User talk:Jorge906

Concern regarding Draft:Xuxa Produções

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello, Jorge906. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Xuxa Produções, 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) 08:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

unblock|reason=Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 148.252.140.216

I have confirmed that is indeed a proxy. You need to disable your proxy and wait a full 24 hours for the block to clear. --Yamla (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a proxy though Jorge906 (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were using a proxy. That's confirmed. If you are unable to edit and are still using 80.0.102.139 and it's complaining about a proxy, this is definitely because you haven't waited the full 24 hours. --Yamla (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's working now Jorge906 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jorge906 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 80.0.102.139

Decline reason:

That IP address is not blocked. Please wait a full 24 hours after disabling your proxy, in order for the block to clear. Yamla (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AfC notification: Draft:Lover Fest has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Lover Fest. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lover Fest (April 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Lover (album). Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The instructions for AFC reviewers say that we should accept a draft if, in our opinion, there is more than a 50% chance that it will survive a deletion discussion. While I personally think that it should satisfy event notability as an event that did not happen, but had a lasting effect, there have been two poorly attended deletion discussions that have redirected it to Lover (album). For that reason, it is my opinion that there is less than a 50% chance that this draft, if accepted again, will be kept at AFD. I will, unfortunately, be declining this draft as unlikely to be kept.

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:Lover Fest 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The 1989 World Tour Live.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The 1989 World Tour Live.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things (Taylor Swift song) has been accepted

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things (Taylor Swift song), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sid & Judy

Hello, Jorge906. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sid & Judy, 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) 20:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Last Performance (documentary)

Hello, Jorge906. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Last Performance (documentary), 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) 02:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jorge906 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 148.252.141.249

Accept reason:

Rangeblock lifted by Yamla. -- asilvering (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address is a confirmed proxy. --Yamla (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla, I have to say I'm a bit confused by this block. I'm sure there are some residential flags floating around, but that is true for a huge share of the IPv4 address space at this point, and I see no real reason to doubt that this is in fact a legitimate Vodafone UK range. Is this about RP flags, or is there something I'm missing? If the former, I would urge you to reconsider the block (I jotted down a some notes on this general subject on cuwiki a while back, which may be of interest). --Blablubbs (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be cautious in my explanation, to avoid breaching privacy. This particular narrow IP address range has been used extensively by spammers and there was at least one sock farm operating from this narrow range. However, taking a look at the current state of the technical data, they appear to have largely moved on. I mean, there are still several blocked users operating on this narrow range, but, well, that's not unexpected. Your CU notes make excellent reading. I will go and lift the IP address range block. --Yamla (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Untouchable (Luna Halo and Taylor Swift song, respectively)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Untouchable (Luna Halo and Taylor Swift song, respectively) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Last Performance (documentary)

Hello, Jorge906. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Last Performance".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Last Performance (film)

Hello, Jorge906. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Last Performance (film), 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) 16:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AI editing? concerning User:Jorge906 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Ippantekina (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Judy Garland: Recordings from the M-G-M Films (Motion Picture Soundtrack Anthology)

Hello, Jorge906. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Judy Garland: Recordings from the M-G-M Films".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Red Tour" translation

Did you use LLM/AI to translate the Red Tour from Vietnamese to English? I would really appreciate if you could temporarily halt your AI edits especially when they construct such large content on Wikipedia, and the AN discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AI_editing?_concerning_User:Jorge906 is still active. Please understand that these massive AI edits are troublesome. Thank you for your understanding, Ippantekina (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 07:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. :) Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I have indefinitely blocked User:Jorge0987 which I think is an unacknowledged alternate account of Jorge906. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that was my old account and I know WP has guidelines regarding sockpuppetry, so I guess I should've informed. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock reason

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jorge906 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I understand that my use of AI-generated content on Wikipedia has raised concerns, particularly when I used it in article creation and 2 GA reviews for King of My Heart, and they did not align with WP's expectations, I was told twice that AI wouldn't suffice for article reviews and I now see why these edits are problematic. I have a clearer understanding of Wikipedia's policies regarding editing using AI. I'm still learning how to navigate Wikipedia’s standards, but I genuinely want to contribute meaningfully. While I have used AI to structure content, I've also taken the time to refine it, learnt by editors like @Ippantekina to verify citations (e.g. what's in them, and to make sure the information cited is mentioned in the source(s), and I've learnt to improve my approach based on feedback from editors. After delving deeper into WP's policies on AI, I did see something mentioning along the lines of you can't rely on LLM's to research sources, extract information on them, and turn them into Wikipedia-style articles, as it can just whip something up that's not true. It damages Wikipedia, and well it's a bad look on me and WP's content in general frankly.Moving forward, I will be much more intentional in how I contribute, ensuring that my edits are in line with Wikipedia's expectations. I will only rely on Ai to do stuff like copyediting, because if a machine just does it for you, you're not fit to edit on Wikipedia. I do appreciate any guidance on how I can continue to contribute responsibly. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While a good start, the level of concerns about your AI useage didn't just "raise concerns". Esepcially given you have previously promised not to use it, then continued doing so. Also Talk:King of My Heart/GA2 doesn't have any AI useage but illustrates an entirely different form of disruption - you weren't just blocked for using AI. You need to address all of the issues that got you blocked, and demonstrate that you do in fact fully understand that you should avoid using AI altogether, given the fact any trust from the community regarding this with you is gone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WP:CHILD

I have removed and deleted your unblock request. Please review WP:CHILD before proceeding. You are welcome to make a new unblock request after carefully reviewing and understanding that essay. --Yamla (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Wales' Home of the Year

Hello, Jorge906. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wales' Home of the Year, 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) 01:08, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Messing around

Stop messing around. If you want to make an unblock request, review WP:GAB and preview your changes rather than saving your edit and then reverting it. You are being disruptive. --Yamla (talk) 12:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I tried to, but it wasn't working on my phone. Sorry for being disruptive, but I hope you can understand that this wasn't intentional. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it wasn't intended to be disruptive. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:How Did It End? has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:How Did It End?. Thanks! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 16:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jorge906 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, thank you for reviewing my appeal. I now understand that my block was not just about AI usage, it was due to a pattern of disruptive editing, including my handling of GA reviews, unverified translations. I fully accept that my actions did not meet Wikipedia's standards, and I take full responsibility for the disruption I caused.

One of the main concerns was my repeated use of AI-generated content. I published an AI-generated GA review for King of My Heart and was informed by editor @User:Ippantekina that AI-generated reviews would not suffice. However, I proceeded to review the article again using AI. Additionally, I mistakenly ticked checkboxes after only proofreading the article instead of conducting a full evaluation. I now realise that article reviews require independent analysis and careful verification, and that AI-generated reviews (LLM's) do not meet Wikipedia's expectations.

Another issue was my disruptive editing beyond GA reviews. I created articles and drafts containing AI-generated content without properly reviewing them. For example, in Draft:How Did It End?, while I cited sources correctly, I failed to verify whether the cited information was actually present in those sources. My edits to The Red Tour also involved translations that I did not personally verify and I did not ensure the accuracy of the text or made sure that the citations were formatted properly. I now recognise that this approach was irresponsible and has introduced troublesome edits into Wikipedia.

Additionally, I failed to disclose my previous account, Jorge0987, which contributed to concerns about transparency. I now understand the importance of managing account history properly and ensuring all my edits are made under a single, clearly identified account.

I also acknowledge that my recent edit attempts on my talk page may have appeared disruptive. I was experiencing technical difficulties on my phone where I was trying to submit in an unblock request, which led to multiple saves and reversions. I understand how this could be frustrating for others and I will be more mindful of previewing my edits before saving them in the future.

I have read WP:CHILD and understand the importance of privacy protection and responsible editing practices. Moving forward, I will ensure that all my edits are original, fact-checked, and fully compliant with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Due to my lost trust in the community and their concerns, it would be a good idea and practical for me to avoid publishing AI-generated content entirely, even if it is for simple tasks, like copy editing, etc. If I choose to review an article, I will conduct the review properly, and only submit translations that I have personally verified. I recognise that trust must be rebuilt over time, and I am committed to becoming a better editor by learning from feedback and making careful, constructive contributions. I respectfully request that you reconsider my block and allow me the opportunity to restore and rebuild trust within the community through my future work.

