Thanks for your contributions to Jasper AI. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and Very promotional in tone. Sending to draft as an WP:ATD. Also, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. .
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hello CNMall41, thanks for the feedback. I am a wikipedia fanatic and have been getting very involved. I decided to create my first page, as a test, and I wanted to see if I did a good job.
Could you please explain it having no sources? I cited everything, so what do you mean by sources? Further, I even mentioned it is a chatGPT wrapper, which is very unbiased and non-promotional (it's not something Jasper would want to publicized I imagine.)
Looks like a script error as the reasoning I gave was for "promotional tone." It also needs sourcing that meets WP:ORGCRIT which I did not see at the time. Having another look now. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jasper 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.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jasper AI, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Hi Comintell! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism – if you'd like to get more involved, you may want to check out the WikiLoop Double Check anti-vandalism tool or enroll in the Counter-Vandalism Unit's training academy.
Thanks for sweeping up after vandals!
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Wikipedia has very specific and limited criteria that are used for tagging pages for speedy deletion. Editors can't just make up their own reasons. You can present an argument with Proposed deletions and Article for Deletion discussions but that's not how speedy deletion works. You have to select among criteria for which one, if any applies to a page. I encourage you to review Criteria for Speedy Deletion so you are more familiar with what the criteria are, when they apply and to which namespaces a criteria applies. Once you know the criteria very well, then feel free to use Twinkle to tag inappropriate pages for deletion. But if you need to provide an explanation for why an article or page should be deleted, then PRODs and deletion discussions are the route you should take.
Hello @Liz, I have reviewed and do believe it falls in criteria for speedy deletion. It is putting people at risk, and getting thousands of views. here is my argument, what are your thoughts?
RE: ZeroGPT page
The sources cited here are not fact-checked nor reliable. For instance, multiple sources say this company was created by OpenAI, or "ChatGPT" creators, however this seems to be blatantly false.
The concern is that wikipedia is giving this organization credibility, and confusing people. While there are recent mentions of ZeroGPT, it seems they came after this false information was produced about them, claiming that OpenAI is behind it
ALSO** It seems there are people confusing ZeroGPT with GPTZero. One CNN article says "Meanwhile, Princeton student Edward Tuan introduced a similar AI detection feature, called ZeroGPT." [Citation: https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/tech/openai-ai-detection-tool/index.html)
These issues clearly demonstrate the confusion surrounding "ZeroGPT" a non notable 'counterfeit' version of GPTZero. This page seems to be hoax.
Hoax citations on ZeroGPT page:
Claims OpenAI is behind ZeroGPT (False Information): https://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/chatgpt-creator-openai-unveils-zerogpt-5-things-to-know-about-this-new-ai-tool-101676610582897.html
Claims OpenAI is behind ZeroGPT (False Information) https://www.livemint.com/news/world/what-is-zerogpt-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-ai-plagiarism-detection-tool-11676631205023.html
Quotes OpenAI research director and attributes to ZeroGPT (False Information): https://www.businessupturn.com/technology/zerogpt-ai-tool-to-detect-plagiarism-and-ai-generated-content-against-chatgpt/ Comintell (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Comintell, I see you've since nominated this for deletion at AfD. That's fine, but you could have used the other method Liz mentioned, which is explained at WP:PROD. If you think it's very obvious that something needs deletion, but it doesn't fit under a speedy deletion category, you can use that method instead of AfD. It's easier and faster than an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad, sorry! I've found your PROD now. I see it was reversed because "deletion is not cleanup", alas. What this means is that someone else understood you to mean "this article is bad" not "Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic, no matter how good it is." But from what you've written here, I understand that what you mean is something more like "this article is about something that is not real, therefore it should not exist on Wikipedia." Am I correct? -- asilvering (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, at the very least it raises suspicions of the page origins and creator for citing non credible sources that were factually inaccurate. I Think the fact that even CNN confused another GPTZero with ZeroGPT is also conscerning.
