User talk:WeyerStudentOfAgrippa

March 21 2020

Responded to your Eliezer Yudkowsky revert on the talk page. Since no evidence is provided that Yudkowsky is lying when reporting undocumented high school test scores, I disagree with your rationale for relevance. Even if he were lying, I'm not sure it's worth keeping unless it were part of a pattern establishing he's a crank (and I didn't see evidence for that in the entry). If the claim is not evidence he's a crank, then it's not relevant to a serious biography since it doesn't tell us anything interesting. 77.164.155.115 (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 20 2020

Sara Parkin is the new chair of Population Matters https://populationmatters.org/our-board Can you reinstate this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanalison (talk • contribs) 17:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 25 2019

Why did you remove the information about Calhoun County not having any hotels? It's a fact. Go to Google Maps and look 'hotels' - do you want to put a link to something that doesn't exist?

WP:OR -- WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 23:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Broad Oak High School— 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 Help desk. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leonidas D. Marinelli, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spectrometry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "WeyerStudentOfAgrippa" is sabotaging edits, United States article. --DMacks (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the admins agree that the edits I undid were low-quality, and the editor who started the thread was indefinitely blocked for making a WP:PA against an admin in the same thread. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I didn't expect that outcome. Keep up the good work! Now that I'm not wearing my admin hat, I can say that:) DMacks (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GPT-3 generated content in Water Scarcity

I think you made History in removing the addition i did to the water scarcity article :) Nevertheless, everything generated is sound. Yemen is comparable to Chad in terms of water scarcity and as of 2015 sadly more than half the population of Yemen do not have secure access to clean water. I checked it and added sources. I find this extraordinarily exciting. im currently playing around with it and can already produce scientifically sound text to almost any topic. Have a nice, from Austria --Gewure (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Here is the tweet where i originally published the text used in Water Scarcity: https://twitter.com/gewure/status/1292849373521547267 I am not sure if this is still OR in this case? regards, --Gewure (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, still OR. You can ask at WP:NORN if you want other opinions. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i think im gonna ask them! Probably im gonna publish a short paper with a coworker about using GPT-3 to create wiki-like descriptive text. I't will be uploaded to arxiv when its ready, maybe then it can be used and is hopefully peer reviewed. regards, --Gewure (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gewure: An arXiv paper or better would be fine in terms of OR, but if you are an author, that could open up WP:COI issues. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree, i wouldn't add it myself, but maybe somebody. --Gewure (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gewure Did you write the paper? WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im unsure to which paper you are refering to. i did not author a scientific release recently.

i originaly used GPT-3 in 2020 to generate content for Water Scarcity and i think since it was in closed beta, it was one of the first/or not even the first ever AI generated content added to wikipedia. Gewure (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding; I was just curious. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im just curious, which paper you are refering to? :) Gewure (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh. my bad. Sorry. I now get which paper - the paper i wanted to write myself :)

nooo, i did not. shortly after i wanted to start, there was a huge amount of papers published to the matter and i felt kind of that it is no more neccessary.

Still - i think you removed the very first ever made AI-Content from Wikipedia :D

( i hold no grude - but for Historical reasons i wanted to note this here :)) Gewure (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About your undo on the page Jacobian conjecture

Hi, I see that you undid my edit on the page "Jacobian conjecture". Please give your justification. Why is it OK for you to accept the sentence "There are no known compelling reasons for believing it to be true", while not accepting the sentence ("indeed, there is also no compelling evidence to support these suspicions")? What is your evidence?

AI independent goals

Hi Weyer for possible interest ref our previous https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/jfy8n9/what_will_an_ai_itself_decide_is_important/. best, JCJC777 (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created a section for this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muse_(children%27s_magazine)#Why_are_you_guys_reverting_only_one_of_my_edits_and_not_the_rest? — WinnerWolf99 ^talk_{What did I break now?} 21:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging u at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence#Possible_scenario_edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annemaricole (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loveable_lion

Should we block this person they are not here to start an editing career Loveable lion.gurl (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to support the creation of WikiProject Effective altruism

Hello, I've created a proposal for WikiProject Effective altruism to help coordinate efforts to create and articles related to effective altruism. I saw that you made significant improvements to the articles Global catastrophic risk and The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity, so I thought you might be interested. If you'd like, please support the WikiProject proposal here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Effective Altruism. Enervation (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christopher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Topher.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Effective altruism

Remember, when you change an item in a navbox, you should move the navbox to the new target article. I did that for this edit of yours. Biogeographist (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayuda Efectiva moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Ayuda Efectiva. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and there are no indications it qualifies as notable, WP:N.. 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 your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: Thanks for patrolling. Of the three sources I cited, I understood two to be independent in-depth news articles, which were also used in the linked Spanish Wikipedia article. Could you expand on what seems to be missing? WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem you have is that you have not proved notability. The grant you mention is just a starter grant, it does not prove notability. An example of a not-for-profit that I know is notable is the Chicago Foundation for Women, which has an annual expenditure of $4-5 million. A smaller one that is just about notable is Crossroads Fund, which is about $2 million per year. Notability in the US is quite a high bar. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of names

