Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 December 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

December 15

How long should I wait before submitting another unblock request?

I was disappointed that I had been blocked from editing emailSanta.com, as you can see on my talk page. I appealed the block, but an admin only suggested a harsher punishment. How long should I wait before returning to that topic again? I don't want to upset any more admins and want to be able to edit Wikipedia freely like I used to be able to. I hope it doesn't stay with me for my entire life. Could I request a lighter block (e.g. 1-2 years) instead of an immediate unblock or a permanent block, like the one I have currently? Félix An (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You probably should not return to the topic. While the admin used a very firm tone, the advice is good. You don't need to edit emailSanta.com or any other page that relates to Santa Claus, and it seems to become a problem when you do. Right now you're only page blocked, which isn't a huge deal. Just explore other parts of Wikipedia, there are countless interesting areas to contribute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, I guess it's time to throw in the towel then. At least other editors have cleaned up the WP:COI and WP:YESPROMO (and I believe they will continue doing so throughout WP), so it's not necessary for me to edit it anymore (and I probably should focus more on my university work anyways; maybe this block is a signal for me to not distract myself every Christmas with WP 😂). Thank you for your response, and merry Christmas! Félix An (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You're only blocked from that one singular article. There are almost 7 million articles on here, why don't you just... edit some of those instead?Though I'd avoid anything Santa Claus related because it seems like you're already on thin ice. RachelTensions (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Using AI artwork in articles

Hello. Is there currently any policy about using AI artwork in articles or does it just depend on how people feel about it at the time? And no, I don't have any examples. it's just a general question because it comes up when people upload AI generated slop to Commons for Wikipedia articles. Adamant1 (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Adamant1 I'm pretty sure this would fall under original research as AI does not always provide accurate depictions of whatever it's rendering. WP:OI also says It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

AI prompts given summaries of articles sounds horrible and gives me thoughts of the entire wiki getting overrun by computer-generated imagery with the potential to significantly miss its mark, and I rightfully hope the specific type of AI content you're referring to gets deleted from Commons as out-of-scope. Now, AI-generated imagery does have some relevance - such as at Department of Government Efficiency where the people we put in charge of running it created AI art to represent it. That's a different case from what I think you're referring to. Most articles would be significantly better off with no AI content, except where the specific AI content is a subject of discussion, as in the previously described case. See also WP:LLM, the policy on chatbots being used for adding text content to articles. Departure– (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Departure–: I should have been clearer but I'm specifically talking about articles that don't have anything to do with AI or AI artwork to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Then we are on the same page. AI content getting added to pages where it isn't at all relevant is the illustration equivalent of original research and I hope all such images get removed from Commons. Departure– (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Help with New Page Patrol Review and Paid Editing Tag Removal for "It's Coming"

Hello,

I'm seeking assistance with the New Page Patrol review process and the removal of a paid editing tag for the article "It's Coming (film)". I initially requested a review on December 3rd, after moving the article from Draft space to mainspace. On December 12th, I followed up on my review request and also asked for the removal of the paid editing tag that had been added to the article. I provided a detailed explanation of my contributions and assured editors that I am not receiving any compensation for my work.

Despite these efforts, I have not received any substantive response to my requests. I also sought input on the Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), but the situation remains unresolved.

The article is thoroughly sourced and complies with Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and neutrality. I've also added a Reception section with a Rotten Tomatoes score and critical consensus to further demonstrate the film's notability.

Could someone please advise me on how to proceed with getting this article reviewed and the paid editing tag removed? Is there anything else I can do to move the process along?

Thank you for your help! Stan1900 (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, it is unlikely that any uninvolved editor will remove that tag or mark that page as patrolled until you are far more forthcoming about your relationship with the film and filmmaker. If you haven't read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, I suggest that you do so. Do not repeat your earlier cookie cutter responses. A full and frank explanation is needed now, instead of evasiveness. Cullen328 (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and need to directly address your characterization of my responses as "cookie cutter" or "evasive":

1. I created this account 8 years ago to edit Katherine Langford's page, which is completely unrelated to Shannon Alexander. To be absolutely clear: I have no personal, professional, or any other relationship with Shannon Alexander or anyone involved with these films. My interest in documenting Perth-based artists and their films stems solely from identifying gaps in coverage of independent films transitioning to wider releases.

2. All my sources are from established media outlets which meet reliability standards without question.

3. I have never received payment for editing. I have no financial or professional connection to these films or filmmakers. The paid editing tag is unjustified and should be removed.

