Hello, BobbyJSmith1972, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Best practices for editors with close associations
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

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. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gheus (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to assist me and provide guidance! I want to be upfront and clarify that I have no connection to the subject or the snowboarding industry in any promotional, financial, or professional capacity. I created the draft as a newer volunteer editor interested in documenting aspects of snowboarding history. I’ve made an effort to follow Wikipedia’s sourcing, neutrality, and conflict of interest guidelines. I did grow up in Utah during the rise of snowboarding, so if any of the wording came across as too enthusiastic, that was not my intent—I’ll take another look and work to make the tone more neutral, but I’d also welcome any help or suggestions if you have the time. Thank you again for your time and help Gheus! BobbyJSmith1972 (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gheus,

I've updated the draft in my sandbox, focusing on neutral tone and sourcing. Following up on the messages above—if you're willing, could you take a look when you have time and let me know if there are any areas that still need improvement? I’d really appreciate your feedback.

Here’s the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Matt_Shaffer

BobbyJSmith1972 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BobbyJSmith1972. I'm willing to help and review. Could you please share with me at least two independent secondary sources that are directly about Matt Shaffer and have covered him in detail? Gheus (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Matt Shaffer 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BuySomeApples (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BobbyJSmith1972! 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! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BuySomeApples — thank you for taking the time to review my submission and share helpful feedback. I appreciate it and will make the suggested edits before resubmitting. Thanks again for your help! BobbyJSmith1972 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, happy editing! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This updated draft addresses the prior feedback. Independent, reliable sources have been added throughout (including newspaper archives, ESPN, Snowboarder Magazine, Backcountry, etc.). The tone has been revised for neutrality and encyclopedic style. Inline citations are included per Wikipedia standards. ~~~ BobbyJSmith1972 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matt Shaffer 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 11:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pythoncoder. Thanks for taking the time to review the draft — I really appreciate it. Your notes were clear and genuinely helpful. I’ve gone back through the article and rewrote the sections with a more neutral tone, tightened the wording, and made sure everything is supported by reliable sources. I also cleaned up the citations and removed anything that wasn’t fully verifiable.

Thanks again for the guidance. If you have any other suggestions after the updates, I’m always open to them. BobbyJSmith1972 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's still ai-generated tho innit —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pythoncoder— Thx for the quick follow up. I spent time research and drafted the revisions myself but I understand the concern. Im still trying to understand exactly what’s raising concern, so any specifics would help me fix whatever’s off.

Thanks again for taking the time! Want to be a better editor here and contribute. BobbyJSmith1972 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BobbyJSmith1972! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Anthony Meindl 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. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops — thanks for the catch! Still learning the minor-edit etiquette here. I’ll be more careful with that checkbox from now on. Appreciate the note! BobbyJSmith1972 (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matt Shaffer 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pythoncoder — just saw this and totally understand your concern.

I draft the content in Word where I take more time and catch grammar/spelling stuff, but my edit summaries on Wikipedia are typed fast, basically like texts. I can see how the difference might look odd, and I apologize — I’ll be more careful going forward.

I’ll take another pass through the draft. If anything still feels off, any specifics would help. Thanks again for the guidance. BobbyJSmith1972 (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prone to writing abbreviated/typo-heavy edit summaries as well, but beyond that, the writing style is very AI-like. It's common for large language models to overemphasize sources that cover the subject within the article's text, and I see that pattern showing up a lot here. There are also specific words in your draft that are disproportionately used in LLM-generated drafts. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder thanks for the follow-up. I’ll take another pass through the draft. Appreciate the heads-up and the help! BobbyJSmith1972 (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]