Hi WeyerStudentOfAgrippa. Re Ethics of artificial intelligence: My understanding, per BLP, is that such content should not be restored without consensus; and that there is general consensus that verification is required in the article itself regarding BLP content like this. Even if every entry was verified, I'd don't think it would pass POV and OR, as it is us Wikipedians deciding who to add rather than leaving that to a reliable source that actually decides which researchers are so noteworthy. There's more to consider: policies (especially NOT), and guidelines like Wikipedia:SOURCELIST.

From my experience, categories appear to be the proper treatment. - Hipal (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for Twitter article

Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ayuda Efectiva

Hello, WeyerStudentOfAgrippa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ayuda Efectiva, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources for open source software

I'm sorry, i don't want to start a war but, what concerns secondary sources for open source software. You seem to have an idea that such sources always exist. But if you look at the open source software articles in Wikipedia, in many of them there are no secondary sources, the software, the web site, and this is mostly all. Like i don't know that there were any articles about Inkscape , I think certainly no peer-reviewed articles. I understand your criticism, but it doesn't quite seem to be rightly targeted. A lot about it was written in AI forum, by a number of people, this forum is there no more, the last internet archive capture of it is this https://web.archive.org/web/20160317040349/http://ai-forum.org/ , there has been information about it also in forums and web sites elsewhere. This though you may not consider secondary source. There also may be articles, but what can or cannot be considered articles. The information about that software has been in Wikipedia for 20 years, its web site has nearly 140 000 views, it is popular, and this should be more than nothing. Someone a long time ago wrote a short article. But, this software, but what about other software, a concern, it is possible to go through Wikipedia like this, and label. i'm sure, many thousands of articles about open source software, because none of them satisfy the requirement. Thank you for reading this. Tkorrovi (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkorrovi What do you think of the essay WP:BACKWARD? WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do i think? Writing an article forward as recommended, is good of course, but this works only for certain subjects. The matter is that the article depends on what it is about, not only on the way of creating it, a greedy simplification in my opinion, in that essay. So like articles about open source software cannot just be written in the same way as articles about scientific papers. It looks to me that these rules and recommendations are greedily simplified, not considering the subjects of the articles. Or they just are not about some kind of articles. Like if one has to write an article about an open source software, like JACK (Linux sound software), all one has is the software, its source, and a web page about that software, maybe some online tutorials. There may not be any articles, and about JACK there are also no books. For more popular software there often are books (often not peer-reviewed, may also be self-published). But JACK is very important, like for using software synthesizers in Linux. So this just doesn't work for some kind of articles. The article also, btw, was not written by me, but by someone else many years ago. So i may read any recommendations, but an article written by someone else is what it is, and started as it is. This is what i think. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkorrovi The thing is, we don't "have" to have an article on every piece of software. Anyone can make one (it could happen in an hour with modern tools), but that doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, not bad to have an article about every piece of software, that is open source software, these that are in some repositories, maybe that have a certain number of downloads or stars, Wikipedia space is not limited. More though about these that are popular, or old (historic). This is the value of open source software, of any kind, not that it is peer-reviewed, or how many articles were written about it. They don't write many articles about open source software, as i said, there are some books, but with various quality, many are not reviewed. The matter is though, that you are now talking about something else, you obviously applied a wrong criterion on article about open source software. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do like it when the encyclopedia is useful as well as reliable. Still, sourcing takes priority. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, i never questioned the importance of sourcing. But again, this type of secondary sourcing is not proper for open source software. We should talk about these exact tags, and not everything else, or everything in general. Tkorrovi (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existential risk studies

Hello, how are you?

As we discussed in global catastrophic risk, I strongly believe that existential risk studies should have an article in its own name, making explicit its history and idea. I have decided to make the article from the start, and you can see it in my drafts. Feel free to propose any change and improvement. It has been submitted to review, a process I have zero experience with. But I will keep making changes during the process.

Thanks for your attention to my remarks. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JoaquimCebuano (talk) JoaquimCebuano (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WeyerStudentOfAgrippa,

It would help if you commented in this ANI discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ERic Weinstein

Could you be kind enoough not to troll on Eric Weinstein's wiki entry and keep things updated. He is no longer at Thiel Capital. It's fact. So why you do you reverted to something out-dated and incorrect? Mweewee (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mweewee Why are you posting this on my user talk? You pointed to using WP:LINKEDIN as a WP:BLPSELFPUB, but your edit wasn't supported by a new reference and made use of the existing reference less clear. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeyerStudentOfAgrippa srry. there must be some mix up why i posted on ur user talk. but now it temporarily got resolved. Mweewee (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]