User talk:GregariousMadness

Proposed deletion of 15.ai

The article 15.ai has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is written as an advertisement and was contributed in its entirely by non-neutral involved parties that present the website in an overwhelmingly glowing light. There are dozens of comparable text to speech services that do not have wikipedia articles and that frequently garner press attention. The text here reads as a product press release.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ConflictedPony (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 15.ai (April 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:15.ai and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:15.ai, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, GregariousMadness! Having an article 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 15.ai (April 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:15.ai and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:15.ai, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 15.ai (April 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Tatupiplu were: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:15.ai and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:15.ai, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

Tatupiplu'^talk 19:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

About Ltbdl 

Ltbdl is vandalising, editing and trying to get 15.ai removed, because they think 15 abandoned its project. Please report them! RocketKnightX (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 15.ai

15.ai has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what that is, or how to add a comment. GregariousMadness (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies

It was nothing personal Re: the SPI, it was just the unfortunate timing of your editing and the events that transpired around 15.ai with the sockpuppeting recently that led me to create the SPI case. Cheers and good luck with the continued edits. The reason I removed a number of the sources that you added was because they were blog content. For instance, [1] is basically intended to discuss 15.ai for the sake of advertising elevenlabs.

Cheers! Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It's ok. I'll look at resolving the other issues in the top box in the meantime. Cheers. GregariousMadness (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You got trouted for accusing the other party of vandalism in a content dispute. Polygnotus (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Olympiad mathematics

A tag has been placed on Olympiad mathematics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

International Mathematical Olympiad already exists (A10?)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

DeepLearning.AI moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to DeepLearning.AI. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Mekomo (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 15.ai for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 15.ai is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15.ai (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Brocade River Poems (She/They) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

15.ai article

Hi there, I can understand the frustration you are feeling with the 15.ai article. I hope that despite these frustrations, that you will stick around. I am impressed with the research you put into saving that article, even though most of the sources you found didn't really show the notability for an article. But someone with your enthusiasm, knowledge and research skills could definitely be a real asset to Wikipedia. One thing you might consider is whether, rather than starting new articles, you could contribute to ones we already have.

One of the problems on Wikipedia can be a rush to create new articles about anything and everything, when, in fact, that is not how we would write about these things in the real world. For instance, rather than creating pages for every generative AI website, developing a page that talks about generative AI audio development may be a better approach. It is better for a reader, who probably doesn't care about a website that doesn't even exist anymore. What a reader is likely to be looking for is some history of the development of the subject. Even though not notable for a page in their own right, such a page would mention various key sites in the development.

Of course the sourcing problem is still the same. Is there some secondary source that talks about this development that we can base an article on? That remains key. But starting from such sources, I think you could have a lot to offer the encyclopaedia.

In the meantime, why not just look at other pagesa bout things you know about and see if you can make improvements to those. You would pick up the knowledge and skills along the way. Take care, and happy editing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate it. I have been feeling really frustrated, especially with Brocade River Poems constantly pushing back on every edit I made, but she's gone now.

