Talk:Advertising overload

Reminder about the markings

Hi there, the AI gen lists at the bottom of the article are covering stuff that heavily supports the article, we NEED these replaced with human-written text, and we ESPECIALLY NEED sources included! I hate that I have to leave these marks on my own article, but it is for the greater good... Please do NOT use the marks as an excuse to blindly delete this (I've seen a few moderators act a little hasty to delete articles that have had these kinds of marks for prolonged periods without discussing it first), I put in a lot of valuable labor that I do NOT want lost! JamesTDG (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi James! I've rewritten the list, referencing Google Support. I think your AI did use their article, but it categorized things slightly strangely, so I hope you don't mind that I did a little restructuring.

Cheers! Scholar Silas (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't have ai generate those lists for the record, that was a user within the log that was feeling particularly lazy JamesTDG (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

References using dead links, no archive exists

References 2. and 4. are dead links (404 error on the sites). I searched IA, Ghostarchive, and Megalodon and there's no archived copies (the snaps show errors). Should these references be removed? They currently use Cite: Web, which (when you Edit references) shows an error because there's no archive link. Should the page's status on Projects:Archive everything be changed from "Partial" to something else? @AnotherConsumerRightsPerson, thoughts? Marc84 (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

They both already have archives that support the reference. I don't know why you can't find them, that's quite weird. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I checked both before I removed them. Neither of the citations had a good capture. — Sojourna (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I went to your removed version and saw citations 2 and 4 both being completely fine archived. AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha.  ( ._.)-b — Sojourna (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant - the archived snapshots I found were bad. Sorry that wasn't clear. Thanks for taking care of the references. Marc84 (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the problematic citations. Reference 2 was not a huge loss since there was at least the Daily Mail citation covering the same subject. Reference 4 for the Candy Crush Saga in-game ads was very unfortunate, as I'm only finding conflicting information on how in-game advertising is defined and whether it both exists and is problem — which is very much not helped by the AI slop/hallucinations I've come across while searching.

Goes to show why archiving web pages ASAP is so important. — Sojourna (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

no wonder they looked completely fine LOL AnotherConsumerRightsPerson (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)