User talk:Mikecurry1

Cheers for being a awesome!
Hey just wanted to say thanks for your understanding on the Icl wiki page, really admire the way you were open to discussion!

Speedy deletion nomination of Reuters - The World's Most Innovative Universities


A tag has been placed on Reuters - The World's Most Innovative Universities, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Natureium (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank You for alerting me of this (Natureium). This was absolute bull regarding a speedy deletion of the article.  It was immediately deleted, before any time to contest the deletion.  The information was taken from another wiki article College and university rankings and not the site mentioned.  Moreover, I have no affiliation with Reuters in creating this article as an advertisement for the ranking.  Absolute crap, How do I contest this? (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Spoke to Patar Knight who is restoring this, for this reason.
 * This new page was restored. Needed to use WP:Copywithin


 * When copying material in Wikipedia to other parts of wikipedia like you did on Reuters - The World's Most Innovative Universities you should use a copied template on the talk page. It didn't look like anything you copied from Reuters was relevant to the article subject of the university rankings they do. I removed it. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good Frayæ! Thanks!  Good update Mikecurry1 (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This still isn't an acceptable article. It's sourced only to Reuters, isn't written in an encyclopedic tone, and doesn't have a lead sentence that describes the topic. Do you plan to improve this article further in the near future? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:41, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Good points. The information was originally copied from another wiki article describing the global ranking and then further edited for copyright protection by Patar Knight (who originally deleted it). I or others can improve the tone and add the lead sentence, etc., per your suggestions to improve this article for the near future. Mikecurry1 (talk)
 * I tried to implement your suggestions. Please take a look and feel free to make any changes you think.

LeBron James as the greatest
Regarding this and this, it's been discussed before: Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5. The current wording is after having tried different wordings and having settled on the "comparison" wording as a compromise for those who take issue with simply noting that LeBron is often considered the greatest. These people act like Jordan is being dethroned by simply acknowledging what various reliable sources and analysts state. Like I noted when reverting you, "As an encyclopedia, we stick to what the reliable sources state and with WP:Due weight." And your "Often compared for the title of the greatest of all time" wording makes no sense. Compared for what? To who? If going with the "compared to" wording, we aren't going to censor that it's Jordan he's often compared to. Whether one likes it or not, this is part of his legacy, which is why it's covered in the "Legacy" section of his article. And, yes, per WP:Lead, it also belongs in the lead of his article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe Mikecurry1's point was that Jordan did not need to be mentioned in the lead, but was ok with James being considered the greatest. There's never been a consensus on the specific point of Jordan being mentioned in the lead, and anyways consensus can change. This is not support on my part for either wording, merely that it's a fair argument if Mikecurry1 chooses to pursue this and start a discussion at Talk:LeBron James. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Bagumba, I meant to reply to you soon after your ping, but my Internet messed up. Yes, I understand what Mikecurry1's point was, but, given that Mikecurry1 stuck with "comparison" wording, the wording they chose was vague and poor. That was my point on that, other than the fact that it is encyclopedic/WP:Due to mention the comparison in the lead. As seen above, I also mentioned that I've tried different wordings, which includes simply noting that James is often considered the greatest. When we try to use that wording, however, we get some editors coming along and changing the text to "one of the greatest", which downplays the matter per my arguments seen at Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5. All of this is why I recently stated, "I might have to start an RfC on this and propose different wordings. That editors keep taking issue with something that is widely stated/reported is an issue. Wikipedia cares not about your personal opinion." I meant "your" in a general sense, to refer to any Wikipedia editor wanting to go by their personal opinions/feelings rather than WP:Due weight. I'm aware that consensus can change. But if consensus were for the lead excluding any mention that James is considered the greatest, that would be a WP:Due weight problem. And like the "consensus can change" guideline states, "On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." This might be a case where we need to go with similar wording used at the Stephen Curry article. In that article, we state "Many players and analysts have called him the greatest shooter in NBA history." But in the case of that article, the very first source states "many," which exempts the "many" text from being WP:Weasel wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, Curry's case is different because there is no consistent "Curry vs. [so and so]" debate when it comes to the greatest shooter. At this point in time, Curry is generally accepted as the the greatest shooter in NBA history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Bagumba and Flyer22 Reborn. I think Bagumba and Flyer22 both understood my point, which was simply why is Michael Jordan being mentioned in an introduction on Lebron James for an encyclopedia article?  I think someone had re-enterred most of my edits, since my post, which were improvements. My point was simply that both Jordan and Lebron have their own encyclopedia article, so Michael Jordan does not belong in encyclopedia introduction describing Lebron James.  Does Christiano Ronaldo belong in an encyclopedia introduction describing Leo Messi?  I do not think so either.  I was not enterring the whole argument of whether or not Lebron James is the GOAT or not (which is an opinionated conversation - as some people like Shannon Sharpe believe so, while others like Skip Bayless do not.) Mikecurry1 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Bagumba and Flyer22 Reborn. I was thinking of a new sentence for the GOAT debate sentence, in light of showing Lebron more respect, and his third championship and finals mvp on three different franchises.  It would be goood to get your opinions on Lebron's talk page now as to what you think for this sentence now.  Mikecurry1 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