I hope, since we're on this topic, you won't mind asking exactly you felt like GNG wasn't met? To my understanding (and I've seen this mentioned in the Teahouse), a good rule of thumb is three reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage. I felt like the Den Fami Nico Gamer, the AUTOMATON, the United Daily News, and the Towards Data Science articles were the most reliable articles that demonstrates SIGCOV, so I thought that argument alone would be enough to keep the article afloat. There's a lot of secondary articles about 15.ai alongside those four sources, so could I get an insight as to why you felt that my argument didn't apply? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I did put my thoughts in the AfD itself. Some will accept any three sources. For me, I am looking at what can be written in an article based on the sources. Those didn't provide the depth of coverage that went beyond what the website actually did. I think if this were really a truly notable website, people would be writing their secondary sources based on it. The legal issues raised would be something to pay attention to. If it becomes notable, I'd bet it does because of those issues. You say you are a grad student, so you are probably looking a lot at sourcing just now. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We are looking for someone else to do the original research, the analysis and synthesis of sources. Once they do that, we would use their work, the secondary sources, to write our (tertiary) articles. That is the difference between encyclopaedia articles and, say, research papers or history essays. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think if this were really a truly notable website, people would be writing their secondary sources based on it. But people do write about the website... there are a lot of articles that write about 15.ai, but they just happened to barely miss out on the "significant coverage" part, even though I was referred to WP:100W as a good guideline for it, and I was even told that if an article is on the edge of being included or excluded, it's good practice to err towards including it. I'm just frustrated as hell right now because every time I find a source that I think is suitable, there seems to be some standard being pulled out of thin air that makes that source just barely incompatible. Like, the Kotaku, Rock Paper Scissors, PC Gamer, Game Informer, Den Fami Nico Gamer, AUTOMATON, LAPS4, United Daily News, Towards Data Science, The Batch, GamerSky, Speechify, Elevenlabs, Stevivor, NME, Eurogamer, etc. all talk about 15.ai, but it just doesn't make sense to me that despite all these website talking about 15.ai, it's still considered "not notable". I just want this to make sense... If I'm being honest, this entire experience made me not want to try creating an article again because of the impossible standards people have... GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:100W is an essay and not policy, as was pointed out in the discussion. And it is not an essay I agree with. Anyway I've said what I hope will be good advice to you. Again, I understand your frustration, but hope you'll stick around. Now I am off to bed. Night. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Good night. I hope you're well. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 23:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I know you're asleep, but would you be opposed to possibly relisting to gain further consensus rather than endorsing the deletion? I just think that the discussion was closed way too soon and I feel like more people could have given more opinions on the new sources than what I got. It would really make me feel a lot better if I knew that relisting would be in the realm of possibility. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that a relist would be a lot of help here. I would have thought the best way forward, if you believe this article really should be on Wikipedia, would be to request draftification, and then work on the article and submit to articles for creation (AfC). I would support that action, but I would continue to note that what we are still lacking is secondary sourcing that demonstrates the actual permanent notability of this site. I believe it is possible that notability will be demonstrated in the future. I think it is possible someone will write about it in the context of the legal and moral issues it raised - so if that happens, you will be able to add in that sourcing and it will sail through AfC. I don't think we are there yet, but certainly not opposed to a draft in the hope such will appear.

When writing articles, however, I personally believe far too many people jump to writing full articles on a subject when the reader of Wikipedia is more likely to have their information need met should the information instead be written into broader articles. Consider, if we have nothing but Wikipedia, then in 10 years time, who will be searching for information on 15.ai? Not many, I'd guess. But many more will be searching the history and development of Generative artificial intelligence. Writing a couple of sentences into that article would probably see many more people reading your work than writing a full article here. And when a subject in a broader article becomes independently notable, its coverage in the article naturally expands to the point that it should obviously be split into a child article.

Lastly, you might think you spent a lot of time for the sake of a couple of sentences. But actually good encyclopaedia writing is like that. Often we are distilling lengthy secondary sources down to their very essence. I could waffle on about subjects I know about for hours, starting now, but if you want me to write about them in a two sentence summary, that will take me many hours of preparation. I have the greatest respect for the most succinct of writers. They know more about a subject than anyone. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I know that you don't believe that the subject meets notability, but I'm asking you to look past your own opinion because it looked like a number of people were disagreeing with that. I don't think it would hurt to let it be relisted -- I'm asking you to give me closure because this is going to bother me for a long time. Please. If a relisting shows that people come to a consensus that the sources don't prove notability, then I'll accept it. But right now, as it is, it looks like it's headed towards an "Endorse", which means that I won't be able to make the case for my new sources for a long time. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 12:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

it just doesn't make sense to me that despite all these website talking about 15.ai, it's still considered "not notable". I just want this to make sense...

