User talk:Kc1776!!

Hi Kc1776!!! I noticed your contributions to Susan Wagner 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! Marquardtika (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Women's Entrepreneurship Day, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add a title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • www2.assembly.state.ny.us https://www2.assembly.state.ny.us/write/upload/transcripts/2023/3-22-23.html . Retrieved 2026年07月02日.{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can Women%27s_Entrepreneurship_Day&preloadparams%5b%5d=1362228599"}]]}">report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Hello, Kc1776!!. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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. --Hipal (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Hipal, thanks for the note.

To be clear up front: none of this is paid or affiliated work. It comes from my own independent research using publicly available, reliable sources. I'm a student writing a dissertation on women's entrepreneurship, came across this organization along the way, and found it interesting enough to write about in my paper. I also really admire Wikipedia and was surprised the information here was so thin, so I wanted to help fill it in. I understand now why that raised a conflict-of-interest flag, and I want to handle it the right way — both for this article and because I'd like to keep contributing responsibly.

As I continue my research, there are a few other topics and profiles I'd genuinely like to contribute to, so I want to learn how to do this properly now rather than pick up bad habits. Doing it right for this article matters to me partly so I can do it right everywhere else too.

Going forward I won't edit the article directly. I'll propose changes on the talk page using the Edit Request Wizard, with independent sources for each suggestion, and leave it to uninvolved editors to decide what to include. I'll also note my interest on my user page.

I do think some of my changes improved the article's accuracy and were well-sourced, particularly the Impact and Proclamations sections added verifiable context. I'd like to re-propose those through the talk page for review.

That said, I'm genuinely open to feedback and would welcome having my sources looked at closely. If some don't meet the bar for reliability or independence, I'd honestly rather know so I can find better ones or drop the claim. I'm happy to rework wording for neutrality, trim anything that reads as promotional, and take direction on what belongs and what doesn't. My only goal is a neutral, accurate, well-sourced article, and I'd rather get there the right way than have my version restored as-is.

Thanks so much for taking the time to flag this. I appreciate the guidance, and I'm glad to learn how to contribute the right way! Kc1776!! (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for the response.

It might be best to identify a single article to work on as a start.

Regardless, I strongly recommend Help:Introduction. --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you! I've finished going through the Wikipedia guidelines and I proposed changes on the Talk page based on the research I've done. I have cited sources throughout, so it's now ready for independent editors to review. Whenever an editor has time to review it, I'd welcome the feedback and am happy to adjust anything to meet the article's standards. Kc1776!! (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Stop icon You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

--Hipal (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

--Hipal (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Warning icon Please stop. If you continue to edit Wikipedia using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology), as you did at Women's Entrepreneurship Day, you may be blocked from editing. Adding LLM-generated content is prohibited on Wikipedia. ‐‐gurkubondinn 21:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Kc1776!!: you added 58 new references (!), but I doubt that you've read any of them because three of them don't even exist. On top of that, it is obvious for a number of reasons that this text was generated by an LLM, which is prohibited on by the WP:NOLLM guideline. ‐‐gurkubondinn 21:45, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi @Gurkubondinn

I understand your concern. I used LLM to help me draft the citations which I will admit as I have never used Wiki for citations before. I will not do that again. However, the text was written by myself. I have all my sources written out in another page and all the links worked. There must've been a transfer error when I used Perplexity to help me cite the sources and it was then pasted into Wikipedia. Would you mind letting me know which three references you found that don't exist? I'd like to remove or correct any citations that can't be verified. I will also go through the rest of the references myself to make sure they're all accurate and properly supported.

Thanks for pointing this out—I appreciate the feedback. Kc1776!! (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Unfortunately, that appears to be a LLM-generated response. --Hipal (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi @Hipal,

My tone happens to be more formal and professional. It is most likely a product of my educational history, as well as my current writing for my dissertation. I thought that this type of writing would be best for conversation on Wikipedia Talk and most suitable for the content written itself. Was this assumption wrong? Thanks! Kc1776!! (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Your tone is of no concern. --Hipal (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Gurkubondinn: I've little experience with LLM problems. Do you have suggestions on how to proceed, focusing just on the LLM concerns, or perhaps the overall behavior? --Hipal (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Personally, I tend to think of LLM use as a behavioural problem (and not only a content problem), so addressing it as such often works well. The first step would be for Kc1776 to come clean to us about their use of LLMs, because I think that it is much more than just having "used Preplexity to help cite the sources". The response to that would obviously also factor into "behavioural patterns". If you haven't already, you can post on WP:AIN to get the attention of more editors. ‐‐gurkubondinn 15:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi. I'm looking back on my work and 56/58 new references that I added exist, rendered to the correct/intended link, and are credible neutral sources. The other two (Citation 35 and Citation 63) lead to the main page of the website instead of the specific article I initially researched. I acknowledge that was an oversight on my part but the articles themselves still exist. I am more than willing to edit those sources but under @Hipal 's most recent comment about being blocked from editing, I do not want to escalate the situation.

The prose on the page was written by myself: I've spent hours doing this research for my dissertation on women entrepreneurs so I have all the Programs and Initiatives written out, and a list of Pioneer Honorees with their descriptors in a uniform way for readability. I was disappointed to see my written work be interpreted as generated by an LLM, especially as a university student. I genuinely want to improve this page and contribute constructively, but it has been discouraging to see the work removed while also being flagged for LLM usage.

The other sources that failed to render—particularly number 73 and 75—were there prior to me trying to improve the article (these include citations 70-75 among some others). Once again, I would love to help out and am willing to change those sources for the sake of the article. Kc1776!! (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

You shouldn't be mixing your dissertation work, or any work for that matter, with Wikipedia editing. It creates a conflict of interest. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It does not create a COI as my academic work examines women's entrepreneurship broadly, spanning across regions, sectors, and organizations. I am not editing this page to advance my particular thesis but to rather improve the article accuracy using published sources. All my additions are sourced to external, published materials. Kc1776!! (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I disagree. Let's see what AIN has to say about the LLM concerns.

Discussion at Wikipedia:AI_noticeboard#user_Kc1776!! --Hipal (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I just wanted to jump in here and acknowledge the work that you have done for the project on Women’s Entrepreneurship Day. I’m still getting a hang of Wikipedia but I have seen on other sites how women’s pages can specifically be targeted or held up to a much higher/impossible standard. Especially comparing the edits you made to what is currently on International Men’s Day, the bias against women becomes clear. You had some great sources that were independent and third-party. While some sources could use some editing, you seem to be very open to those edits. Thanks for your contributions. WomenRock123 (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

International Men’s Day is a horrible article. It needs a complete rewrite. --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

New comments have to go at the bottom, and you need to sign them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Good to know. Thank you! Kc1776!! (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply