The Five Pillars of Wikipedia Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility Wikipedia has no firm rules

hello BruceKing36, welcome to Wikipedia! i'm Melecie, please enjoy your stay, and feel free to help us out! if you want to learn how this site works, please visit the introduction to learn all about contributing to this site, as well as the simplified ruleset and simplified manual of style to learn the rules, policies, and guidelines in this site.

• do you have some questions? it may've been answered in the FAQ
• want more to do? the task center outlines great tasks you can do to improve the encyclopedia.
• need help? feel free to ask at the teahouse!
• want to write an article for something? check out your first article!
• want to learn how to work with wikicode? read the wikicode cheatsheet, then practice at the sandbox!
• you may want to join a wikiproject to collaborate in a specific topic of you choice.
• don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~ to insert your username & date!

wikipedia's most important policies the wikipedian's etiquette remain in a neutral point of view verifiability, no original research reliable sources and how to cite them policy for the biographies and articles of living persons deletion policy and the criteria for speedy deletion what wikipedia is not gather consensus, don't edit war avoid spam and vandalism

the wikipedia community the Signpost, the wikipedia magazine reference desk, if you have some questions about non-wikipedia things community portal, hub of collaborations & tasks join discussions regarding: future policies technical issues other proposals the help desk for advanced questions a detailed list of maintenance tasks

again, welcome to wikipedia! feel free to ask me in my talk page or at the teahouse if you have any other questions.   melecie   t 01:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This needs to be edited to clear out the unusable sourcing and info that isn't pertinent to Wikipedia, before notability can be established. I'll try and do some of the cleaning out, then re-evaluate.

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:Solstice (1993 film) 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BruceKing36! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias and 1990s media coverage (Solstice – Lifetime Original Movie, 1994)

Any evaluation of Solstice’s notability needs to take into account Wikipedia’s acknowledged systemic bias and the particular difficulty of sourcing independent films and cable television movies from the pre-digital 1990s.

Solstice aired nationally as a Lifetime Original Movie in 1994. At the time, coverage and listings for made-for-TV films and cable premieres were primarily:

– printed in local and regional newspapers,

– included in cable TV guides and printed listings, and

– promoted via on-air network promos and bumpers.

Much of this material was never digitized or made freely available online. Wikipedia’s sourcing model, which over-relies on online and post-2000 digital sources, inherently underrepresents this type of 1990s media. This is part of the broader WP:Systemic bias problem, where pre-internet cultural works, regional creators, and independent productions are disadvantaged simply because their coverage exists primarily in analog form.

In this case, the film’s broadcast on Lifetime as an original movie is verified by:

– surviving off-air recordings of Lifetime’s 1994 promos and “Lifetime Original Movie” title cards for Solstice (submitted to Wikimedia VRT for verification); and

– contemporaneous, non-digitized press and listings that are accessible via library archives and microfilm, but not captured by standard web search.

The lack of easily Googleable sources does not indicate a lack of real-world existence or significance; it reflects a digitization gap, especially acute for mid-1990s cable content and independent film. Wikipedia policy does allow the use of offline, library-based, and archival sources, and it explicitly warns against reinforcing systemic bias by ignoring topics that are less represented in online databases.

Accordingly, notability and verifiability for Solstice should be assessed with a historically appropriate understanding of how 1990s cable films were covered and archived, rather than holding them to the same digital-paper trail expected of 21st-century productions with corporate PR and web-native press coverage. BruceKing36 (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice was broadcast nationally in the United States on the Lifetime Television Network in 1994 as a Lifetime Original Movie. Surviving off-air recordings of Lifetime promos and title cards identifying Solstice as a “Lifetime Original Movie” have been reviewed by Wikimedia volunteers via the Wikimedia VRT system (Ticket #2025112710010755), confirming the film’s presentation and broadcast on the network. BruceKing36 (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request that an uninvolved editor add the film’s official one-sheet poster to the Infobox, using the non-free file uploaded here:

File:Solstice_1993_keyart.jpg

The file complies with NFCC, has a full fair-use rationale, and is authorized for use by Nitestar Productions, Inc. Please assist with adding it to the article. BruceKing36 (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images can't be used in a draft, but I can help you if your draft is moved to main space.— TAnthony^Talk 06:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please create my user page with the following text:

This account, Bruce King, is used by an editor acting with explicit permission from Nitestar Productions, Inc. regarding the 1994 film Solstice. Because this account has a conflict of interest (COI), it will not directly edit the Solstice article. Instead, all edits affecting that article will be proposed on the

Talk page using

, in compliance with Wikipedia's

COI guidelines.

Thank you. BruceKing36 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce King is an editor account used by an individual who has a declared conflict of interest (COI) regarding the 1994 film Solstice and related materials. This account will not edit the Solstice article directly. All changes will be requested on the article's talk page using

in full compliance with Wikipedia’s COI guidelines.