So, in my departing moments I can deliver to you an explanation of, at least, my concerns regarding the notability. Mostly, Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, that represents what reliable sources say. It could very well be true that 15.ai was revolutionary and groundbreaking in the world of AI, but untill a source says that, there's no verifiability. Consequently, a handful of news articles offering a brief overview of how fun and quirky it is and what characters it has does not meet notability, no matter how many outlets repeat the statements. The guidelines for notability that 15.ai has to meet can generally be found at WP:WEBNOTE. Specifically, WEBNOTE directs you to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#INTERNET should...describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance. None of the sources offered any detail on the website's achievements, impact, or historical significance. My decision to AfD the article was because after all of the talk page discussion, nothing had been given that improved the notability and I had been told that AfD was the place to settle notability before your return to the article. All of the sources I saw just described what the site did and what the nature of the site was. The article getting deleted isn't the end of the world, though. If you want to improve it, you can ask an Admin to send it to your userspace and you can continue to work on it and send it through Articles for Creation again. Briefly addressing your list of sites, I created a RSN awhile back about Elevenlabs, Speechify, etc. [2] and the general opinion was that they weren't suitable. Moreover, I later realized that the Speechify source was WP:REFLOOP as it used the exact same wordage as an earlier version of Wikipedia's 15.ai article, so I probably wouldn't use them in whatever future article you night craft.

Cheers, all the best, and also don't stress out so much over this place that you're losing sleep over it, please. Take care of yourself and happy trails! Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

To be completely honest, Brocade, you are the most relentless person I’ve ever interacted on Wikipedia. Every time I saw you write something, I dreaded having to respond to your incessant nitpicking and almost berating tone, as if I’m some sort of child. I hated having to tiptoe around what I should say to you, because I knew that if I said something wrong, you would almost surely make a post on AN/I or SPI about me. Despite this, you still made two SPI’s against me over the span of a month. You were primarily the reason why I lost so much sleep worrying about Wikipedia, so I can’t help but laugh that you’re telling me to stop losing sleep over it. And it’s not true that we didn’t interact before you nominated the article for deletion. I spent weeks talking to you over the article’s talk page, and when I had started to feel like I had appropriately addressed your comments, you wrote “Cheers!”, making me feel like I did something right, only to my horror when I refreshed the article and saw that you had nominated it to AfD. I don’t think it’s conspiratorial to see and experience all this and think that you were planning to do this from the very beginning. It’s just not right. I hope you realize how awful you’ve been towards me. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 08:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Brocade, you are the most relentless person I’ve ever interacted on Wikipedia

I confess some manner of confusion about your takeaway of our interactions, since I've hardly said anything to you at all, and your interactions with anyone on Wikipedia, let alone me, are hardly numerous? As I stated, I returned to the SPI after it was revealed that AristotleOfCyrene was another Sock of HKA after I saw that you had been involved in a discussion with other editors in which you and AristotleOfCyrene took the same position and the matter of whether or not you were involved with HKA remained unresolved. You may find my decision to do so strange, but you re-appeared on an article after a length period of being dormant in the exact same way that HKA's other friend/sock/meatpuppet did. Like them all, you seem deeply invested in 15.ai and it having an article on Wikipedia, and someone else on the COI page had already raised a concern that You, HKA, and the Vanished User were socks. Moreover, said Socks organized together a quirky operation to attack and defame me claiming I was running some secret "transgender Discord" dedicated to terrorizing the 15.ai article. Given that I accepted HKA in good faith after their block and had basically accepted their apology, I found it incredibly disheartening to find out they had created another sock in AristotleOfCyrene. As the CheckUser noted they were already investigating the case involving you before I had even re-opened it after the AristotleOfCyrene shenanigans. I reverted essentially none of your edits save for re-removing sources that you had readded. Here I said that Newsblog doesn't seem to apply [3] and explained that it wasn't a mistaken removal, which is one of the only edit summaries where I directly communicated something to you specifically. Other than that, my edit summaries are just summaries of what I did. As for our direct interactions, here I respond to you explaining why I removed the sources and said [4] Removing TVTropes is a good play. If other people disagree and feel that eleven labs, et al are acceptable sources, that's fine by me.. Again, I am unclear what about this interaction is relentless or has terrified you so. Here [5] I responded to a debate between you and another editor saying it doesn't matter what the definition of plaigarism is, the source doesn't use the word, so Wikipedia can't use it, and here [6] in response to your statement that the article was receiving undue scrutiny I said that removing content is sometimes improving the article and that per policy there shouldn't be an entire section dedicated to the scandal. Moreover, that was the talk page consensus that there shouldn't be a section if we subtract HKA's socking, you were really the only one who argued for maintaining the section, and then yeah, here [7] I explained why I had been removing The Batch. I am unsure what about anything I posted you felt was incessant nitpicking and almost berating tone, as if I’m some sort of child

because I knew that if I said something wrong, you would almost surely make a post on AN/I or SPI about me

