User talk:Dan Leonard

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2026 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor, we hope the WikiCup will give you a chance to improve your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here, and a bot will set up your submissions page within one day, ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page.

For the 2026 WikiCup, the highest-ranking contestants will receive tournament points at the end of each round, and final rankings are decided by the number of tournament points each contestant has. This is the same scoring system that we had last year. If you're busy and can't sign up in January, don't worry: Signups are open throughout the year. To make things fairer for latecomers, the lowest-scoring contestants are no longer eliminated at the end of each round.

The first round will end on 26 February. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), Frostly (talk · contribs · email), Guerillero (talk · contribs · email) and Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Dan Leonard. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Executive Order 12898".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Dan Leonard. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:River Cottages, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 05:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! This is Luiysia again. It was amazing seeing so many people come out for Wikipedia Day in January. For March, we will be hosting an edit-a-thon in honor of Women's History Month supporting Chicago woman writers.

Here is the official meetup page, where you can register for the online and in-person edit-a-thon.

The edit-a-thon will be lasting all of March online, during which time you can contribute via the program's dashboard. On March 24th, we will be meeting in-person at Skunk Cabbage Books, in the Logan Square neighborhood, at 6:30 PM.

See you soon!

(If you would prefer not to see messages for Chicago meetups, go ahead and take yourself off this list.)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Dan Leonard! Thank you for reviewing my article and for your feedback! I agree that the topics mentioned in your comment qualify as trivial coverage, but in our case there is more to it than that.

WP:SUBSTANTIAL gives an example of substantial coverage: “ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization.” Over the past four years, the company has attracted media attention, including on controversial topics:

• In the early 2020s, the company was mentioned within the AI training and data-annotation sector. NBC News discussed Invisible in the context of a “shadow workforce” powering AI systems and reported that the sector relied heavily on remote contract workers performing standardized tasks without employment benefits.

• In 2023, Business Insider reported on restructuring in OpenAI’s contract-based data-training ecosystem, including layoffs of 31 contract data trainers from Invisible Technologies who had been working on projects related to OpenAI’s large language models such as ChatGPT.

• In 2024, reporting by Reuters described a shift in Invisible and the AI-training industry toward greater reliance on subject-matter experts for complex AI training tasks.

• In addition, a 2025 article in Forbes critically examines the company and its founder’s strategic decisions and includes perspectives from former investors who disagree with the founder’s management approach. This appears to be clearly independent coverage rather than company-initiated publicity.

Given this set of independent sources, including some that contain criticism and analysis, my understanding is that the topic might plausibly satisfy the requirements of WP:SUBSTANTIAL. If the article were nominated for deletion, these sources might help demonstrate notability.

Would this additional context affect your decision to decline the submission, or do you think the article could potentially be revised to better demonstrate notability? I would greatly appreciate any guidance on how the sources or structure of the article could be improved. Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 19:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for requesting a re-review and providing additional sources.

• The NBC News article you linked does not include substantial coverage of the organization. The only mention of Invisible Technologies in the article is a quote from a job listing, and does not conclusively connect the company to any actual work in the field. In fact, "Invisible did not immediately respond to a request for more information on its listings."
• The Business Insider article may be substantial coverage. While at first glance it seems to be trivial (its headline and first dozen paragraphs are routine coverage "of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel"), the second half of the article, in subheading "A day in the life of an AI trainer", includes some information about the company's activities. Importantly, the article's inclusion of this information makes it appear to be noteworthy. However, this information is completely absent from the draft article you submitted. The draft does not include any of Business Insider's coverage of the admittedly interesting industry Invisible Technologies is in. In 2023, Invisible Technologies was involved in large language model training projects, including contract work for OpenAI related to ChatGPT, and relied in part on contract data trainers does not include any of this reporting and only focuses on the connection to OpenAI, which is trivial: notability is not inherited just by being a contractor for OpenAI unless it is contextualized. Many notable companies hire contractors; this does not make them notable.
• The Reuters article is, in my opinion, the best coverage here. It's in-depth, provides a corporate history, and contextualizes the company in its industry. However, none of this information is used in the draft. There's no inclusion of how Invisible Technologies employs people (Reuters says 5,000 but your infobox says 350?), what they work on, or what this does in the industry. Two sentences are sourced to the Reuters article: It provides an AI platform used by enterprises to organize data and build agentic workflows and In 2024, Invisible Technologies focused more on enterprise customers, providing enterprise software platform that prepares data, models business processes, and enables AI agents to execute those processes. Both of these sentences are completely unsupported by the source. There is no mention of Invisible Technologies having a "platform" or of working with "agents".
• The Forbes article is mostly about the founder and corporate structure with little about the company's work. However, this can be useful supporting information for an article.