Thank you for your time. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocking admin here, just procedurally declining this one as a new unblock request has been opened. -- asilvering (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this is still AI. -- asilvering (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although ZeroGPT is coming up clean, I definitely find it suspicious that they're citing certain policies but the follow-up sentences don't align with the stated policy. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the treating of unrelated topics as the same issue (eg. "I will conduct the review properly, and only submit translations that I have personally verified"). CMD (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant add to separate the fact that they are different things, if that makes sense. I know that it wasn't that clear, and I'm going to write another block request. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: How Did It End? has been accepted

How Did It End?, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 23:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Taylor's Version has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Taylor's Version. Thanks! Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm. I'm disputing a block I've got, so I can't edit at the moment. :) Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Dhar Mann Studios

Hello, Jorge906. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Dhar Mann Studios, 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) 22:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Taylor's Version (June 4)

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

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

submitted by a blocked editor.

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:Taylor's Version 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.

JSFarman (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The 1989 World Tour Live.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The 1989 World Tour Live.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi @The Bushranger, when I submitted an unblock request, you said that I had previously promised not to use AI on WP. Would you be able to find a record of that? As I checked the adminators noticeboard regarding my AI edits, and I couldn't seem to find anything of me saying I would refrain from using AI.

Thanks. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the comment here (I'd link the diff but it has been oversighted). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Thanks :) Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Jorge906 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review my appeal, even though this is the third unblock request I have submitted, so I appreciate it. My block was not just due to my AI edits on Wikipedia, it was also due to my GA reviews of King of My Heart, which wasn't disruptive just because I published a second AI-written review, even though the first time I published an AI-written review, I was told by an editor that an AI-written review would not suffice. It was because I proceeded to review "King of My Heart" for the third time, where I carelessly ticked boxes without properly reviewing the article. My unverified and unreviewed translations to The Red Tour that I published contributed to me being blocked. Due to the large amounts of unreviewed prose a LLM translated and I then published to The Red Tour article, several editors had to excessively clean up after me, a generous thing to do. I recognise that my reliance on AI to write GA reviews and article prose without rigorously scrutinizing the results, and not properly reviewing article nomination(s) has not met Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, etc.

On How Did It End?, I published AI-written prose that I did not adequately verify for accuracy, etc. One of the issues was that a citation intended to support a piece of prose was an album review that was solely of the standard album edition, whereas "How Did It End?" is included in the double album edition of The Tortured Poets Department sub-titled The Anthology. This mismatch demonstrates the faults of AI in ensuring neutral and factual accuracy.

I understand that these actions have led to a loss of trust within the community. I now appreciate that contributions to Wikipedia I pursue must be examined before being published. All citations and claims in edits I make needs to be verified manually. Due to the lost trust in the community, it would be a good idea for me to avoid any future use of AI-generated prose for any edits on Wikipedia.

I sincerely apologise for the disruption and confusion caused by my actions. If I get unblocked, I will contribute responsibly and be responsible for my contributions. I intend to raise a discussion regarding AI usage on Wikipedia, and in particular to have set policies/guidelines on using AI, instead of there just being essays addressing AI. This will address AI's (in particular LLM's) broader implications for our editing practices.

I respectfully request that you reconsider my block, and allow me to rebuild my lost trust by making careful contributions that are thoroughly verified and independently judged. I'll make future edits with an intent in which I know what I am publishing.

As I stated on my talk page, my disruptive edits on there were unintentional, I was experiencing technical difficulties on my phone, despite the source code being correct.