One more question: did you go looking for information on ZeroGPT yourself? As in, once you found that the sources on the article were all false information or probably mistakes (like the CNN one), did you go looking to see if there are any good sources about it at all? -- asilvering (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did some investigation, but was unable to determine the legitimacy of the recent mentions due to substantial evidence showing that ZeroGPT is an unaffiliated piggyback of GPTZero
To clarify: I have no opinion about piggybacking, its the way some companies market. BUT, and maybe im wrong, the origins of the page and intentional disinformation is alarming. I will say that, after my article was put through scrutiny, and I realized the entirety of Wikipedia guidelines. I applied those same strict guidelines to the scrutiny I've since placed on ZeroGPTComintell (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what I'm going to take from that is "I did not find any reliable sources discussing the topic in depth, because they do not exist." I realize that's not what you said exactly - I'm not misinterpreting you (I hope), what I'm trying to do is point out the one thing that matters: that the topic is discussed at length in reliable, independent sources. Whether it's an intentional hoax or not and what the facts are doesn't actually matter for deletion, most of the time. If the content of an article is wrong, you correct it. If the sources are unreliable, you find reliable ones, or remove the content. If an editor is continually creating hoaxes, you gather your evidence and go make a thread at WP:ANI. (Don't actually do this last one unless you really know what you're doing.) That's why your PROD was reversed: it sounded to the editor who reversed it that you were complaining about a problem that isn't supposed to be fixed by deletion of an article.
Here's a Wikipedia-speak translation of what you've told me that does argue for deletion in a way that other wikipedia editors will recognize: "Sources in article are not WP:RS; content fails WP:V. No coverage that meets WP:GNG/WP:ORGCRIT."
Translated back into normal words:
the sources in this article are not reliable.
I tried to check the information in this article, but it cannot be verified in reliable sources
there are no reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover the topic in depth. <--- (this is the most important one! if you cannot say this, don't use PROD)
A PROD rationale written like this is much more likely to work. It cites the specific policies and guidelines that aren't being followed and doesn't get bogged down in detail. I hope this helps a bit. Happy to answer any questions. -- asilvering (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Comintell, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Jasper AI, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasper AI.
Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|CNMall41}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello, Comintell. 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. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Please do not take this as an accusation. But you are creating articles on some AI subjects and seeking to get articles about other AI organizations deleted, this could reflect some sort of paid or unpaid conflict-of-interest. Please make sure that your motivation is what is best for our readers and doesn't just reflect your opinions and values. We have plenty of articles on subjects that editors may not approve of but they provide useful information to our readers and shouldn't just be deleted because individuals find the organization unacceptable.
Thanks Liz. I'm not paid by any of those companies. What exactly did I do wrong? Yes I have an interest in AI, but did the PROD of ZeroGPT not make sense? Did you see the references? They were hoaxes. Admitedly, I didn't realize this until an additional look at the page. The references did not meet standards as described in WP:Reputable. Comintell (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comintell, you didn't do anything wrong. It's just that your special interest happens to be something people are making a lot of money off of right now (AI) and not something harder to monetize (I started out on articles about the Paris Commune, much safer). When you have a longer edit history here, working on a variety of topics, people will find it easier to tell "special interest" from "financially motivated conflict of interest". Keep doing what you're doing. The COI people eventually screw up and get blocked. If that's not you, you won't be, and eventually people will stop wondering. -- asilvering (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Comintell, I wanted to write you a friendly greeting and welcome you to Wikipedia because I've made some major changes the article you created, Jasper AI. I made my edits very WP:BOLDly, but you should feel free to continue making your own improvements. I am also happy to answer any questions you might have about my edits.
If you want to keep working on the article, it would be especially valuable, I think, to try to remove that "further reading" section: "further reading" is usually used to list books or major journal articles about a topic, things that are more detailed than Wikipedia but therefore useful for a very serious reader. It's not usually a section for "potential article sources that didn't get used." The best way to get rid of that section would be to go through the links and see if you can integrate information from them into the article (e.g., supporting a new detail). That TechRadar review, for example, could probably support a few sentences about Jasper's features/strengths/weaknesses in the "Technology" section. If there's nothing new to add and the source isn't a really high-quality newspaper, it can just be deleted.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pbritti was:
All sources are either PRIMARY or trying to sell a product.
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:Credit Header Data 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.
Hello, Comintell!
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! Pbritti (talk) 02:09, 20 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 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)
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.
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:Credit Header Data 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.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Spectral printing, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Thanks for your contributions to QuillBot. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and potentially one good source (WSJ) is a blog/opinion commentary.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
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. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. Did you even read the article? LA times said he was a recognizable figure. He appeared on TV. Saw this guy on the news many times as a kid Comintell (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. ZacBowling(user|talk)02:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Main space articles should only be draftified once and are only eligible if they are recently created. This article was years old and had already been moved to Draft space once so it was not eligible. Please do not take on draftifying articles until you have more experience editing as you can not judge when it is an appropriate action to take.
Articles older than 90 days are typically no-go, no draftifying unless article is newer and unreviewed or AfD discussion or other venue has warranted it.
