No sir, no changes have been made. It stills says that it might require clean up to indicate a neutral point of view. Yet everything in there is neutral and extracted from the internet. There's nothing in the article that is biased and the template you've placed there should be removed.
Sorry that I placed it in the wrong section and thank you for moving it
Hi ProdOffice18! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).
The image is free, it is legally public domain and is already on dozens of sites. The film's poster falls under the category of free content. I did not know the rules regarding Commons and uploaded there incorrectly. I'm not a professional editor nor can I pretend to know all the rules. But I know that the image is free content when it comes to the public.
Thanks for uploading File:Destination Marfa Poster (film).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Hi ProdOffice18. Regardless of any apparent COI concerns, you should address the issue with this file as soon as possible. Files uploaded to Wikipedia are required to have two things: information about their en:provenance and a file copyirght license. You've failed to provide either which means the file is at risk of being speedily deleted if something isn't done in about a week. Movie film posters generally tend to be treated as non-free content when it comes to Wikipedia, but you've also uploaded the same file to Wikimedia Commons as File:Destination Marfa Poster.jpg under a free license. The Commons file has been tagged as a copyright violation becuase there's no evidence provided that the copyright holder has given their consent for the file to be uploaded or has already released it under a free license that Commons accepts; so, please take a look at c:User talk:ProdOffice18#File:Destination Marfa Poster.jpg and c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder for what needs to be done to stop that file from being deleted. If you uploaded the file to Commons by mistake and wasn't aware of c:Commons:Licensing, then that's OK. The file will just end up deleted because Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use content. So, if you can clarify things with the Commons file, it will then be much easier to figure out how to resolve the issue with the file you uploaded to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to update, the file you uploaded to Commons has been deleted and the issues associated with the file you uploaded to Wikipedia were resolved by an administrator named Diannaa. For future reference, Commons only accepts files which are 100% freely licensed or fall within the public domain for some reason. You can find out more about this at c:Commons:Licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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.
Hello ProdOffice18. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Destination Marfa (film), 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 very 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 extremely 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:ProdOffice18. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=ProdOffice18|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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many experienced editors (some of them Administrators) are in agreement that your level of contact with the producers of the movie meets Wikipedia's definition of conflict of interest. By Wikipedia policy, that means two things: 1) the COI tag stays until a non-involved editor removes it; and 2) now that it is an article, you are restricted from making direct edits to the article, and instead are limited to requesting changes on the Talk page of the article, for non-connected editors to either make your requested changes or not. David notMD (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We (my wife and I )are fans of the town of Marfa and the Marfa lights which we have visited for years. They are a huge phenomenon. There hasn't been a film made about Marfa since Giant with James Dean and it makes us proud. My wife is from Marfa, she grew up there. Once we learned about this film (which seems to have a ton of exposure already all over the internet with trailers and posters and photos that are now legally public domain) I looked it up on imdb and on Wikipedia. I saw that it didn't have a Wikipedia page. So I reached out to the film's social media pages to let them know we are fans of Marfa and that my wife is from there. I told them we are even fans of some of the actors in the film from other projects. It was a while until I heard back from them. I asked for permission as a fan to be able to set up a wiki page and again as a fan to mention them on social media. They said the producers were fine with that and that the film's release was delayed to do Covid, but that as long as we (my wife and I) were fans, they were fine with it.
You're making a mountain of out nothing, being far too dramatic. If your editors had spent this much time doing their own jobs then Destination Marfa would already have had its own Wikipedia page. I wouldn't have had to add anything.
I don't have any attachments to the film other than being a fan of the town of Marfa, I like the trailer they released and I like two or three of the actors. There is no conflict of interest because nothing subjective has been included in the article. It is all objective and all factual. I find your responses and behavior to be uncouth. You've played judge and jury with me and slandered and defamed me. Guilty till proven innocent, and I haven't done anything wrong. I apologize for whatever rules I wasn't aware of but am now aware of them.
Thanks
Phil
Editors are volunteers, working on their own time, doing what they can when they can based on what they take note of in independent reliable sources. I'm not sure what you are interpreting as uncouth, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Everyone I have seen has been polite and civil with you. Maybe you misunderstand what Wikipedia is, but permission is not required of a potential article subject to create an article about it. I guarantee you Donald Trump did not grant permission to have an article about him. Nor Joe Biden for that matter. By seeking permission and communicating with the producers of the film, you have a conflict of interest and attachment to the film. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you abide by guidelines and refrain from further direct edits to the article(as noted by David notMD. We're trying to help you and I'm not sure why you are taking it so badly. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one has "slandered" you. Your behavior had certain red flags that experienced editors look for when looking for undeclared paid editing, which is a violation of the Terms of Use and thus important. You said that it wasn't true, and people believed you. That's how the process works. The same has occurred for the conflict of interest that you have. We're just trying to help you avoid problems for yourself. There is no need to be defensive. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message David. Yes you personally have been very polite.
Uncouth and impolite is a reference to three specific things more general than specific.
Firstly the template message that stated I had been paid to write this which is laughable and untrue.