I advise you to take one of two steps:

• Completely restart this draft to be about the industry of AI training, including about its workers, structure, clients, providers, etc. There's enough in the Business Insider and Reuters to do this justice, and if you expand to sources that don't mention Invisible could get a very nice article. This would be insightful and could very easily include Invisible Technologies as a part of the article. If you go this route and come up with an intriguing article about this strange and poorly-documented industry, you'll likely be met with praise from fellow editors here.
• Rewrite the current draft to focus on the company's actual work, with reliable sources. Fix the unsupported mentions of "platforms", talk about AI training workers more (with citations), and remove the promotional junk like agentic workflows, AI partner, etc. Much of § History has to go. A list of clients over time isn't a corporate history, and the formation of a UK entity is original research.

Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Dan Leonard, I'm genuinely amazed by the depth and care you put into this review! This is by far the most thorough and actionable feedback I've received from a fellow editor, and I'm truly grateful.

Both paths you suggested resonate with me. The industry overview idea is something I've moved to my backlog for future volunteer work. A quick check confirms there's no dedicated Wikipedia article on the AI training/data annotation industry, which makes it all the more worthwhile, but also all the more demanding. It deserves serious, deep research.

I've been following the AI training space for a while: I read the Time investigation into OpenAI's use of Kenyan workers paid under $2/hour for ChatGPT content moderation, and more recently the Reuters report on the Wikimedia Foundation signing AI training data deals with Microsoft and Meta (Wikipedia is crucial to training AI models, whether we like it or not, but at least now companies will have to pay for API access). I think such an industry overview deserves more experience than I currently have, so I'll return to it when I feel ready to do it justice.

For now, my immediate focus will be on rewriting the current draft, grounding it in what the sources actually say, cutting the unsupported claims about "platforms" and "agentic workflows", and giving proper weight to the Reuters and Business Insider reporting.

Thank you again, Dan, and I apologize for my late reply. I read your message on that same day but felt a short "thank you" wouldn't do your review justice, so I wanted to take the time to carefully work through your recommendations and dig deeper into the subject matter before deciding how to move forward. Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 15:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dan Leonard, hello again! I have rewritten the article following your feedback – diff – Draft:Invisible Technologies – and would be very grateful if you could take a look at the revised draft and let me know if there is anything else that should be removed or adjusted.

I used Reuters and Business Insider as the primary sources, with Bloomberg and Forbes as my supporting refs. Deleted most references with company-driven narratives, left only a few for fact verification. Removed client mentions without WP:RS, corporate jargon, and personnel announcements not meeting the notability threshold. Retained only content reflecting the company's position within the industry and its evolution over time.

I have one remaining uncertainty: the mention of Lord Simon Case. I am not sure whether this qualifies as a trivial appointment, given his prominence as a former UK Cabinet Secretary and the fact that The Independent covered it in the context of a broader pattern of AI companies recruiting former government officials. I would appreciate your view on whether this should stay or go.

Before I hit the resubmit button, could I ask for your advice on the best way to proceed? Given how deeply you engaged with this article last time, would it be possible to have you review it again when I formally resubmit?

Thank you again for the time and care you put into your original review! It made all the difference. Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 19:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Dan Leonard! I’m still looking forward to your reply, and I understand you’re busy with things that are far more important, like your recent article Branding of United States government programs and facilities after Donald Trump. I read it, and I found it truly impressive. I was born in the USSR and have seen firsthand what a personality cult is and where that path can lead, so I think what you’re doing is genuinely important and helps put these things into perspective.

As for my Draft:Invisible Technologies, I ended up removing the UK part altogether, because after rereading it, it felt a bit out of place and not very meaningful. I’d really appreciate it if you had a moment to take a look at the revised version and let me know whether I managed to address your comments. If you’d prefer not to or don’t have time, just let me know, I can go ahead and resubmit it so another editor can pick it up. Thanks so much! Alexandra Goncharik ^-sms- 20:27, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cheryl West, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Dan Leonard. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Testosterone in culture".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)