4. The articles comply with guidelines and use reliable sources. I have been consistently transparent about my editing, and rather than being evasive, I am trying to provide clear, direct answers. If you have specific concerns about the content, I'm happy to address them. I hope this clarifies my position and resolves any misunderstandings. Stan1900 (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, all that simply repeats your earlier statements and offers no new information. You are now behaving effectively like a one person public relations agency for Shannon Alexander on Wikipedia, and the skepticism of uninvolved editors is justified in my view, given your pattern of editing. While it is true that you made four edits to Katherine Langford in 2017 and 2018, you then stopped editing for 5-1/2 years and then returned 2-1/2 weeks ago to write three articles in one day about low budget films made by Shannon Alexander. One of those remains a draft. And since then, your editing behavior has been entirely focused on Shannon Alexander. That is highly unusual behavior consistent with a paid editing assignment. There is no solid proof but the way that various editors have responded to you is indicative of something not yet fully explained. Cullen328 (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me address each of your points specifically:

1. **Editing history**: Yes, I had a gap in editing - many Wikipedia editors do. My return coincides with these films receiving wider international distribution and recognition, making them newly notable for Wikipedia coverage. The fact that I wrote three articles in one day simply reflects when I had time to contribute - my work habits are not indicative of anything beyond that.

2. **Focus of documentation**: I want to correct several mischaracterizations:

- I am not a "one person PR agency" - I'm documenting notable films based entirely on independent, reliable sources

- I haven't even created a biographical page for Shannon Alexander - my focus is on documenting specific films that meet notability guidelines

- Your dismissal of these as merely "low budget films" overlooks their international recognition and distribution

- These are works that have transitioned from Perth's independent scene to receiving international attention and acclaim

- All information is based on coverage from established media outlets

3. **Pattern of editing**: When I edit, I edit according to my available time and interest. The timing and volume of my contributions is my personal choice and has no bearing on their validity. What matters is the content's compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, not when or how quickly I chose to write it.

4. **Evidence and assumptions**: You acknowledge there's "no solid proof" of paid editing, yet continue to push this narrative. Making repeated accusations without evidence contradicts Wikipedia's assumption of good faith.

I remain open to addressing specific concerns about the articles' content. If there are elements that need improvement, I'm happy to work with you and other editors to resolve them. However, continuing to make unsupported accusations about my motivations is not constructive. Stan1900 (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I provided a detailed response addressing the concerns about my editing history and relationship to the subjects. I've demonstrated the films' notability through reliable sources and international recognition. Could someone please review and advise if any additional information is needed to resolve this? Stan1900 (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, you have not yet been able to convince uninvolved editors that the tag should be removed. And so it will stay. Cullen328 (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I'm unclear what constitutes "convincing" in this context. I have: - Provided reliable, independent sources - Demonstrated the films' notability - Explained my editing history - Clearly stated I have no financial connections - Followed all Wikipedia guidelines These are verifiable facts, not matters of personal conviction. If there are specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines that haven't been met, please identify them. Otherwise, continuing to maintain these tags without specific concerns seems contrary to Wikipedia's assumption of good faith. Stan1900 (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, repeating yourself over and over without providing any new information is not an effective persuasion technique. Why not just drop the matter and move on? Cullen328 (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328, I've bent over backwards to address your concerns and provide the info you asked for:

- I've shown my sources are reliable and independent, from respected outlets like Hollywood Reporter and LA Times.

- I've explained multiple times that I'm editing these topics because I'm genuinely interested in improving coverage, not because I'm getting paid. I've said point-blank that I have no financial connection.

- I've detailed how I'm following all of Wikipedia's policies on sources, neutrality, and notability.

Honestly, your refusal to remove the paid editing tag feels baseless and unfair at this point. I've answered all your questions and met the requirements laid out in the guidelines. If there's anything else you need to know, just ask. But I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Slapping a paid editing tag on my work without clear reasons goes against Wikipedia's principles. You're supposed to assume good faith and focus on content, not target individual editors. I've tried my best to discuss this openly and helpfully, but you don't seem to be listening.

If you won't reconsider based on everything I've said, I'll have to get a third opinion or start a formal dispute. I'm not just going to drop this when my editing integrity is being attacked without good cause.

I want to keep contributing and improving Wikipedia. I'm open to any actual constructive feedback you've got. But this feels like an abuse of the paid editing rules to shut down a good faith editor. That's not what Wikipedia is about.

Let's resolve this in a way that fits with Wikipedia's mission and policies. I'm doing my part - now it's on you to be fair and reasonable.

Stan1900 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Stan1900, there are many thousands of active editors and hundreds of administrators. I am just one among them. Any other editor could have commented in the past three days. The Teahouse has over 9,600 page watchers, after all. I edit what I want and voluntarily choose to pick which actions I take and which I don't take. I am not obligated to do something just because you want me to. So, go right ahead. Get a third opinion or pursue whatever Dispute resolution process that you choose. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)