Jump to content

User talk:Lot7000

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Lot7000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Easter[edit]

You have come up against the defences we have had to erect against Paul Easter and his flood of sockpuppets. As I said on the other page, no-one is going to be willing to dismantle those defences when the number of Easter socks is if anything increasing. You may be independent and behaving reasonably, but we have no reason to think he is going to stop his "game" any time soon.

I will have to take advice about how you can make a draft without triggering the defences, but in the meantime there is something you can do: collect and present sources, say on User: Lot7000/sandbox, to help assess whether an article has any chance of being accepted. The point here is that Wikipedia is quite choosy about article subjects. The test is called Wikipedia:Notability, and is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Youtube, Facebook, IMDb, blogs, all places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? See also WP:Notability (summary), and the specific guidelines WP:CREATIVE and WP:Notability (films).

References showing that Easter has made films, listed them on IMDb and offered them for sale on DVD at Amazon help with verifiability, but not with notability, because anyone could do that. The question is, has anyone outside his circle of friends and collaborators taken him, or his films, seriously? Were any of his films released to cinemas, or the subject of reviews in newspapers or magazines? Amazon reviews do not count, because anyone can write them - Wikipedia's idea of a reliable source is one that has some kind of editorial control.

This one doesn't count for much, because its author hasn't apparently ever seen one of Easter's movies and is mainly interested in him selling his business on eBay; and this one as I said before, is Easter talking about himself. What is needed is evidence of people not connected with Easter writing something substantial about him and his work. People at the last deletion discussion looked for that and failed to find it.

So, please start by listing on User:Lot7000/sandbox all the references you would use in an article about Easter. Then we can see whether it would have a chance, so that it would be worth allowing you to make a draft to be considered at a new Articles for deletion debate, or whether it is still the same old story, so that you would be wasting your time.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JohnCD yes i can confirm that Easter himself will not or ask his friends to bombard Wikipedia with new articles. He did ask his many facebook friends openly to write in and post on Wikipedia. Easter and many other people felt his Dyslexia was a major cause for not getting any articles accepted on wikipedia! some on researched birds of pray and nature Easter is well informed on wildlife and the environment, all small edits he made to existing articles were removed. Out of the law of averages many of Easter's 5000 friends were also Dyslexic causing even more people to get behind him. As Easter who is after all a mirco budget filmmaker who made films sometimes on no budget at all but still managed, to get all his films released in the UK and one in the US. Google now lists Stagger complete with the US sleeve cast, run time, release dates, etc. Stagger also had a UK Cinema screening!. Black Shuck has only recently been listed on the BFI film archive his only BFI credit before this was a producer credit on a small indie UK film. (http://explore.bfi.org.uk/558c871c6a486). I also feel that honestly the recent artices on Easter, which was live for around 10 days on Wikipedia done no harm at all to anyone with no sales links etc, which was only removed by past editors who battled with Easter in past edit wars. Again thanks. Lot7000 (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's pretty clear that you *are* Paul Easter, again. You have a very distinctive writing style, which I doubt your "5000 friends" share. You are also making the same arguments as the past flood of sockpuppets, often using the exact same language. I think User:JohnCD is giving you more credit than you deserve, because I think you are not being honest with us. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you are blocked, you can still edit this talk page, so my advice stands: if you think Easter should have an article, list below here references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to show how he meets the notability standard described at WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NawlinWiki a trusted editor nice way of putting things Wikipedia also ways states have (good faith) ( He's lying. He is obviously Paul Easter (down to the misspellings and the complaints about someone who once implied that he was mentally ill), and he has done this same shtick before). (Spailling) (shtick) lol mistakes can easily be deliberate.

