PedroOReal

Welcome!

Hi PedroOReal! I noticed your contributions to List of EGOT winners and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! paul2520 💬 21:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Dua Lipa, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

• Copying text from other sources
• Policy on copyright
• Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
• Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, PedroOReal. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024

Hello PedroOReal. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Matthew McConaughey, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:PedroOReal. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=PedroOReal|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Coin report opened. Stated she is an employee of Madame Tussauds in New York. Not disclosed. On top of that using promotional language that is entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Effectively acting to make a Wikipedia a brochure on several articles. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and for highlighting Wikipedia's important policies on neutrality and undisclosed paid editing. I want to clarify unequivocally that I have no financial or professional relationship with Madame Tussauds or any related entities. I have not been, nor will I be, compensated directly or indirectly for my contributions to Wikipedia, including any edits related to Matthew McConaughey or any other subjects.

I understand the serious nature of your concerns and the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's integrity as a neutral and reliable source of information. My intention behind the edits was to contribute valuable information and enhance the quality of the articles based on reliable sources and verifiable facts. I apologize if my edits inadvertently gave an impression of promotional intent, as that was not my goal.

In light of your feedback, I will review the Wikipedia guidelines on editing and ensure my future contributions fully adhere to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and objectivity. I am committed to being a constructive member of the Wikipedia community and contributing to its mission of providing free and unbiased information.

Once again, I appreciate your vigilance in upholding the quality and neutrality of Wikipedia, and I hope this clarification reassures you of my commitment to contributing positively to the platform without any conflict of interest.

Best regards, PedroOReal (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Dwayne Johnson, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:PedroOReal, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=PedroOReal|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Wikishovel (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Wikishovel,

I appreciate your continued dedication to upholding Wikipedia's integrity and understand your concerns regarding the necessity of transparency in contributions. As previously stated, I want to reiterate firmly and unequivocally that I am not receiving direct or indirect compensation for my edits on Wikipedia. My contributions, specifically those related to Dwayne Johnson and related topics, have been made out of a genuine interest and a desire to enhance the content within Wikipedia's guidelines.

The repeated insinuations of paid editing, despite my clear denials, are becoming a source of unwarranted suspicion and feel akin to harassment. I kindly ask that we move beyond this impasse, as my primary goal remains to contribute positively and constructively to Wikipedia. I am committed to adhering to all of Wikipedia's editing guidelines and policies, and I have made efforts to engage in discussions openly and transparently on talk pages to address any concerns about my contributions.

I hope we can redirect our energies towards collaborative efforts to improve Wikipedia, rather than dwelling on unfounded suspicions. Please let's focus on the collective goal of enriching this invaluable resource, ensuring it remains a welcoming and productive environment for all contributors. PedroOReal (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Responds using AI Problems include WP:PROPORTION, WP:PUFFERY, WP:PROMO and in some cases WP:ABOUTSELF..

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.  Doug Weller talk 11:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia administrators, I am writing to kindly ask that the indefinite block placed on my account be reviewed and given a second thought. I want to make it clear where I stand and address the issues that prompted this action because I think there was miscommunication behind this block or I am being a victim of some kind of personal attack by a group of persons that even insulted me as you can see in the conversation above. First off, I want to make it clear that I did not want to undermine or break Wikipedia's principles on WP:PROPORTION, WP:PUFFERY, WP:PROMO, or WP:ABOUTSELF by using external tools, including AI, but rather to increase the quality of content on the platform. I genuinely wanted to make a positive impact on the Wikipedia community, therefore I contributed in good faith. I am aware of how crucial it is to make sure that all contributions are made in a way that preserves Wikipedia's standards and integrity. I firmly promise to abide by all Wikipedia policies, and I'm prepared to take all required action to resolve any particular issues pertaining to my contributions. In addition, I want to emphasize that I have edited and interacted with the topics in question with the express purpose of adding accuracy and value. If any of my acts were thought to be against Wikipedia's policies, I'm willing to hear criticism and suggestions on how to better align my contributions with community norms. I respectfully ask for the chance to speak with the administrators about this issue in more detail in order to clear up any confusion and show that I'm a dedicated contributor to the Wikipedia community. I'm ready to have a productive conversation to clear up any unresolved matters and make sure that my future contributions completely adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. I appreciate your consideration of my request to be unblocked. I'm excited about the prospect of making a constructive contribution to Wikipedia once more. PedroOReal (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

I would have to suggest that since the above request was clearly AI generated (PedroOReal has already conceded that they are using AI to generate responses [1]), we have absolutely no way of knowing whether the person posting the above even understands the chatbot output, or has the capacity to understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines more generally. On that basis alone (there are plenty more), we cannot possibly unblock. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

In what foundation are you saying that? The Above Unblock request was written by myself, I am only asking for justice and neutrality in this trial, nobody should be condemned without proper justification.PedroOReal (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I appreciate you looking over my initial request for unblocking and giving me some input on that matter. I considered the issues brought up regarding my use of AI in editing, in addition to the problem that seems to be WP:PROPORTION, WP:PUFFERY, WP:PROMO, and WP:ABOUTSELFF.

