User talk:Coin945

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8

Your recent contributions

Stop mass-creating articles like these:

• JumpStart Baby
• Vikings (video game)
• Geometry Blaster

You should know that phrases like "colorful and engaging learning experience", "aiming to provide a nurturing and interactive learning environment", "embark on a thrilling adventure", and "The game's innovative approach" are promotional and inappropriate for Wikipedia articles. You have also written unsourced sections and sections that fail verification from the sources given.

Why did you use that citation style in JumpStart Baby? Are you using a large language model to generate text? Charcoal feather (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Coin, this is the second editor in a row voicing valid concerns about your recent editing. Please address this. Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Final warning

In addition the concerns above, I've found other examples of overly-promotional, puffery as well.

I'm not sure if you're pumping out shoddy AI articles, engaging in paid editing, or randomly deciding that you were going to start writing like you were a sales catalogue writer, but this needs to be stopped. Any more of this and your account is going to be blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

You've completely ignored my final warning (and multiple other editors expressing concern) about churning out sloppy article creations, so your account is blocked until you sufficiently address this issue. I've got your talk page watchlisted, so I'll be ready when you decide you’re ready to start talking about it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Strong endorse. Considering past issues of failing to understand WP:N and WP:COPYVIO, this is going to need an extremely strong appeal rationale. -- ferret (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you Sergecross73 (talk · contribs) for giving me this opportunity to take a breath and reflect. I apologise for not reaching out sooner - I genuinely didn't notice the talk page comments as I was focused on article research and creation.

I acknowledge the long history and baggage I have had over my long history at Wikipedia - some of the issues Ferret (talk · contribs) mentions above (e.g. WP:COPYVIO) were discussed many years ago and I have since rectified and grown as a contributor. As a counterpoint to those punitive conversations with WP:VG members for low-class work, I have also had great personal triumphs like my article Cluedo (Australian game show) that I poured my heart and soul (and countless hours) into.

Often my articles are not perfect from the get-go, but I have always aimed to improve Wikipedia with each subsequent edit and I know that we as a website and community are always moving in the right direction per the essay WP:NOTFINISHED.

To directly answer your question on the changed nature of my writing style, I have often gravitated to the new tools available to improve article, whether it's the Wikipedia Library, the reFill2 tool, or in the most recent case ChatGPT.

I have been working with this new technology by feeding it the text from each source, then asking the program to incorporate it into a Wikipedia article 'without promotional or editorial language, and in an encyclopedic, neutral tone'. Then asking it to turn the link into a proper citation and place it inline after each use of the source content. I've also used it for infobox help and category recommendations.

While I am proud to research and write about the oft-forgotten edutainment space, I've noticed now that many of those articles carry a few editorial sentences in addition to the encyclopedic content I requested. This is bad, and I regret not catching it sooner. Still, I have never asked the program to invent information - each source is real and verifiable:

One notable adaptation came in the form of Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing II, which introduced additional features and improvements to the original formula. This version was praised for its well-researched and well-written program design, as well as its user-friendly interface. The positive reception of Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing II demonstrated the series' ability to build upon its foundations and deliver enhanced learning experiences.

As technology continued to advance, so did the program's capabilities. The release of Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing Version 5 showcased its adaptability and willingness to incorporate modern features while maintaining its core focus on typing education. This iteration demonstrated how the program remained committed to serving as a valuable tool for both novice typists and experienced users seeking to refine their skills.

Furthermore, the program expanded its offerings to cater to different demographics. Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing For Kids was introduced, featuring content suitable for younger learners while maintaining the program's educational effectiveness. This adaptation highlighted the series' adaptability to cater to a diverse range of users, from children to adults.

I acknowledge my grave errors that add editorialising and promotional content to Wikipedia. It was never my intention and I understand why this Blocking action had to be taken - I wholeheartedly agree with it.

I try to be a good editor - to throw myself into interesting topics, digging into old archives and websites to find sources, using image-to-text or translation software to uncover the secrets behind non OCR text. I love bringing contemporarily obscure but historically interesting topics back into the limelight, particularly those I have a nostalgic attachment to. It would be a personal shame if I would never be able to contribute again.

I already have a few tasks I'm dying to complete, for example removing those Mavis Beacon editorial sentences above, and adding some infoboxes I've noticed are missing from my earlier creations. Life may not have a revert button, but luckily Wikipedia does.

Regarding my creation of articles using ChatGPT, it is a scary invasive technology, and in using it (and not reviewing the output closely enough) I have evidently added content that does not align with Wikipedia's policies. That is my error of judgement and as statement above rightfully resulted in the Blocking action. Ultimately I have found it to be a great tool to assist in the creation of articles, particularly for those boring, manual jobs like writing up an Infobox. Perhaps in the future we could create a script of commands for editors to feed into ChatGPT in order to create great work?

Again, I want to apologise for not commenting on the above genuine warnings and pleas sooner, and I am an open book if you want to ask me anything. I humbly await your reply.

Take care, Coin945--Coin945 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

References

I appreciate your honesty about AI editing. Yes, you have created a lot of good content over the course of your time here. But your block log and talk page also shows recurring issues with COPYVIOs, poor paraphrasing, and publishing obviously-not-ready articles into the mainspace. Your AI editing has drastically worsened all three of these issues, and you were completely non-responsive about it. I find it hard to believe that such an experienced editor would not noticed talk page messages. I get that sometimes they are missed in heated moments of rapid-fire edits and warnings. But we're talking about three separate editors asking/warning you about this, over the course of 3 weeks where you made close to 100 edits. It's just negligent to miss talk page warnings over a time period of activity like that. Not to mention, with all the warning/blocks of the past, you should have known better without any notification. Sergecross73 msg me 16:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strongest possible endorse of block to remain The above indicates that the issues this editor has always faced continue unabated. Their issues around COPYVIO were that essentially claimed they didn't know how to properly paraphrase or reword content, hence verbatim quotations from sources. Now they've switched to using ChatGPT (which may ALSO have copyvio concerns), and yet again we find that they cannot write in their own words, simply pasting the supplied text without proper review or editorialization. I'm not at all convinced the user understands WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV either. No where does the user say they will stop using AI tools, and in fact, they appear to ask for expanded use of it. I do not believe these issues will improve. -- ferret (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse block. I agree with ferret. Simply pasting content written by an AI algorithm without any editorial oversight against promotional material is highly disruptive, and it is only compounded by their previous copyvio concerns. I'm inclined to believe that this user has not yet learned to refrain from copying and pasting any prose to Wikipedia, and a block is warranted. The Night Watch (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"Acquisition of The Learning Company by Mattel" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Acquisition of The Learning Company by Mattel has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 11 § Acquisition of The Learning Company by Mattel until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Acquisition of Broderbund by The Learning Company" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Acquisition of Broderbund by The Learning Company has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 11 § Acquisition of Broderbund by The Learning Company until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Softkey acquisition of The Learning Company" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Softkey acquisition of The Learning Company has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 11 § Softkey acquisition of The Learning Company until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Software MacKiev

Hello, Coin945. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Software MacKiev, 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) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Software MacKiev

Hello, Coin945. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Software MacKiev".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Nodus Domini for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nodus Domini is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nodus Domini until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Humsorgan (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)