User talk:Alalch E.

This user has created a global account. Alalch E.'s main account is on Meta.

This user has changed the username of this account. It used to be Twsabin.

This user previously used another account: Alalch Emis.

This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user contributes using Notepad++.

Welcome to my talk page!

I like to keep things compact, and don't have any great ideas for my user page yet, so my signature directs here.

I was a long-time reader and lurker (since 2003). I appreciate the Five pillars and the idea of open knowledge, and want to give something back; this is why I began editing in 2021. I'd like to receive your feedback on anything I've done. Expect a reply! :)

By the way:

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you start a new talk topic here, I will respond on this same page, as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there, using the ping template like this: {{ping|Alalch E.}}. If you want to initiate a conversation with me anywhere else, simply ping me there—no need to notify me here.
If a discussion here is about a specific article, I may move the discussion to that article's talk page. Were one to disagree I would tell them to treat it as my removing comments on my talk page and my quoting them on the target page. The Moved discussion to/from templates are useful here.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30.5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

DRV

Thanks for that. I looked, but couldn't find actual directions for closing a DRV as there are for pretty much all other such discussions, so I just copied code from the above DRV and modified it. Perhaps at some point XFDCLOSER could include this functionality. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox You're welcome. They're in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. XFDcloser working for DRV sounds reasonable even if 'X review' is not 'X for discussion/deletion', agreed. —Alalch E. 23:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the ElevenLabs quote being removed

Hi! I agreed with pretty much all of your edits on the 15.ai article, but I was confused by why the ElevenLabs quote was removed for being promotional. The quote "it became a one-stop shop for voice clones of all your favorite real-life and fictional characters." was referring to 15.ai, not ElevenLabs, so I felt like it was appropriate for the Legacy section. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 05:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still an ad for ElevenLabs because it "subtly" advertises ElevenLabs' ability to do the same. —Alalch E. 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I see. What about the quote "[15.ai] became the go-to text-to-speech tool for anyone who wanted to create lifelike and realistic AI voices for any reason"? It doesn't refer to "your" so I feel like this one should be better? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 05:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't speak directly enough to the legacy, like the other quotes in that section do. What that quote says is basically what the article has established up to that point, except that it does it with a promotional twist, so I really think we're better off without it. —Alalch E. 05:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I guess that makes sense. Would truncating Play.Ht's quote to "breakthrough in the field of text-to-speech (TTS) and speech synthesis" be fine? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 05:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stick to wiki-notable entities in that section. The quote from the notable company's Speechify website, attributed to a named individual is much much better than Play.ht and Resemble AI quotes. I'd only keep the Speechify quote, honestly. —Alalch E. 05:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to an extent, but PlayHT is a pretty notable player in the voice AI space. They recently raised over $20M in a seed round, and even though they don't have a Wikipedia page yet, they definitely are one of the major companies working on voice AI alongside Speechify and ElevenLabs. I think including a quote from PlayHT underscores the legacy quite a bit. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with Speechify and Play.ht, but I'd stop there with the company quotes. —Alalch E. 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it. I'll also argue for Resemble AI, though, because they were a big player in the open source voice AI space around the same time as 15.ai. They built Resemblyzer ([1]), which was pretty big at the time. But other than those three, I think that should be fine? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's too much of that stuff for me. Resemble AI is barely mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia. This could be seen as a plug. Should be avoided. —Alalch E. 06:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the same is true for PlayHT ... okay, take your pick: Resemble AI or PlayHT :) —Alalch E. 06:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I removed the Resemble AI quote. Thanks for the discussion! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for reaching out. —Alalch E. 06:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one last question: would you say the following quote supports the removed statement about 15.ai's legacy on fan communities? "Millions who generated lines for memes, fan productions, or just to hear their favorite characters speak were part of a grand experiment—a preview of an AI future that promises extraordinary creativity alongside serious ethical quandaries." GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it supports the idea that there's this cultural aspect of the legacy. —Alalch E. 06:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I will re-add the sentence (minus the unsupported part) with the new source. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the most recent edit

How can I start the discussion? Should I make it on the 15.ai talk page, or would you prefer to discuss it here? I can copy it over if you feel that's more appropriate.