I think I came across the article via random article tab and thought it was new. This is a ludicrous mistake for me to have made, and I take responsibility for my actions. Won't happen again Comintell (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop doing unproductive editing on GPTZero page
Hello, please refrain from making unproductive edits to the GPTZero page. The current content gives the impression of a promotional piece rather than a neutral, informative page. Additionally, independent information has been repeatedly removed. Please cease these actions. 182.55.68.245 (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ive only reverted your link spam. Please be courteous to other users. Your behavior is unacceptable for wikipedia or any other professional circle Comintell (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What spammy links? I’m giving fresh perspective to how GPTZero works, by showing the algorithm. Also are you a data scientist, ML Engineer, that you can decide if it is correct or not. You are the one who is a spammer, has a record for creating articles that are removed, and now are warning me. Let me report you. 2404:E801:2007:E14:C832:5F89:114D:E2A3 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about lol. Giving independent perspective on the algorithm versus the write-up you've written. Is Github reliable source or not? 182.55.68.245 (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. LizRead!Talk!01:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy' @Comintell I reviewed Jasper AI and supported keeping it. Looks like you;ve been lambasted a lot recently, but wanted to encourage you to keep editing + stay active. When I first started out, I also had a page deleted that I worked hard on, and then stayed in the shadows. Your contribution isn't perfect, but by golly it's better than a lot of other pages. Seems you're serious, don't give up. Take an old mans advice (not assuming your age by the way ;))
Hii @Cgallagher2121 this means a lot. I have been SO frustrated and bogged down. That page was a *insert bad word* to write. You should look at ZeroGPT deletion page! People are defending that but chastising mine. Oh well. tysm for the advice!! Comintell (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Research on AI detection.pdf
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Research on AI detection.pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
An article you recently created, QuillBot, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GRINCHIDICAE🎄23:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in your user page you express a preference for "gender-neutral pronouns", and yet in referring to Praxidicae you have used "his". I don't know what she thinks of that. You may find it useful to know that there's a template which will tell you what pronouns, if any, an editor has set in their Wikipedia preferences. If you type {{they|Comintell}} and preview it, you will see that it shows up as "they", whereas {{they|JBW}} will show up as "he", and {{they|Praxidicae}} as "she". JBW (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Harris (law enforcement officer) 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.
QuillBot, 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.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cold calling, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by IgelRM 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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:
Sources don't appear to show sufficient notability. The article also lacks basic information like launch date of the platform.
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:Copyleaks 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.
Copyleaks, 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.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:
Unclear what the topic is. If the topic is the software, then sources should be about the "Undetectable AI" software. Sources/issues about detecting AI in general should be covered at Artificial intelligence content detection.
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:Undetectable 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.
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Hi. Reading your closing statement, it gives me the impression that you still need some experience in such areas. I have not read the discussion and am only concerned about your statement. Your closure reflects that:
you noted arguments that are not relevant to policies and guidelines ("some deletion requests were coming from users with very few edits", "language used in the nomination seemed to be emotional rather than neutral and objective")
you, partially and significantly, based your closure based on the number of !votes. These discussions are not closed based solely on number of votes WP:XFD#CON.
It is better left to leave it to WP:UNINVOLVED experienced editors - administrators in particular - to close such close/contentious discussions. Please revert your closure [and let an administrator close it]. Thank you — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undetectable.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.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyleaks 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.
Thanks for your contributions to Copyleaks. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because per AfD.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hi. The Wallace AIP campaign in 1968 ran a far-right and segregationist platform; this is how it is covered by reliable sources. It does not violate NPOV to call a spade a spade if it is such. If anything, the version you changed to, which simply states Wallace's platform included anti-Communist and pro-"law and order" stances, is the version which violates NPOV by dis-including this. Curbon7 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Curbon7 I respect your opinion, but "A far-right political party is not neutral or correct.
Look at The Democrat Party, or Green Party of the United States for instance. As you may or may not be aware, the Democratic party was originally pro-slavery and segregation. This however changed later on. Just because at one time, the party may have elected certain candidtates and supported certain "far right" ideologies, does not denote ideological changes in the party.
I believe describing far-right practices during certain periods is appropriate, but calling it "a far right political party" would not be. Especially given that this implies an objectively permanent and foundational ontology which is not correct. Comintell (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article as I have reverted, and edited it acknowledges the party's positions without reducing its entire identity to a current or past political alignment.