Secondly saying that there's a conflict of interest. Again, not true. As I explained in my prior message , my communication was not directly with the producers. It was through one of the film's social media sites. Please read the following. We (my wife and I )are fans of the town of Marfa and the Marfa lights which we have visited for years. They are a huge phenomenon. There hasn't been a film made about Marfa since Giant with James Dean and it makes us proud. My wife is from Marfa, she grew up there. Once we learned about this film (which seems to have a ton of exposure already all over the internet with trailers and posters and photos that are now legally public domain) I looked it up on imdb and on Wikipedia. I saw that it didn't have a Wikipedia page. So I reached out to the film's social media pages to let them know we are fans of Marfa and that my wife is from there. I told them we are even fans of some of the actors in the film from other projects. It was a while until I heard back from them. I asked for permission as a fan to be able to set up a wiki page and again as a fan to mention them on social media. They said the producers were fine with that and that the film's release was delayed to do Covid, but that as long as we (my wife and I) were fans, they were fine with it.
Thirdly by receiving aa threat that the film's poster is going to be taken down. When the film's poster is free content and free public domain. Again, none of the info I have about the film is from anybody involved with the film. It has all been extracted from articles about the film that are all over the internet, it seems to have a lot of what I guess you'd call coverage and interest because of the Marfa Lights and it is scifi and some of the cast are well known commodities.
I thank you all for your help, I'm trying per your advice to make the article better but am furious being labeled as a conflict of interest. None of what I've said has been taken in context and I personally do not know the producers or director and have never actually communicated with them directly. It was communication with whoever ran one of their social media pages and it took weeks. And they finally responded saying that we could as fans put up a wiki page. That's it.
Anyway, have a great rest of the day.
And yes I'm having to defend myself because I've been attacked with certain labels. Everything on the Destination Marfa page has been extracted from what is avail online not through anyone affiliated with the film. I've never communicated with and don't know these people personally. So the definition of conflict of interest doesn't apply - that's all I'm saying. Thanks again
Standard practice is to place new posts at the bottom of a discussion, for proper flow. I've moved your post accordingly.
My advice would be that if you want to create a Wikipedia article(not just a "page") about a film, don't ask anyone's permission, just do it. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David I appreciate your advice but we are simple folk. We don't know what the rules are with all such things, we are fans and get tickled by films and anything to do with Marfa. We don't know how to navigate the world of entertainment or wikipedia or what all the rules are. We asked permission out of respect and because we saw there was no wiki page created. It's that simple.
It stills says that it might require clean up to indicate a neutral point of view. Yet everything in there is neutral and extracted from the internet. There's nothing in the article that is biased and the template you've placed there should be removed.
Sorry that I placed it in the wrong section and thank you for moving it. I'll take your advice, I'm learning more about the film online and posting it.
If that's true, it will be seen by an uninvolved editor and removed. This is a volunteer project and things take time; patience is required here. There is no shame in a conflict of interest, many editors have them- no one is trying to shame or slander you. It's best to tread carefully; even if you don't see contacting the film's social media accounts as a big deal, COI is about appearance more than anything. As I suggested, just create an article if you want to do so, don't solicit permission because that will be seen as a COI(as you have found out). I could understand you not thinking so, but we really want to help you. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for saying all this. I appreciate it. At least I don't feel like a moron.
Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. On Destination Marfa (film). — Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are verified public domain, that's why almost all the descriptions of the film's synopsis are identical. I've looked at probably close to twenty of them online. And I'm taking your website's advice and recommendations on how to make this a better page. But every-time I add something you guys go back and take it out. I'll try and use my own language to describe them. But this isn't my strength, and I still don't understand why obvious public domain is an issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PhillipRyanNY (talk • contribs) 06:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN, and even if was, copying it verbatim without attribution rather than as a quote was plagiarism. Because the plot summary was identified as a copyright violation, all past versions of the article in View history have been struck from the record, leaving the article without a plot summary. This was because the summary as written was word-for-word identical to what is in references #2, 3 and 4. Wikipedia is hyper- hyper-sensitive to copyright issues.