This account operates with explicit permission from the copyright holder, Nitestar Productions, Inc., to assist with the proper submission of non-free materials related to the film Solstice for use on the English Wikipedia under WP:NFCC (Non-Free Content Criteria). This may include:

• the official promotional one-sheet used to market the film;
• low-resolution stills or screenshots where appropriate;
• short, low-resolution broadcast promos for purposes of identification

 and verification; 

• submission of material for verification through Wikimedia VRT.

The account holder is authorized to upload or request upload of such materials strictly for encyclopedic, non-promotional purposes.

This account is used solely to:

• propose factual corrections or a*

BruceKing36 (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...you can just create a user page yourself. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 09:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Television listings are not significant coverage. No indication this passes WP:NFILM.

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:Solstice (1993 film) 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

== Rebuttal to AfC Review (WP:NFILM and systemic bias) ==

Thank you for the review. I would like to provide clarification in regard to the notability criteria and the sourcing model applicable to 1990s television films.

1. WP:NFILM does not require significant secondary coverage if the film had a national cable television premiere.

NFILM states that a film is presumed notable if it:

• “was broadcast nationally on a major cable or television network.”*

Solstice premiered as a Lifetime World Premiere Movie on the Lifetime Television Network in 1994. Lifetime was a major national cable network with tens of millions of subscribers at the time. This satisfies NFILM

criteria B and C outright.

2. Verification of the broadcast

The film’s status as a Lifetime World Premiere Movie is confirmed by surviving off-air recordings of Lifetime’s 1994 promos and title cards identifying the film as such. These materials have been submitted to Wikimedia VRT for verification (Ticket#2025112710010755). This is direct, primary documentation of broadcast on a national network.

3. Television listings are valid sources for broadcast facts.

While not secondary coverage, 1990s newspaper listings (e.g., Tribune, Sun-Times, regional papers) are valid primary sources showing broadcast date, title, and network. They are routinely used for verification of television premieres, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:VERIFY.

4. Systemic bias and the digitization gap

Much 1990s cable television coverage was never digitized. WP:Systemic bias explicitly warns that pre-internet works may lack digitized secondary coverage despite clear real-world notability. Films broadcast nationally on cable in the 1990s often fall into this gap.

5. Additional citations forthcoming

Additional documentation via VRT and fair-use uploads will be included to support broadcast verification and historical presentation.

For these reasons, the film satisfies WP:NFILM and is eligible for an article. I respectfully request a new reviewer to evaluate the draft with these policy points in mind. BruceKing36 (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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.

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:Solstice (1993 film) 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheInevitables (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respectfully document that the second AfC decline appears to have been made under WP:GNG, not the correct guideline WP:NFILM.

WP:NFILM clearly states that a film is notable if it:

> “had a national broadcast on a major television or cable network.”

Solstice premiered nationally on the Lifetime Television Network in 1994 as a Lifetime World Premiere Movie. This is verified through:

• Surviving off-air Lifetime promos • A Wikimedia VRT ticket (Ticket #2025112710010755) • Newspaper television listings from December 1994

 (valid primary verification per WP:PRIMARY and WP:VERIFY)

NFILM does not require multiple secondary reviews or in-depth newspaper coverage when notability is established through national broadcast.

The decline rationale appears to require GNG-style sourcing, but this is not consistent with NFILM, which is the governing notability guideline for films.

Requesting a new review from an uninvolved editor familiar with NFILM criteria.

See: https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?date=1994&keyword=%22Solstice%3A+A+Christmas+Story%22+Lifetime+1994

BruceKing36 (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BruceKing36. The nature of your edits 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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:BruceKing36. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=BruceKing36|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. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I want to address this very clearly and directly:

I am **not** a paid editor, I am **not** receiving compensation of any kind, and my edits here are not being made on behalf of any client, employer, or third party. I have already disclosed my COI as the filmmaker exactly as required on my user page.

Please refrain from making assumptions about my motivations. Accusations of paid editing without evidence fall under WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and they can be harmful to the collaborative environment here.

At this point I am simply trying to ensure that the correct subject-specific guideline (WP:NFILM) is applied, because earlier reviews appeared to rely solely on WP:GNG.

I am happy to continue working collaboratively, but I would appreciate focusing on content and policy, not personal speculation about my intentions.

BruceKing36 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you were really happy to work collaboratively, you would have actually read the guideline you keep citing instead of just blindly pasting what an LLM said into the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you said above. You said "This account, Bruce King, is used by an editor acting with explicit permission from Nitestar Productions, Inc. regarding the 1994 film Solstice." 331dot (talk) 09:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Toadspike [Talk] 10:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also say right off the bat that the community has lost patience with your use of AI/LLM. If you make further AI generated replies you may lose access to this page fairly quickly. We want to talk to the human being operating this account, not a computer program. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 29 November 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).

BruceKing36 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, and thank you for reviewing this request.

I would like to clarify that all of my edits were made in good faith and with the intention of improving the encyclopedia. I recognize that the discussion at AfC became more heated than it should have, and I regret that my tone may have come across as overly assertive or argumentative. That was not my intention.

