User talk:Astronomynotes

Welcome!
Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
{{unblock reviewed |1= What is the reason for blocking my account ? |decline = {Does not address reasons for block.&#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)}} To use a bit of jargon, you've been spamming with socks: plus this account. It's deceptive, against policy, self-promotional, and it's been going on for a while. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Being new to Wikipedia, I had been experimenting with different accounts. I had helped improved a number of articles. Nevermind, I will spend my effort elsewhere. Glad, will not be donating to wikipedia :-) Astronomynotes (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see what the WP:GAB has to say about donations as leverage to obtain unblocking. Take care in your off-Wikipedia endeavors. &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

has been closed. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 04:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that's been declined, presumably because the issues here still weren't addressed. If you're interested in editing without adding links to your sites, something which seems to have been your main intention to date, then we can progress the discussion. If you're not interested in that, that's OK too. -- zzuuzz (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Why should I edit based on what you tell me ? Who are you to censor my posts. All links that I have included are relevant to the topic and not spammy as alleged by you.

Anyways, Wikipedia will soon be dead as AI tools take over.

The crux of the issue with Wikipedia lies in its editing process, which, despite being open to anyone, is susceptible to bias and manipulation. While the platform operates under the principle of collaborative editing, where anyone can contribute and edit articles, the reality is far from ideal. A small group of dedicated editors, often referred to as "Wikipedia gatekeepers," wield significant influence over the platform's content. These editors, driven by personal agendas or ideological beliefs, may censor or manipulate information to fit their narrative, leading to biased articles that fail to present a balanced perspective.

One of the most glaring examples of Wikipedia's editorial bias is seen in articles related to controversial topics or current events. These articles are often subject to edit wars, where opposing factions vie for control over the narrative. In such cases, neutrality and factual accuracy are compromised as editors with vested interests engage in ideological battles, distorting the truth and misleading readers. Moreover, Wikipedia's reliance on volunteer editors means that certain topics may be neglected or misrepresented due to a lack of expertise or oversight.

In contrast, AI-powered tools like ChatGPT and Gemini offer a promising alternative for accessing neutral and unbiased information. These tools leverage advanced natural language processing algorithms to generate content based on a diverse range of sources, free from human bias or manipulation. By analyzing vast amounts of data and synthesizing information from multiple perspectives, AI tools can provide users with a more comprehensive understanding of a topic, devoid of subjective interpretations or personal agendas.

Furthermore, AI tools are not susceptible to the same pitfalls as human editors. They do not possess personal biases or agendas and are capable of synthesizing information impartially, presenting users with a balanced view of the subject matter. This impartiality is crucial in today's information landscape, where misinformation and propaganda abound, and discerning the truth can be challenging.

Another advantage of AI tools is their ability to adapt and evolve over time. Unlike static articles on Wikipedia, which may become outdated or inaccurate, AI models can continuously learn from new data and updates, ensuring that the information they provide remains relevant and up-to-date. This dynamic nature enables users to access the latest insights and developments on any given topic, enhancing the overall quality of their research and understanding.

Moreover, AI tools offer users a personalized experience, tailoring content recommendations based on their preferences and interests. By leveraging machine learning algorithms, these tools can analyze user behavior and feedback to deliver highly relevant and engaging content, ensuring a more enriching and informative experience for the user.

Of course, AI tools are not without their limitations. While they excel at generating factual information and synthesizing diverse perspectives, they may lack the nuanced understanding and contextual knowledge that human editors possess. Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the ethical implications of AI-generated content, particularly in terms of accountability and transparency.

However, these challenges are not insurmountable, and ongoing research and development efforts are focused on addressing them. By implementing robust quality control mechanisms and transparency measures, AI tools can ensure the integrity and reliability of the content they generate, mitigating concerns over accuracy and trustworthiness.

In conclusion, while Wikipedia has long served as a valuable resource for accessing information, its susceptibility to bias and manipulation necessitates a reevaluation of our reliance on the platform. AI-powered tools like ChatGPT and Gemini offer a compelling alternative, providing users with neutral and unbiased content free from human interference. By harnessing the power of artificial intelligence, we can empower individuals to make informed decisions and cultivate a more objective understanding of the world around us.
 * 96% Probability AI generated. One source told me 100%, but it's AI and it's overrated by everyone including itself, so you can never fully trust what it says. So it's up to you. Your links are basically copies of NASA releases, with a whole load of affiliate links thrown in. We can always link to NASA without losing a great deal. I appreciate you may have some interest in the topic, but promoting your own affiliate links here is out of order. Who am I to tell you this. I am someone who can point you to community policies such as WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and WP:RS. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Precisely the reason that Wikipedia will soon become irrelevant because any tom/dick/harry can dictate what they want to see posted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is riddled with CNN.com, space.com links and they are all affiliate marketers. So there goes your logic of SPAM.
 * AI generated content will be more authentic in coming days than biased Wikipedia content with poor quality. Astronomynotes (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk page access removed
.. per above. as you continue to waste our time with things not related to a block appeal. I no longer believe a standard offer is appropriate, and you're going to need a very strong reason for why you want to come back if you take it. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 14:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)