I personally believe that an "In fandom culture" is relevant to the article because it was fundamentally intertwined with fan communities both in its development and impact. The platform's development was directly enabled by fan-created datasets and it subsequently transformed how these communities created content. This was particularly notable in the My Little Pony, Team Fortress 2, Portal, and SpongeBob SquarePants communities, so I believe talking about the specific content that was created as a result of 15.ai is a good thing to have and improves the article per WP:VNOT. It frames the application as a cultural phenomenon that transformed online fan communities, and not just a technological innovation. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on the article's talk page. Basically, this is tied to the discussion which I had already started about repetition. I'll make a new comment there shortly. —Alalch E. 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you. I saw that you were reviewing some of the articles I was creating, so I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Procesi bundle, which I just created. It might be a bit too technical for the general audience right now, but I'm not really sure how I can make a topic as abstruse as this more accessible to the layman—any tips would be appreciated! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I'm able to do that. You can also ask for feedback on a WikiProject's talk page where there'll be editors with backgrounds in the relevant area. —Alalch E. 21:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm not sure if this is the correct barnstar for this, but thank you for being patient with me and helping me become a better editor on Wikipedia. Your feedback means a lot to me. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your openness to feedback, and hope to collaborate with you on various other articles in the future. —Alalch E. 02:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Alalch E.. Thank you for your work on Radar (news magazine). Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing the article! Have a blessed weekend!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Tamzin Hadasa Kelly" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tamzin Hadasa Kelly has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 1 § Tamzin Hadasa Kelly until a consensus is reached. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin Hadasa Kelly RFD

Hello, you participated in an RFD discussion for Tamzin Hadasa Kelly, which redirects to the encyclopedia article Wikipedia administrators#Requests for adminship. However, several people (including me) misinterpreted it as a redirect to projectspace, it seemed like we couldn't have an accurate discussion, so I've closed the discussion and renominated it at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#Tamzin Hadasa Kelly. Please go there to participate again, and if your opinion at the first RFD still applies, please feel free to copy/paste your rationale from before. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"MAGA civil war" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAGA civil war has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 3 § MAGA civil war until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Quentin James

Hello, Alalch E.. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Quentin James, 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) 12:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Two Birds with One Stone

For the record, IDC. Thanks for letting me know though. Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. —Alalch E. 23:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion at The Substance

Please, achieve a consensus on the Talk page before making further edits. This edit is not correct and is inconsistent with what is already stated in the lead. I believe you are misreading "version of oneself" which does not imply that the version is actually oneself. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Caleb Stanford: What is the meaning of "not correct" when the plot as written does not describe the things which happen in the film and there is no source for the plot point? I'll just go and look for a source.

About "inconsistent with what is already stated in the lead", please see Wikipedia:Writing better articles#"Lead follows body"—Alalch E. 00:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying you should update the lead then, too, if that's your position. Let's take this discussion to the talk page, I'll post there. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that you posted on the talk page, but I am little disappointed that in the first posting there you foresaw that further discussion will not be constructive. Sincerely, —Alalch E. 10:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont edit my user page, instead use talk page

Also you are the one who violated 1RR, not me. Astropulse (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a warning on your talk page. I need to warn you about approaching 1RR to be able to file a valid report against you. I did not tell you that you breached 1RR but are at the threshold. I agree that we need to discuss things on the talk page. Sincerely —Alalch E. 15:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You edited my user page. Not talk. Please be mindful and do not edit user page for this. Astropulse (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely entitled to communicate to you on your talk page, unless you have asked me not to ever post on your talk page. You are obligated to receive feedback on your talkpage from other editors. I repeat, I only ever posted a single message on your talk page, a 1RR warning, which I am procedurally required to do to be able to file a valid report against you. Giving you a fair warning not to repeat behavior which may lead to a block is being mindful. I did not tell you that you breached 1RR but are at the threshold. I have also posted on the talk page subsequently. Sincerely —Alalch E. 15:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to understand. User page and talk page are different. You edited my user page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Astropulse&diff=prev&oldid=1277176379

I'm asking you to use talk page instead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Astropulse

I think you should have open mind and assume good faith WP:FAITH when you edit on wiki Astropulse (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never doubted your good faith. You should understand that you need to be willing to accept feedback on your user page. You are also in no position to lecture me on the differences between different kinds of pages. Try to be less annoying please. You are complaining inordinately about my posting a message on your talk page which I did precisely because it is mindful and, on top of that, it is a requirement in anticipation of a potential 1RR breach, if you want to report someone. And I do want to report you: If you revert again, I will report you. And the fact that I gave you advance notice means that my report will be actionable and that you will be blocked. That is how we keep each other in check, and direct our energy to discussing and resolving the issue precisely on article talk, as we both seem intent on doing. Sincerely —Alalch E. 16:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: While looking at my contributions, I noticed that I actually edited your user (not user talk) page, and that this is what you were notifying me of. I was completely unaware of that when I posted the above replies, as my intent was to post on your user talk, and did not notice that I posted on your user page instead. I also understood your "User page and talk page are different" as "user talk page and (article) talk page are different". Apologies —Alalch E. 00:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]