I understand your intentions are probably good, but the way the article was before I edited it was not encyclopedic or neutral. Comintell (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still just a political party. If a reporter or journalist from the LA times wrote "The racist democratic party which has its origins in pro slavery voting xyx" it would be inappropriate to label the Democratic Party (United States) as "Pro-racist political party." There is a distinction between secondary reliable sources used for verifying claims, however this is distinct from what is verified and reported vs the opinion of the journalist writing it. As I stated, the Democratic, and Republican party have both held far-right wing political ideologies.
Taking your point into consideration, I removed the section in the intro that stated "The AIP is known for Anti communism" etc from the introduction, as well as removing your edit of it being a far right political party from the introduction.
This way the page is more encyclopedic and neutral. The history section is still on the page which notates the facts you have brought up. Lets try to meet a friendly agreement here and not edit war. If you disagree with the edits, we can get an admin involved who will make a determination. Comintell (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear the air, I can see where you're coming from with your points and I don't think you're acting in bad faith at all, and I certainly don't think you're stumping for this party or anything like that. I know some people on here can be quite prosecutorial with newer editors, so I just wanted to clarify that I know you're acting in good-faith.
However, regarding your point and using an example you brought up, note that the lede of Democratic Party (United States) includes the statement that the party once supported [...] the interests of slave states [...], but then also shows how the party's views changed throughout its long history. Per MOS:LEDE, the lede of an article should be a summary of its most important contents and should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. That the AIP was founded to support the segregationist George Wallace is a key point of the article, perhaps the key point considering the party has achieved little since then, and is something that should be covered in the lede. Curbon7 (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit War on Undetectable.ai
Hello again,
Would you mind explaining to me your logic behind finding a government court record database as well as a news article which has been cited on other pages in the past as not good enough? I would really like to engage in further discussion so we aren't going back and forth editing that page. If there's anything I can do to make sure you're more comfortable with a "controversies" section please let me know. And if you're completely opposed to the addition of a section with this title please let me know that as well so I can understand why. Sesame119 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no proof that its the same person
You posted unreliable sources like metro for other claims
Government source is a primary source.
You need to have a reliable secondary source that proves the claim.
Be warned, you are being viewed as an SPA (single purpose account) and I advise you contribute constructively because you're in danger of a ban. Comintell (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jeraxmoira was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:
Falls under BLP1E per the sources cited.
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:Hailey Welch 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.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Haliey Welch instead.
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:Hailey Welch 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abigail Bassett 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.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Hello, at first I had no idea why this was, as I have never operated any other accounts. But upon looking at the evidence I do recall something. There were two users, I can't recall the names (this was a few months ago), who were on the Wikipedia Discord, saying that a subject of an article was being discriminated against for being asian, and were canvasing for votes on the simplewikipedia. I did not at the time realize this was against policy, so after conducting what I thought was a reveiw of the subject, cast a vote. Then, I was messaged by a now deleted discord user, who said that they saw I had an AfC submission and accepted it, and that they also accepted an AfC for the person I voted in a simple wikipedia article for, and thanked me for "standing up against discrimination." Once their AfC acceptance got flagged for deletetion, they reached out to me asking me to vote, and said "you obviously know this person is notable, and is just being discriminated against." I was feeling manipulated at this point, and was hesitant, but I also felt like I owed this person something for accepting my draft? I had an off feeling about all of this, and I made a mistake here, but I was absolutely manipulated by these two (possibly same) people. I am not a sock puppet. I now get that this could be considered meat puppetry but it was not intentional. I put so much time and effort into wikipedia and I've argued before and edit warred, but have never received payment for my edits. If this constitutes as a ban, I understand, and no matter how sad/defeating it is, will take responsibility for allowing myself to get manipulated, but as an editor with just over 9 months of experience, I am hoping this can be investigated further and the decision reconsidered. If my ban is overturned, I will take extra caution to make sure I never allow myself to be manipulated ever again. I thought that these people were trying to be my friends, but they were just using and manipulating me.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
@Yamla I don't understand the technical findings. I see it says data confirmed, but not sure what that means.
@S0091The first conversation took place on what I believe is the official wikipedia Discord. The canvasing request was in relation to this page. [2] I didn't even realize the difference between simple wikipedia and regular wikipedia at first. I cast my vote, with the assumption and bias at the time that it was discrimination. This was in January. I didn't hear from the user or really think anything of it.