Thank you for your consideration.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=
Hi, thanks for taking the time to review my appeal, even though this is the third unblock request I have submitted, so I appreciate it. My block was not just due to my AI edits on Wikipedia, it was also due to my GA reviews of [[King of My Heart]], which wasn't disruptive just because I published a second AI-written review, even though the first time I published an AI-written review, I was told by an editor that an AI-written review would not suffice. It was because I proceeded to review "King of My Heart" for the third time, where I carelessly ticked boxes without properly reviewing the article. My unverified and unreviewed translations to [[The Red Tour]] that I published contributed to me being blocked. Due to the large amounts of unreviewed prose a [[LLM]] translated and I then published to The Red Tour article, several editors had to excessively clean up after me, a generous thing to do. I recognise that my reliance on AI to write GA reviews and article prose without rigorously scrutinizing the results, and not properly reviewing article nomination(s) has not met Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, etc.

On [[How Did It End?]], I published AI-written prose that I did not adequately verify for accuracy, etc. One of the issues was that a citation intended to support a piece of prose was an album review that was solely of the standard album edition, whereas "How Did It End?" is included in the double album edition of [[The Tortured Poets Department]] sub-titled ''The Anthology''. This mismatch demonstrates the faults of AI in ensuring neutral and factual accuracy.

I understand that these actions have led to a loss of trust within the community. I now appreciate that contributions to Wikipedia I pursue must be examined before being published. All citations and claims in edits I make needs to be verified manually. Due to the lost trust in the community, it would be a good idea for me to avoid any future use of AI-generated prose for any edits on Wikipedia.

I sincerely apologise for the disruption and confusion caused by my actions. If I get unblocked, I will contribute responsibly and be responsible for my contributions. I intend to raise a discussion regarding AI usage on Wikipedia, and in particular to have set policies/guidelines on using AI, instead of there just being essays addressing AI. This will address AI's (in particular LLM's) broader implications for our editing practices.

I respectfully request that you reconsider my block, and allow me to rebuild my lost trust by making careful contributions that are thoroughly verified and independently judged. I'll make future edits with an intent in which I know what I am publishing.

As I stated on my talk page, my disruptive edits on there were unintentional, I was experiencing technical difficulties on my phone, despite the source code being correct. 

Thank you for your consideration. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=
Hi, thanks for taking the time to review my appeal, even though this is the third unblock request I have submitted, so I appreciate it. My block was not just due to my AI edits on Wikipedia, it was also due to my GA reviews of [[King of My Heart]], which wasn't disruptive just because I published a second AI-written review, even though the first time I published an AI-written review, I was told by an editor that an AI-written review would not suffice. It was because I proceeded to review "King of My Heart" for the third time, where I carelessly ticked boxes without properly reviewing the article. My unverified and unreviewed translations to [[The Red Tour]] that I published contributed to me being blocked. Due to the large amounts of unreviewed prose a [[LLM]] translated and I then published to The Red Tour article, several editors had to excessively clean up after me, a generous thing to do. I recognise that my reliance on AI to write GA reviews and article prose without rigorously scrutinizing the results, and not properly reviewing article nomination(s) has not met Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, etc.

On [[How Did It End?]], I published AI-written prose that I did not adequately verify for accuracy, etc. One of the issues was that a citation intended to support a piece of prose was an album review that was solely of the standard album edition, whereas "How Did It End?" is included in the double album edition of [[The Tortured Poets Department]] sub-titled ''The Anthology''. This mismatch demonstrates the faults of AI in ensuring neutral and factual accuracy.

I understand that these actions have led to a loss of trust within the community. I now appreciate that contributions to Wikipedia I pursue must be examined before being published. All citations and claims in edits I make needs to be verified manually. Due to the lost trust in the community, it would be a good idea for me to avoid any future use of AI-generated prose for any edits on Wikipedia.

I sincerely apologise for the disruption and confusion caused by my actions. If I get unblocked, I will contribute responsibly and be responsible for my contributions. I intend to raise a discussion regarding AI usage on Wikipedia, and in particular to have set policies/guidelines on using AI, instead of there just being essays addressing AI. This will address AI's (in particular LLM's) broader implications for our editing practices.

I respectfully request that you reconsider my block, and allow me to rebuild my lost trust by making careful contributions that are thoroughly verified and independently judged. I'll make future edits with an intent in which I know what I am publishing.

As I stated on my talk page, my disruptive edits on there were unintentional, I was experiencing technical difficulties on my phone, despite the source code being correct. 

