Hello StereoFolic! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-consider your decision on Existensial risk from artificial general intelligence
Dear StereoFolic,
I'd appreciate it if you could reconsider your decision to undo my edit to the Existential risk from artificial general intelligence by adding a self-published book as a source.
The Hungarian translation of the book BetweenBrains, was published by the biggest publisher in Hungary, called Libri.
Also the expression "LukeWar(m)" was used by the authors of the book, so I quoted it. But without using that term it could be published, I believe that I have added useful information to the site, not intentional vandalism.
The authors are respected experts in their fields.
Hey there, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this matter. Unfortunately I'm still not confident about including this material. I don't think it adds very much to the article, since the information is essentially redundant with the rest of that section. The fact that the book was translated and the translation was published by a reputable press does add support for its reliability, but then the source would need to be the Hungarian edition, and we would have to verify from that source instead. I'm skeptical because Wikipedia guidelines on self-published sources are pretty clear - they should be avoided unless the authors are established subject matter experts and the material can't be found elsewhere. There is definitely no shortage of reliable sources discussing the affects AI is having on cyber-security, so I don't see the need to go to such lengths to include this fairly dubious source. I'm not seeing much evidence that the authors are subject matter experts on cybersecurity. StereoFolic (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-consider your decision on ChaosGPT
Hi StereoFolic,
Kindly reconsider your decision to undo my edit to the Auto-GPT page by removing references to ChaosGPT.
I understand your rationale about not allowing censoring. I myself am a big believer in free speech. Vandalism is certainly not my intent.
However, ChaosGPT is something else entirely. As a fellow human being, I humbly request that you please reconsider for the sake of our shared humanity. ChaosGPT has the stated objective of destroying all of humanity, and is unlike anything else. I'm sure that when Wikipedia was created, no one would have thought such a thing was possible, hence Wikipedia's content moderation policies don't handle how to address such threats. This is a rare case where re-evaluating Wikipedia's policies is warranted.
This IP left an almost identical message on my Talk Page, and I'm copying and pasting my reply here:
While I did revert your edit, it's not me who writes/wrote the applicably policies. I'm aware that your edits are in good faith. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus there is a need for accuracy and broad coverage of notable events, including ChaosGPT. If Roko's Basilisk wasn't deleted, why should this be? (Please don't argue about deleting that page too.) Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page00:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to User:Novo_Tape's remarks, I will say that I share your concerns about grave dangers posed by AI developments, but I do not think attempting to bury information on the hazards is an effective approach for mitigating these risks. Information always gets out, and attempting to hide it often backfires. If Wikipedia plays any role in reducing AI risk, it is in credibly (through WP:Reliable sources and a genuinely WP:Neutral point of view) spreading awareness of such risks. I invite you to contribute in such a constructive manner. StereoFolic (talk) 01:25, 28 April 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 OlifanofmrTennant 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:Tree-sitter (parser generator) 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, StereoFolic!
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! OLI02:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
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.
Could you explain how the image you so haughtily removed from 1882 Spuyten Duyvil train wreck is "irrelevant"? I really don't see anything in the MOS page you linked from your edit summary that in any way justifies your edit. I suspect that you are attempting (not very well) to conceal your displeasure with it having been an AI image, and knowing that that alone is an impermissible, intolerable reason for image removal. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I believe the image is irrelevant because it has no specific pertinence to the article. Every other image on the article is specifically related to the event in discussion; an equivalent human-made image of a generic illustration of a person and a train would be just as irrelevant. Per the MOS: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." This image to me appears to be primarily decorative. While reading the article the image stuck out to me before I realized it was AI-generated, because the text on the figure's jacket was gibberish. Furthermore, the image may give a misleading impression that the train depicted is the same type of train involved in the wreck, or that the scene depicted is similar to what precipitated the wreck; neither appear to be true. StereoFolic (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's about the one legit rationale for the edit I would accept. Still, I had meant the image to illustrate the general phenomenon described in the adjacent text, the issues posed by the requirement at the time that brakemen go down the track to warn approaching trains, issues that often led to that requirement being ignored or respected only in a sort of half-assed way (as seems to have been the case that night). It's the one image in the article that wasn't meant to depict the event specifically (If I had gotten Bing to depict the area more accurately, I might have used it higher up in the article with that section of the narrative). Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining further, that makes sense to me. I think it's tricky with these things to balance visual aids to understanding vs keeping factual integrity. Whether the brakeman was at fault in this matter seems somewhat disputed to me, so any included illustration about brakemen would need to explain the relevance and caveats. Many readers will see an image like that and assume it's an illustration of the event itself, which would give a pretty wrong impression about the setting and event. IMO the illustrations in the article are already quite thorough, relevant, and helpful, so I don't feel a big need for more. StereoFolic (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a personal tragedy that has nothing to do with the reason he is a notable figure. If there were sources extensively discussing how the event affects his life and work, that would be worth including, but as it stood (if I remember right), there were just a couple sources mentioning it in passing. Consider the guidelines at WP:PUBLICFIGURE and in general the principle of presumption in favor of privacy. I think things like this should be considered private by default unless there's a compelling reason to include it in the article. StereoFolic (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding deletion of edits in Jinn article that where you answered a third opinion request. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard".The discussion is about the topic Jinn.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
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.