A few months later, I received a message from a separate user, whose name was pixiefaer or something like that (something similar to the now blocked user, but not the same), their profile picture was an animated cartoon girl. I am trying to find the exact message I received, but it was something like "Hey Comintell, I'm the NPP who accepted your recent AfC submission" and then said something along the lines of "I also recently accepted an AfC on a subject you supported who was discriminated against and unfortunately they are still unfairly attacking him. It's obvious/you know he's notable" (Something along those lines.) They sent me the AfD link, and I admit, It did feel off, but I had already rationalized my initial vote, and I felt like I owed this person something for accepting my draft and being nice to me.
This is all really embarrassing, and I feel really dumb. If I am unblocked, I will do whatever it takes to restore confidence. If it means no participating in AfDs, then I will gladly accept that.
While I have found joy in creating good pages, from the process of finding notable subjects, to writing good articles, I am still a newbie, and to be clear, I effed up. It's hard to explain, because while I did kind of feel like I was being manipulated, I didn't want to accept that. I now fully accept that. I promise on my cats life that I am not the person from the sock puppet investigation, it's 100% another person.
If any admins would accept a reasonable temporary block, so that I have time to reflect on this, I would be willing to accept that. Being an editor here is something I really enjoy and take seriously. If this situation that happened is unforgivable due to my negligence, then as an editor who takes/took pride in their work, I will, with shame, accept an indefinite block. I am sorry that this happened. I may have foolishly negligent, but I am not a sockpuppet. Comintell (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no official Wikipedia discord servers. You still haven't answered S0091's request as to which discord server you were on. --Yamla (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also just realized that 8 pages I worked so hard on were deleted. I am sure everyone here can understand the joy, of being the one to discover and then write about a notable place or subject on wikipedia. It feels like finding golden easter eggs and being the first one to document it on wikipedia. I really hope that if my idiocy and negligence results in a consensus for permanent ban, that at least the pages I made (Like Michael Lehrer, 49er Saloon) aren't gone forever. Also apologies for the lapse in communication, I needed to decompress and get my feet in the grass today. Ultimately I did make a mistake, not in bad faith, and not the thing i'm accused of, but still a mistake none the less... Comintell (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That matches up with what I see on-wiki. Your first edit at Simple was to !vote in the Justin Jin AfD there in January. Shewasafairy reviewed Undetectable.ai on March 18th then you participated at WP:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin (entrepreneur) on March 21st. Pinging @Ferret: since they are Discord mod so they are aware canvassing may have taken place.
@S0091, @Yamla Comintell has a history on Discord and have been repeatedly banned from the server, which is probably as much as I can say publicly. IRC and Discord face constant socking same as on site. Socks gonna sock. As far as Justin Jin is concerned, a search shows a brief mention only more than a month ago, when a prior sockfarm related to that article had just been blocked on site. Recommend taking claims with a grain of salt. -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's strange, but has nothing to do with me. Like I created the article, then supposedly got an admin to nominate it for deletion, and then approached her to pay for the article?? Like what? Does that even make sense? Comintell (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone this is @Comintell, my ability to respond on my account was completely blocked, and I cannot even update my talkpage anymore. I wanted to just see whats going on and what I can do during this process to help resolve it :/ I don't want to give up, but I understand that I am not the center of the world. I will not be editing on IP, and am only using it to comment here. I really miss editing, and really hope I can get back to it soon. Apologies if this message is inappropriate, I hope this isn't breaking the rules.@Asilvering @RoySmith @S0091@Yamla @Ferret2603:8001:1DF0:6E70:7174:7781:9291:F547 (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this isn't breaking the rules. It is. You are blocked, and editing from any account or IP is a violation of your block. -- ferret (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comintell, there are several admins here with access to privileged information who are quite convinced that you have abusively editing from multiple accounts, and/or have been colluding in person with others to the point that your activity is indistinguishable from someone abusively editing from multiple accounts. I doubt there is anything you can say that will convince them otherwise, at this point. If you have been engaged in this sort of behaviour, you should reconsider your life choices. If you have not, you should probably reconsider your choice of friends. In any case, you should stop trying to edit wikipedia. You might be able to return to editing someday; many editors have successfully returned after being blocked. But the timeline on that is often years, not a few days or a few months. You will have to stay away for a long time, I'm afraid. -- asilvering (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you created or have recently made significant changes to, Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for pages, so it has been blanked and redirected to Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Three typical reasons for this are that: (1) the article's subject appears to fail our notability guidelines; (2) the article is unsourced; or (3) the sources used in the article are unreliable. The page's history is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Wikipedia or that this action was taken in error, then you may revert the edit that blanked and redirected the page.
Hello, Comintell. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:EpiSci, 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.
Hello, Comintell. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "EpiSci".
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.