Thank you for your consideration. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=
Hi, thanks for taking the time to review my appeal, even though this is the third unblock request I have submitted, so I appreciate it. My block was not just due to my AI edits on Wikipedia, it was also due to my GA reviews of [[King of My Heart]], which wasn't disruptive just because I published a second AI-written review, even though the first time I published an AI-written review, I was told by an editor that an AI-written review would not suffice. It was because I proceeded to review "King of My Heart" for the third time, where I carelessly ticked boxes without properly reviewing the article. My unverified and unreviewed translations to [[The Red Tour]] that I published contributed to me being blocked. Due to the large amounts of unreviewed prose a [[LLM]] translated and I then published to The Red Tour article, several editors had to excessively clean up after me, a generous thing to do. I recognise that my reliance on AI to write GA reviews and article prose without rigorously scrutinizing the results, and not properly reviewing article nomination(s) has not met Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, etc.

On [[How Did It End?]], I published AI-written prose that I did not adequately verify for accuracy, etc. One of the issues was that a citation intended to support a piece of prose was an album review that was solely of the standard album edition, whereas "How Did It End?" is included in the double album edition of [[The Tortured Poets Department]] sub-titled ''The Anthology''. This mismatch demonstrates the faults of AI in ensuring neutral and factual accuracy.

I understand that these actions have led to a loss of trust within the community. I now appreciate that contributions to Wikipedia I pursue must be examined before being published. All citations and claims in edits I make needs to be verified manually. Due to the lost trust in the community, it would be a good idea for me to avoid any future use of AI-generated prose for any edits on Wikipedia.

I sincerely apologise for the disruption and confusion caused by my actions. If I get unblocked, I will contribute responsibly and be responsible for my contributions. I intend to raise a discussion regarding AI usage on Wikipedia, and in particular to have set policies/guidelines on using AI, instead of there just being essays addressing AI. This will address AI's (in particular LLM's) broader implications for our editing practices.

I respectfully request that you reconsider my block, and allow me to rebuild my lost trust by making careful contributions that are thoroughly verified and independently judged. I'll make future edits with an intent in which I know what I am publishing.

As I stated on my talk page, my disruptive edits on there were unintentional, I was experiencing technical difficulties on my phone, despite the source code being correct. 

Thank you for your consideration. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, @Yamla I'd really appreciate if an admin could look into my request. I know admins are quite busy, so sorry if I shouldn't have gone to you guys. :) Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed your old request. Since I was the blocking admin, I'll leave this unblock request for someone else to handle, but I'm happy to answer questions in the meantime if you have any. -- asilvering (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Please be patient. The queue of unblock requests is chronically backlogged and admins, like all other Wikipedia users, are volunteers. Your request might take days or even weeks before it is reviewed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That was the point I was trying to make, but thanks for the clarification. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Drm310 I said "I know admins are quite busy". Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I do get unblocked, I'm thinking about starting a discussion regarding AI usage on WP, particularly to start enforcing policies and guidelines instead of just essays. I know that having firm policies and guidelines can be hard as they have to be thoroughly vetted by the community. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not advise starting a new discussion on that, there have been plenty. What an admin might look for instead is what content you are thinking of working on, and how. CMD (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LLM. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks again. While I'm waiting for a response to my unblock request, I'm planning out how I can improve the edits I previously made using an LLM. In particular, I want to go through and ensure that the sources cited in support of a specific piece of prose actually reflect what's said in the source(s), since obviously that’s essential for maintaining encyclopaedic accuracy. I’m also aiming to copyedit the articles just to tidy things up. If there's anything I should keep in mind as I approach this, I'd really appreciate any guidance. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) If you do get unblocked, what kind of edits do you think you will work on? Do you anticipate reviewing more GAs? Additionally, do you think you'll use AI to edit at all, and if so, how? Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I probably won't review any articles for the matter of fact actually. I might contribute to a FAN or GAN. For example, I might give copy-editing suggestion or just give my input regarding something. I may use AI to edit, but not in the way I've been doing so. Any AI edits I will make will be rigorously scrutinised. AI shouldn't necessarily be seen negatively as a bad thing to use on Wikipedia. If we use it right then, well yeah. If we extensively check and edit the content, AI can be used for the good. But, I totally understand that the community probably don't want me making AI edits, even if they're done in this way.