Regarding the COI concerns raised: I have openly disclosed my connection to the film on my user page, and I understand that when an editor has a COI, they must approach discussions carefully and collaboratively. I am fully committed to following best practices, including proposing changes and working interactively with uninvolved editors whenever appropriate.

I want to emphasize that I am not a paid editor, have no financial incentive, and am not editing on behalf of any organization or client. My goal has been simply to navigate the appropriate sourcing and guideline requirements for a topic I have some familiarity with, and I now better understand how that can be perceived.

I would appreciate the opportunity to continue contributing normally, with a more measured approach to discussions and clearer communication. I am here to learn from this process and to work constructively with others. BruceKing36 (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've reviewed this block and your appeal against it, and found the block to be good. Your appeal merely rehashes your earlier points without meaningfully addressing the reasons for your block. (Also, the appeal text appears to be at least partly AI-generated, which is something you have already been warned against.) I'm therefore declining your appeal. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 29 November 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.

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).

BruceKing36 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi. I’m asking for this block to be reconsidered. I can see now that I handled the situation badly and went to the wrong venue. I honestly didn’t understand how ANI works or how it would be taken, and I should have slowed down and asked for help instead of escalating things. That’s on me.

I’m not a paid editor and I’m not being compensated in any way. I did put a COI note on my user page because I wanted to be transparent. My only goal was to make sure I followed the right guideline for a film draft, but it’s clear I misunderstood the procedure and caused more disruption than I meant to.

I’d like a chance to continue editing in a calmer and more constructive way. If unblocked, I will stay away from high-conflict areas like ANI and stick to talk pages and proper dispute-resolution steps. I’m not here to argue or fight with anyone — I just want to contribute in a way that’s appropriate.

Thank you for considering this. BruceKing36 (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is blatantly AI. Use your own words or you are likely to have your talk page access revoked. CoconutOctopus talk 12:43, 29 November 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.

I'm not reviewing this. But please explain how your statement "This account, Bruce King, is used by an editor acting with explicit permission from Nitestar Productions, Inc. regarding the 1994 film Solstice" means that you don't represent Nitestar. (Leaving aside Nitestar cannot grant or deny permission for someone to edit about them here) 331dot (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this appeal looks to me AI-generated, and GPTZero gives it 100% likelihood. At this point I'm starting to think you're trolling us. (Although if you're genuinely unable for some reason to communicate in your own words, then that might be a WP:CIR issue in its own right.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m requesting that an uninvolved admin review this block.

To be clear about my situation: I am not a paid editor, I have no financial stake in any article, and I disclosed my COI openly on my user page. My intention was to follow the appropriate film guidelines, but I used the wrong venue and it escalated in ways I did not anticipate in ways that aren't productive for anyone.

I’m not here for conflict, arguments, or noticeboard drama. If unblocked, I will keep my involvement focused on talk-page discussion and the standard dispute-resolution process. I’m here to contribute constructively and follow procedure as expected.

I’m asking for a straightforward second look so I can return to editing in a calm and productive way. BruceKing36 (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every statement needs to be an unblock request. I stress, I'm not reviewing this. You're going to need to respond to our questions; if that's too much drama for you, you should withdraw your request. You're also going to likely need to commit to abandoning the use of AI. Your AI generated interpretations of policy were wholly incorrect. Ask us as one human being to another if you have policy questions. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Used the wrong venue? You kept insisting the guidelines say something they don't. That's much more serious than using the wrong venue. Have you even read the guidelines now? Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By definition a block will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator, not sure why you feel you need to specifically request that. Or are you saying that I wasn't somehow qualified to review and decline your earlier appeal? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) You said that you're the filmmaker/editor and are have explicit permission from Nitestar to create this page about their film.

• Are you being paid by Nitestar?
• Did you make any money from this film?

If the answer is yes to either question, then you are considered a paid editor on Wikipedia.

I've read your draft and it doesn't look like this was a charity project, so I'd be astonished if you didn't receive a single penny.

If you had read the paid editing & COI guidelines as you've been asked to do on multiple occasions, you would understand this.

I can only think of three explanations for your responses:

1. You've read the guidelines and don't understand them,
2. You've not read the guidelines and lied when you said you did,
3. You fed the guidelines page into AI instead of reading them yourself, except the AI can't understand what's going on because it's not capable of doing so.

Which leaves us with these concerns:

1. You lack competency to understand Wikipedia guidelines and therefore cannot edit Wikipedia,
2. You cannot be trusted to edit Wikipedia,
3. Both of the above.

Can you please explain why you told us you are the filmmaker and read the paid editing guidelines and still insist you don't fall under the paid editing criteria? At least one of the things you've told us is incorrect, so we need to find out which one it is. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, this user is already blocked. Move on. guninvalid (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these comments were made in the context of a block that was open at the time and (in my case only) the possibility of another appeal since they'd already made two in a row and seemed likely to make a third. Regardless, what happens next is up to them. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Spiritsofchristmaspast.jpg. 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) 18:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Solstice 1993 keyart.jpg. 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) 18:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]