group the article with similar subjects by adding relevant categories.
• You may consider nominating a fact from the article within the next 7 days to appear on the Main Page's Did you know section.
• Wikipedia is a work in progress. You can continue to expand and improve the new article.
• The new article will become eligible to be indexed on search engines once patrolled or after 90 days; search engines may take time to reflect this.
• For friendly peer support regarding editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a question and answer hub for new editors.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

HazelAlbertSheriff (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Draft declined

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your draft submission to Articles for creation has been reviewed but not accepted at this time.

Feedback

The reviewer, Thilsebatti, left the following feedback:

This draft's references do not show that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion for organizations and companies. The draft requires multiple published secondary sources that:

• provide significant coverage: discuss the subject in detail, excluding routine coverage like product launches, staff appointments, or financial reports and listings in databases or listicles;
• are reliable: from reputable outlets with editorial oversight;
• are independent: not connected to the subject, such as press releases, the subject's own website, or sponsored content.

Please add references that meet all three of these criteria. If none exist, the subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia.

Next steps

• Edit Draft:Zepp Health to address the points above, making sure to publish any changes.
• When you are ready to resubmit your draft for review, click the Resubmit button.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it may be deleted.

Need help?

• For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know.
• You can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Scam warning

• If anyone asks you for money or payment to publish, protect, or restore a Wikipedia article or draft, it is a scam. Learn about scams on Wikipedia.

Thilsebatti (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, EdithVane! Having a draft declined at Articles for creation can be disappointing, but don't be discouraged, it's common when creating your first article. Need help? For an overview of our policies and guidelines see Everything you need to know. To understand why your draft was declined, please read the reviewer's feedback and follow any links to help pages you've been given. If you're still confused, try asking for advice at the Articles for creation Help desk. For peer support regarding all other editing, sourcing, or policies, visit the Teahouse, a friendly question and answer hub for new editors. We'd love to see you there! Thilsebatti (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, EdithVane. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page WikiIslam, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. We ask that you:

• Avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors
• Disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI)
• Propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions
• Avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming)

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation for any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

See the FAQ for article subjects for more information.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Snuish (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have no connection to WikiIslam, or ex-Muslims of North North America, or anyone who is directly or indirectly affiliated with the website. I have never edited or other participated in any kind of way or shape on this specific website, or its broader organisation. I am not paid or compensated by anyone in manner of edit or other contribution and I have no affiliation to declare EdithVane (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Newslinger. An edit that you recently made to User:EdithVane/Medieval Christian views on Islam seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is not allowed on Wikipedia, 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, or ask your questions at the Teahouse, a friendly place for new users. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 11:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Newslinger,

I understand erring on the side of caution. I also understand that the draft might look like it appeared out of nowhere (which does match the pattern of LLM output and could raise a red flag). The draft in my userspace is the result of a long, long chain of incremental changes I made offline over of a longer period of time, as it stands, it's not a finished article. Despite that, I am confident about the academic rigor I brought to it. Maybe it's useful to mention that the version I maintain myself usually is not synchronized with the version here (and I might have uploaded it prematurely for that reason).

I think it's prudent to be transparent and disclosure is good practice. I sometimes struggle to cleanly hit the encyclopedic register (even though I feel like I've been massively improving recently). I do believe I am an adequate writer and copy editor. Nonetheless, it's a very specific register and quasi-dialect that takes some getting used to. I'm more familiar with essay writing and academic writing than encyclopedic writing (they are very distinct since academic writing leans much more heavily on synthesis). In those cases I use LLM feedback on my prose in the way one might use a copy-editor. I recognise that this is still within what the community is currently cautious about, and I understand very well why that caution exists. And I agree with this because I think anything less would invite major problems.