At no point did you really have any basis for this fear of me. I never took you anywhere because you said "something wrong". I took you to SPI because you rematerialized onto the article after a sockpuppet ring had been blocked, it was found "Unlikely" and then after you and the Sock inadvertently tag-teamed on the talk page, I brought it up after it was revealed that AristotleOfCyrene was a sock. Notably, I didn't do anything until after that fact that AristotleofCyrene was an HKA sock. If I was just specifically out to get you, wouldn't I have just brought you to SPI again immediately? I didn't, though. It was only after I saw that AristotleOfCyrene was a sock that I wanted a more definitive answer on whether you were involved because you and AristotleOfCyrene took the same stance and you implemented the sock's suggestions.

Yes, I replied "Cheers!" to you because you took The Batch to the Reliable Source Noticeboard and after I reviewed the RSN, you were told that it counted as an expert SPS, but that SPS sources do not contribute to notability. "Cheers!" in a dispute about whether The Batch was a reliable source means I wasn't contesting the outcome or inclusion of The Batch after it was found to be an ExpertSPS. Quite honestly, I've only ever been cordial with you. And as I said, my concerns about notability existed before I ever interacted with you, where I was told to take the article to AfD to settle the matter of notability [8], and you can see quite clearly that my expressed concerns about notability existed long before you'd returned [9]. You did do something right! That's the beauty of it! The problem was, it was explicitly stated that Andrew Ng's sources didn't confer notability to 15.ai, going to AfD had absolutely nothing to do with our interaction. It was an inevitable outcome because in October I had said "Hey, this doesn't seem notable" and then nobody was coming up with any sources that helped address the issue of notability.

My decision to AfD the article had nothing to do with you. My editing of the article had nothing to do with you. None of what I did was an indictment of you or a personal attack on you. Even an SPI investigation isn't an attack. I said don't lose sleep over it because if you're not doing anything wrong, nothing is going to happen to you. If you aren't HKA or any of the blocked socks, you've done nothing wrong.

Who knows, maybe my neurodivergence just rubs against yours the wrong way, but no, I do not realize how awful I have been to you because I don't see anything awful about our interaction. I am, however, sorry that you felt that I was horrible to you or being relentless because that isn't my intention. From my perspective, I complimented your edits~! I said it was good to remove TVTropes, you did good going to RSN with The Batch! I pointed out policies to explain "hey here's why I'm doing this!" and so that you could understand policywise where I was coming from since you didn't seem familiar with the policies and everything, and yes, I brought up the SPI again because I wanted it to be certain that you weren't HKA after the shenanigans that transpired where they actively harassed me and did sock/meat puppet shtick with basically the intent of getting me blocked just because they were super attached to 15.ai.