FYI - new editors are often advised that creating a new article is one of the hardest tasks at Wikipedia, with advice to first learn by editing existing articles. Your choice to create an article so soon means that you have seen a lot of the sharp end of a stick in the eye. To borrow a line from The Godfather, "It’s not personal... It’s strictly business." Again, kudos for having an article accepted, and assume that once the movie is in theaters, other editors will add to the article (and in time the tag will be removed). For an example of an article about a 2021 movie after release, see Nobody (2021 film). David notMD (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PhillipRyan, You don't need to do any more research than actually seeing the movie yourself. A plot summary is basically as described in Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film. The source of the plot is essentially the film itself; so, all you have to do is summarize what you see when you watch the film. Since the film has yet to be released, it's pretty much impossible for anyone to write a plot summary at this time; so, wait for the film to be released, go see it and then try writing your plot summary. You shouldn't try to interpret the film since that would be considered Wikipedia:Original research; just briefly summarize the story of the film without adding any interpretations, critical commentary, etc. and you'll probably be OK.Please understand that public domain doesn't mean "publicly available"; it has a much more specific definition with respect to copyright related matters. It's OK if you just made a mistake, but "free content" and "public domain" aren't exactly the same as "free of charge" and "publicly available.Finally, please try and remember to WP:SIGN your talk page posts; it's a good habit to develop even when you're responding to posts on your user talk page because it makes it much easier to know who posted what and when they posted it just from looking at a discussion. It might not matter as much when there are only two editors discussing things, but it really can make a difference on busy talk pages where multiple editors are involved. I've retroactively added your signature to your above posts just so you can see what it sort of looks like, but you can do so yourself as explained in WP:TILDE. You can also learn how to better use talk pages at Help:Talk and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Everyone makes mistakes when they start out and many even continue to do so as they edit more and more, but figuring out how to sign a post is not too complicated and it will eventually become second nature. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Marchjuly, I agree completely because without seeing the film when it releases, it is close to impossible to write anything other than a short premise. Ok will do, and I'll sign. Thanks for the help. User:PhillipRyanNYUser talk:PhillipRyanNY
Between a synopsis on the film's imdb page and an article on daily dead, it is fairly easy to put the premise on my own words which you've asked me to. I have in fact provided several URL (isn't that what the reference links are because I have plenty of them in there)
Your signature is a little better, but you should take a look at WP:TILDE because it's still not quite correct. Just leave the plot summary out for now and then you or someone else can add one after they see the film. Anything you add from IMDb, etc. (even if you try to rephrase it) at this time is almost certainly going to be too WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE which what editors should strive to avoid. Also, I completely get that you're proud of Marfa and the other cities/towns where the film was shot, but try and remember that the article is about the film, not shooting locations, and that the Wikipedia articles about each town are where general factoids about them probably can be added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you MarchJuly. Actually there is already quite a bit of footage from the film. Not only an extended trailer but a fairly long clip that I have included as a reference with a URL. This and other references provided very clearly spell out what the film's premise is. I've made it more concise but everything else now needs to hold until the film releases. -- User:PhillipRyanNY([User talk:PhillipRyanNY]])
The film already released a clip along with their trailer. I've provided a link and the two pieces of 'footage' together make it impossible to not know what the premise of the film is, especially when added to all of the online synopses explaining it. -- PhillipRyanNY (talk) 23:012, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The latest plot section you added still included material copied from elsewhere online, and thus was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please don't add copyright material to Wikipedia. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa this is so hard to understand. A youtube video is surely public or nobody would ever upload there in the first place, so can you kindly explain how it is copyright material. If I don't learn and understand exactly what you mean then I'll never get it right. Surely if they released a clip and trailer for the public to see (as does everyone on youtube) then it is public domain, no?
Thanks
Phil
Something appearing on YouTube does not mean it is in the public domain. There is a difference between being available to the public and being in the public domain. You can check out the Harry Potter books from a library, but if you print copies of them and sell them you will get a lawsuit from JK Rowling and her publisher shutting you down. Just because you can watch something on YouTube does not mean you can use it as you wish. 331dot (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is A LOT of copyright material on YouTube that is there without the permission of the copyright holder. The YouTube link I removed was at JoBlo Horror Trailers, and there's no evidence that the film clip and trailer are present there with the copyright holder's knowledge or permission. So I removed it. Wikipedia is very strict about copyright. Please read our copyright policy and please read the Wikipedia article public domain. Being publicly available and being in the public domain are not the same thing.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have been ignoring or arguing with advice from editors who have 10+ years of Wikipedia experience and have made tens of thousands of edits. People have been patient, but you have also been now warning of the possibility of being indefinitely blocked from editing any article. I strongly recommend that at this point you stop editing the article in question. The grounds for being blocked are explained at WP:NOTHERE. Administrators are patient, but their patience is not infinite. David notMD (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) and David notMD (talk) for taking the time to write and explain this. And you have my apologies. It's an extremely steep learning curve in a very short amount of time for me. Learning all the rules and understanding the copyright issues associated with videos was exceedingly tough to understand till I read your rules. What complicated it in my head, was that youtube has tons of uploads of the exact same Destination Marfa clip and trailer that JoBlo does, some of it even from the film's youtube page itself. And because of that I thought they'd surely be the ones releasing all those clips to the likes of JoBlo and on their own page because it has to pass permissions with youtube's copyright rules. But now having read your rules and understanding your copyright rule, it makes sense why you're saying what you're saying. I honestly don't have anything else to contribute or edit to the article because I have to wait till the film comes out. And I have learned why nothing can be used without the copyright holder's permission whether I'm referencing written material or videos or trailer. Once I've watched the film in August (and hopefully it comes on on streaming or Demand like most all films now) I'll come back and add to the page and edit.
I will take the time to also read into link rot and try to reference those links with more details but I also want to make sure for future articles that i reference source files as per your recommendations. I have nothing else to edit or add to the article for now, thanks for publishing and helping with it.
Thanks for uploading File:Destination Marfa Poster (film).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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).
Thanks for uploading File:Destination Marfa Poster (film).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair 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).
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}