User talk:Julienhlt2

Welcome!
Hello, Julienhlt2, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Time management, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for article subjects
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorials
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
Hello, Julienhlt2, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, This text is my own contribution with reliable source, please give me time to add my source. I took many time to write this en you removed my contribution every time. I have to finish this work for my class assignment Julienhlt2 (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There's quite a bit of work that would be needed on that addition. Prose like "In a world where the speed of life is quickening..." really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. You seem to be mentioning an essay "New Perspectives in Time Management", but there's no source that would identify what this is. You've also used sources that are very ambiguous - we have no idea what "Ferrari, 2001" or "Rothbard, 2001" is without full cites. We also cannot use "how to" style sections like "To enhance telecommuting time management, try the following strategies". Please don't re-add that material without correcting these problems - you've done it multiple times, and eventually that could be viewed as edit warring. You can use the article's talk page to propose changes or create a draft so others can assist you. Pinging and, since this involves one of your students, and they seem to be indicating that you're setting some kind of time limit on them. Sam Kuru (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per the section below, I believe this text is at least partially AI generated. "New Perspectives in Time Management" is the title of the section added by Julienhlt2. It reads as if an AI has been asked to write a short essay about this subject, and it's referring back to its own essay title. Belbury (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Kuru. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Julienhlt2 As you should know, it's never acceptable to edit war over your additions to Wikipedia. Once your additions were reverted you cannot re-add them without discussing the issue first.
 * I took many time to write this en you removed my contribution every time. - you should have a draft in your sandbox that your instructor can grade.
 * I have to finish this work for my class assignment - please refer to the training modules you took for the class. You should never be making this argument.
 * Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, This text is my own contribution with reliable source, please give me time to add my source. I took many time to write this en you removed my contribution every time. I have to finish this work for my class assignment
 * https://www.timedoctor.com/blog/time-management-and-mental-health/
 * https://www.cheservices.com/blog/can-time-management-improve-your-mental-health
 * https://www.roberthalf.com/us/en/insights/management-tips/5-ways-to-effectively-manage-a-team-of-telecommuters
 * this 3 reliables sources, so please give me time to add my sources and answer me to let me Know if is good for you Julienhlt2 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia writing, see WP:RS. You should stop trying to add this content. MrOllie (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The first source is incredibly poor; it's content marketing blog post written by an "SEO specialist". The second one is not much better, another content marketing blog. That one also gets in to medical claims, and we have much higher standards for things that that (see WP:MEDRS). The third one is yet another content marketing blog, written by a head-hunter. Again, it would be much better if these were published in reliable sources with editorial controls, instead of company blogs. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

AI-generated content
Hello, I'm Belbury. An edit that you recently made to Time management seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or another application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Belbury (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * My contribution is my own write with reliable source. Just give me time to add my reliable source thank you Julienhlt2 (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you read WP:REFB, which is a page explaining references and the reliable source requirement for beginning Wikipedia contributors. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You should be drafting this in your sandbox, not live in mainspace. And remember that you should be using scholarly sources like journal articles or books from academic presses, not blog posts. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Text analysis rates the content that you added as 72% likely to have been generated by an AI, compared to around 5% for other text in the article. There are certainly telltale suggestions (such as delves into three critical areas) that this text was at least partly written by an AI, and it's an unusual stylistic choice for a page section to write about itself as if it were the title of a work ("New Perspectives in Time Management").

Please do be careful if using AI generated content. --Belbury (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi. I wanted to give you some tips on writing in a style that's appropriate for Wikipedia.

These are just a few examples. These sorts of issues run through your entire addition. You need to rewrite this from top to bottom. And please do this in your sandbox. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In a world where the speed of life is quickening - You should work with simple, factual statements. "In a world where" is filler. The statement here is "the speed of life is quickening". Is this a factual statement? If so, what scholarly source supports it?
 * and personal obligations are expanding - is this globally true? And if you say something is "expanding" you need to make a statement that's time-bound (since when have these obligations "expanded"?). You should also attribute this to a source: "According to [source]" obligations ["personal" is filler when you're talking about individuals] "are expanding" [now this is a problem; obligations don't have volume, so they can't "expand"; don't use metaphorical language]."
 * "New Perspectives in Time Management" delves into three critical areas - you're using quotes here, so is this the name of a book, a management theory, or what? A Google search is turning up just a single hit for that phrase, and Google Scholar has none at all. So it's very unclear what you mean here.

Switching between different accounts
Hello, Julienhlt2, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Julienhlt2, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)