So yes, I apologize, but you have to understand that from my perspective this transpired an entirely different way. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry. When I returned to Wikipedia I was trying my absolute hardest to fit in, but the sheer number of rules and things to learn made it hard for me to keep up, and I felt like the way you were talking to me made me feel like I was too stupid to contribute to Wikipedia. Constantly being accused of being a sock by people and being berated for violating a rule I didn't even know existed made it so hard for me to keep trying and learn the rules. I know you mean well, but for months I always thought you were out to get me or something. As you said, my neurodivergence makes it hard for me to reason with other people who disagree with me with a clear mind, and I find it hard to adapt to such rigid systems without more support and patience. Sorry again for assuming the worst of you. I get it from your point of view when you wrote "Cheers!" but in my mind (at the time), that convinced me that you were out to get me. After that exchange, I starting viewing every edit from you as somehow indirectly trying to affect me in the end. It's my fault that I lost so much sleep over this, but I can't help it. I have a bad problem of taking things too personally when I shouldn't. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 03:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Friendo, I get it that everything about Wikipedia is a bit overwhelming (and I barely understand how this stuff works) but I wasn't trying to berate you, I was trying to explain why I was doing what I was doing. Also, I understand that time can get a bit tricky (for me, it is a concept which my brain has unsubscribed from) but for months I always thought you were out to get me, you came back on November 18th. It is December 20th. We haven't interacted for months. It's been like, one month. I get it though, but yeah. I probably come across as more prickly then I intend to because I tried to just write formally on Wikipedia so I don't go "XD" or any of the other things I do to offset my equivalent of RBF in terms of typing.

Anyways, I am sorry that I made you feel that way, it wasn't my intention to berate you or make you feel stupid or any of that. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It's okay. I'm so happy we had this conversation. I really don't like making enemies so I'm glad we were able to talk it out. Have a great night GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better, I never viewed you as an enemy or anything. As for my use of "Cheers!", I've spent entirely too much time hanging out with British friends online, I just use it as like expressing gratitude/saying farewell. So my intention of going "Cheers!" was to indicate that I accepted it, thanks, and I wasn't going to fight it or anything. I often at times sign off on my posts on Wikipedia with "Cheers", etc. Again, super sorry if it came across like I was out to get you. Absolutely not the case! Take care!

p.s. Good job on the new article. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 15.ai has been accepted

15.ai, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

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

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of 15.ai for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 15.ai is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15.ai (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BusterD (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

15.ai discussion and disruptive editing

I think Buster's decision to close the DRV and open a 3rd discussion is a reasonable outcome. I see you have posted a thorough explanation of the sources and why you believe it meets notability. I hope others find it convincing. Based on what I saw at the 2nd AfD and at the DRV, I want to caution you against bludgeoning the process. Dominating a discussion like that can be a form of disruptive editing. While will leave the close to others, I will be watching the discussion for signs of disruption; besides bludgeoning this includes socking and CANVASSing and will take action if this happens. Knowing your good faith I would feel bad about your actions causing me to block you from the discussion. While there is no set number of replies/number of words that turns someone's participation into bludgeoning, I would suggest that if you limit yourself to 1 or 2 replies and 500 or fewer total additional words (given your already extensive keep !vote) you will definitely stay on the safe side. Let me know if you have any questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn’t aware of what bludgeoning was until someone pointed it out to me in the DRV, and I won’t make that mistake again. May I edit my post with additional details as I find them? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, am I allowed to ask User:Pokelego999 and User:Alalch E. to give their opinions? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing a submitted comment in substantial ways after someone has replied is not allowed. Under the canvassing guideline, you could choose to alert every participant in the last AFD discussion (with a neutral message like "Following the last AfD, I was given the chance to recreate the article. This new article is now at AfD. Since you participated in the last discussion I am notifying you.") but you may not just alert selected people (see the information about "audience" in the link above). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! Is it also considered bludgeoning if I respond to a comment in the editor’s talk page instead? I just did that now but I realized I should have asked you first, so sorry about that. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That is generally OK, but it is important to gauge the interest of the other person in deciding how much to carry on the conversation and I would recommend against doing it for everyone who may leave a delete !vote as that may be its own issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My opinion is that you should follow the advice of Barkeep49. You are clearly well-intentioned, and as I have already said, you have the right initiative and a good general idea about what needs to be done. You seem pretty capable in writing articles so don't be discouraged. Your editing in article space is a completely separate thing from your managing disputes and processes. It's in that latter aspect that your edits have been a little bothersome in terms of tempo and volume. Gauging oneself takes a bit of practice. —Alalch E. 19:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I basically second what Alalch is saying here. You've got some good faith about you and are clearly working in a good interest, but you don't need to respond as much as you have been backstage. Sometimes the best responses are the most concise ones. You've only come back recently to my knowledge, so per Alalch I'd definitely suggest on working on making sure your discussions are less severe in terms of volume going forward. Regardless of the outcome, you did an excellent job with the 15ai article, so I wish you the best with editing going forward. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both so much for your kind words. I felt like giving up so many times trying to improve Wikipedia in the last few months, so seeing this is making me feel like crying, but out of happiness this time. Thanks again GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 02:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 15.ai, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chell and Few-shot learning. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I've changed the disambiguations to the correct articles. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

