User talk:MisterSet

This is MisterSet's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Floorplan (microelectronics) (June 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CSMention269 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Floorplan (microelectronics) instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Floorplan (microelectronics) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MisterSet! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(😐 ● 🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floorplan (microelectronics)

Sorry to revert, but all the added text is based exclusively on primary sources. There are millions of articles written and we cannot add all them into Wikipedia. In order that some theorem, algorithm, etc. to included in wikipedia, it must be discusse in priomary sources independent of the author. --Altenmann >talk 21:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is the case for the GPU based approach but should I then cite a paper about another topic that mentions this approach because this feels wrong? MisterSet (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or should I cite blogs talking about this approach? (But they are less reputable than journals)

Or maybe both? MisterSet (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot cite blogs and you cannot cite another paper that simply mentions this approach. It must be critically discussed somewhere in reasonable detail by recognized experts. Unfortunately people often publish garbage, just to justify grants. I happen to work in the EDA industry and I know even big companies such as Synopsys make a big fuss of AI in EDA. --Altenmann >talk 23:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I generally agree with this sentiment, an analytic macro placer like DREAMPLACE is not AI but simply uses GPUs to compute gradients to minimize a loss function (similar methods as AI but there is no neural network involved). Further, analytical placers are the state of the art for placing standard cells already. Therefore, this is certainly relevant and not just a marketing stunt (as it sometimes is with AI in the EDA industry). MisterSet (talk) 04:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]