User talk:Horror99fan

Use only one account[edit]

Looking through your posts at the Teahouse and other contributions it seems fairly clear that this account and Bluejay1984 are operated by the same person (or at the very least in a coordinated fashion). Per this policy you should not do it; you should disclose the relationship between accounts on their user pages and use only one of them going forward. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 07:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Hello Horror99fan. 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 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:Horror99fan. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Horror99fan|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) 09:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Hi there. Yes, you are mistaken. I am not paid by anyone or being directly or indirectly compensated for my editing. I am not a professional editor. This was my favorite movie this year and I wanted to write a Wikipedia article about it. I followed the rules for this so I'm not sure why I'm being penalized. Is there a moderator that I can speak with?Horror99fan (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator ("moderator"). If you are not paid to edit about this film, fair enough, and I apologize. There were several indications that you might be a paid editor, the main one being a desire for a quick review of your draft. There is also another account (User:Bluejay1984) that was created close to yours that edited about Mr. Ramsey himself. It's better for paid editors to be honest about it if they are paid. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2020 (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).

Horror99fan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi 331dot, I wrote a response an hour ago that was posted, but it seems to have disappeared; I'm not sure why. I did create the Bluejay account to write about the filmmaker who made the film I wrote about. I was not aware until I read all the comments and then the rules that this was such a major violation of the Wikipedia rules. I understand now and I am very sorry, and will never do it again. I was very excited to write about this film and I thought it would be better to have a different account when writing about the filmmaker, but I understand that was stupid. Again, it will not happen again & I will delete the Bluejay account immediately. I am a big fan of films and loved this movie, so spent a lot of time as I made it learning from the online tutorials what the best way is to write a good Wikipedia entry. I was really proud of my work so then did one about the filmmaker too, and was hoping to do one about another filmmaker who just released her second film on Netflix. This was one of the reasons I put so much work into the writeup so as to make it as good as it could be, but unfortunately I did not understand the policy with multiple accounts so apologize to you and everyone else on Wikipedia for the trouble I caused. I hope that I can get the chance to learn from this experience and get the opportunity to continue participating in this wonderful community. Films have always been one of my favorite things & I think I could add a lot. I have not been paid or will be paid by anyone for this, but, like I said, I was really proud of my page and hope people enjoy it & forgive me for when I used a second account. I have been familiar with this filmmaker since I saw his other film at the Los Angeles Film Festival a few years ago. He seemed like a good guy so thought this was a good thing to do. It will never happen again, and I hope I can write more film-related content for Wikipedia. Thank you and best wishes Horror99fan (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given SQL's checkuser comment, I am declining this. If you would like to disclose any other accounts, you may open another unblock request and point them out. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:01, 8 September 2020 (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.

Hi Horror99fan, I'm a checkuser, which means that I have access to certain system log data. I believe that there is at least one other account you haven't told us about. If you aren't going to be honest with us, there is no reason to spend time helping you get unblocked. SQL ^{Query me!} 16:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Current Occupant (October 2)[edit]

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

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. 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 proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Into the Dark (TV series). Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is a request to spin off an article. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article, unless the draft satisfies a special notability guide. If the draft satisfies a special notability guide, please identify the notability criterion with a reliable source.

This does not mean that the draft should be spun off, and it does not mean that the draft should not be spun off. It does mean that discussion should be on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Into the Dark (TV series)]. (If this draft is resubmitted without discussion on the talk page of the existing article and does not satisfy a special notability guide, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.)

Discuss at the talk page of the parent article.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Current Occupant and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Current Occupant, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Horror99fan! Having an article 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Current Occupant[edit]

Hello, Horror99fan. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Current Occupant, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Current Occupant[edit]

Hello, Horror99fan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Current Occupant".

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. If 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]