15.ai

Hello, GregariousMadness,

I'm only posting this message because I notice you have brought me up in several discussions about this article. I did suggest that you start a new draft and submit it to AFC for review but I think you wouldn't have encountered these problems (a 3rd AFD) if you hadn't done this immediately after the previous AFD was closed.

You should have waited for the Deletion review to be closed and then, probably waited a few weeks before submitting a new version of this article so that the previous deletion wasn't on everyone's mind. I haven't examined and compared the two articles to see if they are similar but I don't think that this article will be given a fair evaluation because, frankly, after the long previous AFD and a rereview at GAR, I think editors who have an opinion on this subject might just be tired of talking about this article subject. So, I think there might be a bias against this article because of editor exhaustion.

If this article gets deleted again, please wait 3-6 months before trying again to submit new content on this subject. I think editors will be more open-minded when they aren't tired of looking at sources on this subject. This is not admin advice, I'm just talking as an editor who has participated in quite a lot of AFDs over the past 4 years. Sometimes editors just need to look at an article with fresh eyes and that can mean taking a long break before attempting to reintroduce an article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz. I'm sorry for tagging you so much. I have a bad habit of panicking when something goes wrong even though I thought I did everything right. But I do have a question. It does seem like the 3rd AfD isn't headed toward an immediate delete, so if the consensus ends up being keep, is there any chance the article could still be deleted due to my actions? I'm just scared something like the 2nd AfD will happen again, but this time because I was too hasty in making the draft. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 03:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you.

		The Original Barnstar
		Honestly I feel like you deserve it for finding sources for 15.ai, believe me, I searched repeatedly and couldn't find nearly half of what you did. Regardless of what the result of the newest AfD is, you did good work. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I really did put in a lot of effort into the research, and I'm glad my effort paid off in the end. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 05:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm really bummed Business News Ledger turned out to be a fakey site. My advice to you would be that if the article gets deleted again, to wait a little longer. There more than likely will be more coverage about 15.ai as time goes by. Part of what is maddeningly frustrating about this article is they named their project "15.ai" which makes finding sources an absolute nightmare because 90% of the time you get a bunch of "TOP 15 AI" junk posts. Your work is comendable, you found a lot of sources I never could have. I don't want my switch to delete to come across like you've done a bad job, I don't think that at all. You've done amazing with how difficult this thing is to find information about. I cannot stress this enough, you did good work. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 11:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What about a !vote to draftify? AfD is imposing deadlines on finding the information whereas draft space as a safe space to develop the article would make take the heat off whilst recognising that sources may well become available in the future. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be better than just a delete. I was pretty torn up when I saw that all my hard work I did overnight was deleted without warning, had no logs of it ever existing on Wikipedia. Thankfully it was reverted soon but I was very close to giving up altogether when that happened. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 15:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm down for Draftify! Just don't jump the gun on submitting it again :D. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DeepLearning.AI (December 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:DeepLearning.AI 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.

bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

DeepLearning.AI Draft

If I might be so bold as to make a suggestion, try and condense the courses section down to broadstrokes of what the courses are. Right now, a full listing of the courses like the draft had before someone edited it looks like the article is advertising the courses. Coursera#Courses and Saylor_Academy#Courses might be a good places to look for as a model on re-vamping the courses section. Best of luck to you! Brocade River Poems (She/They) 13:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Looking back on where I left off last night, I see why it was denied for sounding advertorial. I'll look at the other articles and take note. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello GregariousMadness! The thread you created at the Teahouse, If a DRV ends up being an "Endorse" instead of "Allows Recreation", what happens to the new information that I found?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)