User talk:Alenoach

Hello, Alenoach, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

Hi Alenoach. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some other concepts of time, what

do you now expect the passage to be about? 103.153.108.242 (talk) 05:45, 28 August 2023 (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 Timtrent was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This has strong helping of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, nether of which are acceptable

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:Vulnerable world hypothesis 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alenoach! 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! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I've started a move discussion over at Talk:Artificial intelligence detection software as per your suggestion. Let me know if the suggested name is best, or any further comments on the move. Thank you! 😊 GnocchiFan (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback, GnocchiFan. I responded on the article's Talk page. Alenoach (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2023 (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 WikiOriginal-9 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Not enough independent, significant coverage showing this is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

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:Vulnerable world hypothesis 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.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2023 (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 Vanderwaalforces was:

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

If this is not properly sourced is definitely WP:OR even though I know if this concept personally.

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:Vulnerable world hypothesis 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.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you changed a few page numbers in artificial intelligence#Transparency. I think we may be working from different editions of Christian's book. I'm going to check the citation and make sure it's my edition, and then change the page numbers back. I don't plan on changing your rewrites. (Just letting you know in case you're watching the page). Cheers. ---- CharlesTGillingham (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CharlesTGillingham. I used the e-book version from 2020. In this version, p. 110 corresponds to the end of the part "SALIENCY: THE WHITES OF ITS EYES", and 88-91 correspond to all of "THE WRONG RULES" except the last page. Feel free to change the page numbers, as long as it's consistent. Or alternatively, you could also put the section names instead of the page numbers, which may be less ambiguous. Alenoach (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Glossary of artificial intelligence—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the added content at the beginning, sorry. Thanks for having fixed it quickly! I should have double-checked for any accidental copy-pasting before publishing the modification. You can check the rest of the contributions, they are serious, so I will add them back if it's ok to you. Alenoach (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happened is probably a "Ctrl + F, Ctrl + V" attempt that someway ended up copying the content into the article instead of the search bar. Alenoach (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of programming languages for artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Purely functional. 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) 17:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sentience Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Animal advocacy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit on Reinforcement learning from human feedback because it cited an unreliable source. Please see WP:FORBESCON for more info. Happy editing! GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I added back the content, but this time with a source from Analytics India Magazine and one from Ars Technica. Alenoach (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point about keeping the lead simple. The problem is the use of CEA's quote without making it clear that it's self-description by proponents. The way to solve it is to use the descriptions of third parties rather than linking to a boosterish website.Essence of nightshade (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Essence of nightshade,

I think the fact that it is a quote already suggests that it comes from proponents, which can be easily verified by checking the references. And given that, according to the 2nd reference, it is endorsed by 11 organizations, it seems ok to me to not mention the Centre for Effective Altruism to keep the first sentence easy to digest. I think the quote is a pretty clear description of what effective altruism overall advocates for, despite some failures like with FTX. Even if we supposed that their advocacy is counter-productive or not genuine, it wouldn't necessarily invalidate the fact that they are advocating for it. That's how I see it. But I will probably spend some time on the article this week to reduce the number of sources that come from effective altruists, potentially removing some content at the same time. Alenoach (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alenoach. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Vulnerable world hypothesis".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jan Leike, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that AI researcher Jan Leike believes "safety culture and processes have taken a backseat to shiny products" at OpenAI? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Leike. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jan Leike), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you need further explanation of why promotional links are being removed, please ask first. Arllaw (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in removing some older spam I accidentally reverted some content to an earlier version. That was unintentional, and I appreciate that you corrected that error. Arllaw (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. If I restored some spam reference along with the rest, you can of course remove the reference or COI content, as long as it's a targeted edit. Alenoach (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]