Hope this helps. :) Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main problems with LLM's is that when asking them to generate article text with references, they tend to generate fake or biased info that comes across real, but then you go onto one of the sources, and realise that the piece of prose being supported by that source, does not mention anything from the piece of prose. So, it might be a good idea to move these articles to the draftspace. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A general rule of thumb on Wikipedia is that if your edits are being questioned on a noticeboard, you should stop performing the kinds of edits that are questioned until consensus is established for such edits. (This applies to all editing disputes, not just LLM use.) The editor who opened the incidents noticeboard discussion started a new discussion on your user talk page (this page) at #"The Red Tour" translation asking you to "halt your AI edits" while the discussion was active. Although you replied to and acknowledged their request by saying "Ok" and "I understand. :)", you continued to post LLM-generated content (including the second good article review), which at that point was disruptive.

To maximize the likelihood that your unblock request is accepted, I recommend that you make a commitment (as an unblock condition) to completely avoid using LLM-generated content in your Wikipedia edits. — Newslinger talk 15:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get it, @Newslinger. I do understand the effects of my past edits, particularly continuing AI-generated edits after acknowledging the request from @Ippantekina to pause them. I recognise now that I should have halted all AI-related edits immediately until consensus was established. I sincerely do regret that misjudgment. If I do get unblocked, I will refrain from any AI edits, even for simple tasks, until consensus is reached, which I am aiming to raise. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this reassures the community that I take these concerns seriously and am committed to improving as an editor. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community is more likely to see you take the concerns seriously if you drop the fixation on the issue of AI, and instead let us know what edits you want to make or articles you want to improve. CMD (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well basically all articles that I have contributed to that are LLM assisted. Here are a few: Dancing with Our Hands Tied, This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things, How Did It End?, The Eras Tour Book. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm thinking of not editing Draft:Taylor's Version anymore, as well it's all covered in the masters dispute article. Also, there is a chat on Talk:Lover (album) regarding if Lover Fest should be a standalone article. So for that, a paragraph or two would do in the Marketing section of the album article. But yeah, If I do get unblocked, I'm focusing on doing cleanup for any articles involving LLM edits. I'm also thinking of starting a draft on "The Outside" by Swift, with sources I have actually read. I have found books, etc used in other articles of her songs. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm thinking of starting drafts for a few Taylor Swift songs. Using information from reliable sources that I myself have read. I'm thinking of starting drafts on: "The Outside", "Cold As You", "I Almost Do" and "The Lucky One". I haven't started the research yet, but I have found books that talk about the songs from her albums; these books tend to be cited in articles about her songs. I have found Taylor Swift: The Stories Behind the Songs, so that will be good to cite. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised that "Cold as You" is already in draftspace. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few copyedits I want to make to Dancing with Our Hands Tied and This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things; particularly regarding the live performances. For example, instead of "Dancing With Our Hands Tied" was included in the setlist for Swift's fifth concert tour, the Reputation Stadium Tour (2018).", it would make more sense for it to be "Dancing With Our Hands Tied" was included in the setlist for the Reputation Stadium Tour (2018)." and you probably get the jist. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at my contributions from around the 27th May, the only contributions I made after the disruptive machine-generated translation of the The Red Tour was a GA review of King of My Heart, where I wordlessly ticked boxes without adequately reviewing the article. Obviously, doesn't mean that any of this is right in the way it's been done, but I'm trying to make a point that these edits seem to be made before @Ippantekina consulted me to temporarily halt my AI edits. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's promising that you're responding to comments here in a way that does not appear to be LLM-assisted. I'll let another administrator process the unblock request, but I think you have a lot to offer Wikipedia in your own words. — Newslinger talk 16:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz being promoted to FA

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy, do you think The Wizard of Oz could be nominated for FA? Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jorge906, while you're blocked, the only thing you can use your talk page for is communication about the block. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I wasn't aware of that. So, is that a policy... Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]