⁤1. Understanding Why I have been Block: I acknowledge the concerns and realize that in order to adhere to the Wikipedia standards, it is necessary to manage the usage of outside technologies of text enhancement, such as artificial intelligence. I still don't understand the ongoing accusations on that matter as I'm writting the text myself in this appealing as I did in the one before...

⁤2. Will Not Cause Damage: It was never my intention to cause any damage or disruption, I was always educated and civilized, as opposite of some of the members of this community that harassed and insulted me... I will not repeat the things again that got me blocked. ⁤⁤

⁤3. Will: Going forward, I intend to only do minor changes or and work my way up to more significant contributions. ⁤This being, making sure that all upcoming edits fully follow Wikipedia's content guidelines. ⁤

⁤I was and I am ready to follow Wikipedia's rules and regulations and to only make contributions that enhance this platform, therefore I ask for justice and impartial judgment on this matter, allowing me to have another opportunity to demonstrate my dedication to contributing positively to the Wikipedia community. ⁤

Thank you for the attention. ⁤⁤PedroOReal (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You say you won't repeat what got you blocked, but you don't say what that is- we need to know this in order to see that you understand the relevant guidelines. To clarify(and while I think you wrote this request yourself) this project is written by humans for humans- we want to hear from you, not a chatbot. I'm sorry you had bad language directed towards you, but many of us find chatbots frustrating and lazy with regards to the user. We do not expect your communications to be grammatically and stylistically perfect. Your English skill seems okay, but if you are more skilled in another language, you may want to contribute to that language Wikipedia, there is nothing special about the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

• 331dot, you don't have to apologize for me. As I've pointed out elsewhere, I used bad language purely to enhance my text, in much the same way as Pedro used a chatbot to enhance his ("my use of AI tools is solely to enhance my text, leveraging it as the valuable resource it is"). Swearwords, in my opinion, are a valuable resource when particular emphasis is wanted. I leveraged that resource. Bishonen | tålk 14:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

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).

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

---

Request reason:

331dot @331dot As I stated above but didn't develop further, I understand the accusations and intend to change my behavior, more specifically by not creating content utilizing artificial intelligence as a text enhancement resource, even though it says on Wikipedia's page that it is utilized in the platform content, and I will not make any promotion or puffery in the information that I insert about any theme, being only strictly factual and keeping the propotion in line with the text. Lastly, while I think it's noble of your part to apologize for other persons, there is no frustration that justifies insulting other persons, and I think some penalization should come to the persons in question as we cannot apply different weights of judgement and condemn based on knowing the persons or not, which is not equal or fair. Thank you for the attention. PedroOReal (talk) 11:04 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

• I have a question about your denial of having a conflict of interest, Pedro. Why do you state above that "As previously stated, I want to reiterate firmly and unequivocally that I am not receiving direct or indirect compensation for my edits on Wikipedia.? Where did you previously state that? I see, on the contrary, that you previously told Diannaa that you are directly working with Madame Tussauds New York. What does that mean, exactly? Are you employed by Madame Tussauds? Are you "directly working with" them without being paid for it? That seems quite unusual. You seemed to make that statement in order to reassure Diannaa that it was all right for you to copypaste content directly lifted from Madame Tussauds' website. Now, on this page, you don't state any such thing, presumably because you understand that it wouldn't be useful in the context of COI or indeed of WP:PAID. Could you please explain this contradiction? Did you tell Diannaa the truth, or are you telling the truth here? I don't quite see see how both your statements can be true. Bishonen | tålk 16:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC).

• I think it is very self-explanatory; Wikipedia saves all the history, and there is a field called "Edit Summary" that can help users that don't have much mental capability to better understand what changes were applied. If you spend less time being hateful and insulting other people, maybe you can find the answer yourself. Until then, please avoid talking with me, as I don't condone with uneducated self-called "administrators." It was in these moments that Wikipedia needed some central management to avoid having people with no sense of judgment play such a role in the organization. PedroOReal (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Doug Weller talk 17:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

In light of the above incivility and the overall tenor of this talk page, I would strenuously object to unblocking. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• I received your email; I don't discuss these things via email. You may make an unblock request via UTRS as instructed. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)