User talk:BillyClines402: Difference between revisions

Hello, I’m MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a “soapbox” are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrOllie — thanks for the heads-up and for guarding against WP:PROMO / WP:SOAP. A few clarifications on intent and sourcing:

Scope & relevance. The material was added to the History section of the no-code development platform article to document a recent sub-trend. I’ve made that explicit by stating that vibe coding is a subset of no-code (natural-language prompts → AI-generated code). That keeps the topic squarely within the article’s scope (WP:SUMMARY, WP:DUE).

Neutral tone & balance. I removed marketing wording and kept entries short, date-stamped, and comparable across multiple tools (Cursor/Anysphere, Replit, Lovable, Vibecode, etc.). The intent is descriptive, not advocative (WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE).

Independent sources. The entries cite third-party, independent coverage (e.g., Financial Times on Cursor/Anysphere; Reuters/TechCrunch on Replit; Business Insider on Vibecode; TechCrunch on Lovable; dictionary/press explainers for the term “vibe coding”). Where a primary/source-self link is used (e.g., a project website), it’s supplemental and not the sole support for a contested claim (WP:V, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY).

On Div-idy specifically. The line is framed as a historically relevant milestone in no-code’s progression toward AI-native, code-first pipelines (prompt → deployable HTML/CSS/JS). It’s not an endorsement; it’s a dated capability note. If a “first” label is the sticking point, I’m fine narrowing the phrasing to “publicly demonstrated an end-to-end, AI-generated web-builder workflow on 24 Nov 2023,” and pairing it with independent coverage the moment it’s available. That should address WP:V and WP:RS while preserving the timeline.

If there are specific sentences that read promotional to you, I’m happy to adjust or trim them. BillyClines402 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should be aware that using AI to generate text – for articles or for talk page comments – is highly discouraged on Wikipedia and is considered frightfully rude. No one is here to communicate with bots. – MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is using ai generated text. I’m quite aware that would be discouraged and not be good for Wikipedia.

Back to the post I am concern that you were not reading the sources I used. As that was were the content was coming from. I was using the information for vibe coding museum (vibecodingmuseum.org) I cross referenced that with a few other sources. Would you mind looking. Do you not agree that Vibe coding is a subset of No-code development platform. I would like to know your thoughts on that BillyClines402 (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one is using ai generated text. Your message above bears several obvious hallmarks of AI generated text. But if you don’t use it from now on, that is progress. The sources you used do not justify adding a promotional mention of a particular service. They are not reliable sources. I do not agree that Vibe coding is a subset of a ‘No-code development platform’, not at all. Generating code from an AI is not at all the same thing as there being no code involved at all, and the reliable sources to not treat it as a subset. MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well I’ll let it be. I appreciate the discussion. I’m new to this.

I am curious what makes vibecodingmuseum.org not a reliable source? BillyClines402 (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The domain was literally registered like an hour ago, around the same time you made your edit citing it. MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a continuation of the div-idy spammers. SmartSE (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]