If you spot specific problems in my work, sourcing or otherwise, have general notes, please do let me know and I will address it. EdithVane (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The bottom of your first revision, Special:Permalink/1366846062, contained the following wikitext comment:

<!-- ============================================================
VERIFICATION TODO (delete before mainspace)
1. Tolan, Saracens: exact pages for (a) the Saracen etymology,
   ch. 1; (b) Guibert of Nogent's admission; (c) William of
   Tripoli; (d) 13th-c. separation legislation.
2. Bonura 2024 publication details (publisher/year).
3. ISBNs included only where verified (Garstad, Muldoon, Hasse,
   plus your originals); add the rest from WorldCat if wanted.
4. Goddard 2000: Timothy I and Abu Qurrah fall within the cited
   chapter (pp. 34–49); optionally narrow the range.
5. Akbari was promoted from Further reading to the reflist
   (Saracen romance; Mandeville) and removed from Further
   reading to avoid duplication.
============================================================ -->

Your next edit was Special:Diff/1366851926. This editing pattern is highly questionable, because it is unclear how you could possibly write an article based on the cited sources before knowing which pages you used and whether the ISBNs and publication details are correct. Based on other editors who had similar editing patterns, it is more likely that you used an LLM to generate this draft, and then attempted to correct the citation discrepancies afterward. Please note that per WP:LLM, this type of editing is still not acceptable, because the article itself is LLM-generated despite the later modifications. — Newslinger talk 13:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

The list was an a personal citation cleanup note written by LLM, yes. I do this for personal usage since I heavily make use of speech to text for ergonomic reasons, which I often clean up using an LLM for legibility since lists and punctuation don't work well with speech dictation. Some of these were second hand accounts in other sources that needed to be verified against other works, as many of these are historical accounts cite each other. Which I agree isn't the best practice as research methodology goes, but I'd argue it's not malicious if checked (considering it's a draft). I do think the article is overall well-sourced and sound as a wip overview of the topic. I'd push back on LLM-generated since I think don't think it represents how the article was put together.

I understand you can't verify any of that from the outside and I suppose I am not asking you to take it on faith. Because of this I will defer to your judgment on this and comply in good faith EdithVane (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

If you have the transcript of the entire AI chatbot conversation(s) that were used for the editing of the draft, posting it here would help greatly with verification. — Newslinger talk 19:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'll be happy to help how I can, however I don't think sharing this this would definitively prove either innocence or guilt in that sense.

Perhaps what you're trying get at is understanding my workflow. In that case, I could give more details, but again, I am not sure this would lead to a clean resolution that is conclusive.

Again, I'm happy to retract the draft indefinitely as a sign of good faith. I don't think Wikipedia can function if this kind of healthy skepticism isn't part of the process. So I understand where you're coming from. EdithVane (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Could you please share the transcripts, along with the name (and version, if applicable) of the LLM tools that were used? — Newslinger talk 21:39, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There's no single conversation (or plural) I could share that would settle this. Even if there were, I'm not sure it would help much. Moreover, I don't think editors should have to share private logs. I understand why you're asking and I appreciate your good intentions, but I can't provide what you’re hoping for. EdithVane (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've referred this discussion to the AI noticeboard. Please see below:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:AI noticeboard regarding an AI cleanup investigation which may be related to you. The thread is User:EdithVane.

— Newslinger talk 23:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would have been happy to comply if the request was reasonably formulated. EdithVane (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I previously warned this user here for the same reason after reviewing this talk page post. Based on the quirks appearing in this user's writing and other tell-tale signs of LLM use (which have continued after my warning), I'm inclined to believe that they are making extensive use of Claude specifically. Snuish (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that we both want what is best here, and that we both find maintaining Wikipedia standards important.

For that one reply you gave me a notice, I'd spend a lot of time on crafting that reply and trying to clean up a message with a light touch puts it through an AI meat blender that ends up tainting the text. Lesson learned, loud and clear. However those other replies I put on the talk page, I took genuinely hours and hours in crafting those. And yes, it does make me sad to see when effort and is misread as AI usage.

I'm always open and welcome to discuss the merits and the content I put forward. EdithVane (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)Reply