South Kensington
Hello. Could you please explain why you added the sentence that says embassies are located in South Kensington due to Kensington Palace being nearby? I don’t understand why foreign countries would choose to locate their embassies there on the basis of this junior palace being nearby. I could understand such a claim about Buckingham Palace or St James's Palace and definitely Whitehall. 2A04:4A43:4DBF:E9A1:E5D0:6D79:AD75:4F4A (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll respond on the city talk page.Mikecurry1 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Chat GPT
Some of your recent edit summaries have mentioned Chat GPT feedback or involvement,. Please do not incorporate artificial intelligence input into your edits. There is no way to trace where the underlying information comes from, or how it has resulted in the AI output. This is contrary to the fundamentals of editing Wikipedia, especially transparent verifiability. signed, Willondon (talk) 22:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I mentioned Chat GPT and the version number, and LLM-Assisted per wikipedia's policies on large language models. In case you are not aware of WP:Large language models, "Disclosure: Every edit that incorporates LLM output should be marked as LLM-assisted by identifying the name and, if possible, version of the AI in the edit summary."  I did precisely that in full transparency.
 * I do understand there are several concerns with LLM's as they are becoming more mainstream. I know the LLM space will evolve over time and they are still figuring out the relevent wiki policies.  I try to follow all wiki policies about LLM's, where right now LLM-assisted content is accepted, with the disclosure as such.  I did write that sentence, and used chatgpt for proof reading and editing for its thoughts.  I also agree with your feedback on reverting my edit in that the sentence sounded like too much of a mission statement there.  That is fine and I agree.  Perhaps, we can find something that does not sound like a mission statement for the intro instead.  All of your edits off of my edits seemed reasonable and good edits to me.Mikecurry1 (talk) Mikecurry1 (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of the essay at Large language models. Thanks for pointing it out (created December 2022: I've got to do a better job of keeping up). Overall, it seems to discourage using LLMs, but I suppose if the LLM "source" is identified, that's respecting transparency. It also says that LLM output needs to be evaluated by a human editor (preferably the original user making the edit). I can see that you've used them responsibly. I just worry that a growing gaggle of other editors will rely on them indiscriminately, creating edit messes that others need to clean up. That, and AI crushing our minds and spirits like roaches under the gaslights. Cheers.  signed, Willondon (talk)  14:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought you may not have been aware of that new page. There are so many pages on wiki with guidelines they are hard to know them all.  I agree with you, I think there will be a challenge of how to use LLM's responsibly, such as it should be used by people who have made similar edits already on there own without LLM's. Of course it needs to be evaluated by a human editor (preferably the original user making the edits) as you said.  Indeed, AI does have challenges, such as not having editors using it irresponsiblity requiring massive wiki cleanups, no one wants that. Hopefully in the long run AI does not become like the Matrix with AI crushing our minds and spirits.  As AI is an evolving space, weighing the benefits and negatives of LLM's, hopefully it will be implemented into wiki responsibily such that it is a net benefit to wiki. There was a nice video on that WP:LLM page by the columbia journalism school on using LLM's responsibly. Cheers, Mikecurry1 (talk)