Moved discussion[edit]

 – McGeddon (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Lot7000 is like filling a bucket from the sea and then comparing the amount of water left in the ocean. Wikipedia is saying that people with dyslexia poor spelling and grammar have nothing to add to Wikipedia. What is fair for one should be fair for all a cast member in Easter's film Stagger has a Wikipedia article with dead refs,& links. All of which go to blank pages and has far less supporting references than Easter. JohnCD was looking into a way forward here it is very easy to add Easter again in 1000s of word formats from over 100 accounts some open 6 months or more all are neutral with no edits made. Provoking remarks by others here should also be moderated. If this account is also to be blocked at least leave by comment on this page' If nothing more than for balance Easter and others have used this to gain first hand experience of how people with dyslexia are treated online. Easter is making a documentary on the dyslexia subject. Errors from all editors had some Spelling grammar format (moiive, hepped' smallpeople heello,, THANKS FOR TOYR HELLP ETC.) all very easy for any editor to replicate. Ff66890 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to have a discussion about inclusion criteria and dyslexia and get this sorted out is User talk:Lot7000. User:Lot7000 is still able to edit their own talk page. Wikipedia already has many productive, dyslexic users - it's possible to contribute without editing article text directly. If you can show that Easter meets the inclusion criteria that Wikipedia applies to biographies (either WP:ENT or WP:BASIC) then I assure you that other editors will be happy to help write that article. --McGeddon (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All these blocks and deletions have nothing to do with dyslexia and everything to do with the facts that (a) the subject does not meet the relevant notability standard, (b) Wikipedia is not for self-promotion, and (c) block evasion and sockpuppetry are not allowed. JohnCD (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JohnCD cant really see how Easter having a film on the BFI film archive is not suitable notability. The film Black Shuck never had a BFI listing for a ref, to add to Wikipedia until recently. There is no reason at all now why a article cant be written. thanks. Ff66890 (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, a director has to either satisfy:
  • WP:GNG: "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (where "significant" coverage is that which addresses the subject "directly and in detail")
  • WP:ENT: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." or "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." or "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."
The BFI reference fits neither of these: it doesn't give any "in detail" information about Easter, and it doesn't show that he has had "significant roles in multiple notable films". --McGeddon (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Looks like you'll have to log in as User:Lot7000 if you want to continue this conversation.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusion in the BFI is not something that would give notability on Wikipedia as it's kind of considered to be a database of British film and television. A similar comparison would be the Library of Congress, which collects almost every book released in the USA. There are some exceptions (like self-published works), but they'll generally take everything. I understand the BFI to be very similar in their goals. As far as the claims of prejudice goes, I see no evidence of this. It looks like it's been used as an identifier that a specific editor is very likely a sockpuppet of Easter, but I don't see where people are discriminating because he's dyslexic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl79 thanks for your thoughts the BFI is more than a database for movies it has many roles in British film About the BFI

The BFI was founded in 1933. We are a charity governed by a Royal Charter. We combine cultural, creative and industrial roles, bringing together the BFI National Archive and BFI Reuben Library, film distribution, exhibition and education at BFI Southbank and BFI IMAX, publishing and festivals.

We award Lottery funding to film production, distribution, education, audience development and market intelligence and research.

Film Forever is our five year strategic plan for 2012-2017 to support UK film. The plan covers all our activities and is based around three priorities – education and audiences, support for the UK film industry and unlocking film heritage.

There are 1000s of British films not listed on the BFI or even mentioned' "it is very clear for all to see this has become a witch hunt" Saying every account is Easter if that's the case Wikipedia blocks are ineffective if one guy can post at will dyslexic or not. Name blacklist and other measures seem far from adequate' Your Tokyogirl79 account posted Easter needed to get a job many posts on Wikipedia are early morning posts' i myself have noted many 6:30 am and earlier not sounding like a lazy or a unemployed person. There are to many people wanting to write a article about him now for Wikipedia to ignore. regards Kate3Gjay (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above, a database entry at the BFI does not meet the "directly and in detail" requirement of WP:GNG. An in-depth article on the BFI website (like this one on Orson Welles) would be fine as a source, the BFI is certainly a respected authority, but a namecheck on a film credits page is not sufficient. --McGeddon (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply McGeddon BFI has a detailed cast list director name credit as other films listed on the BFI, listed in the same manner as are the A list stars in high budget films. Easter has had main roles in "Beyond the Rave" closing film name credit [1] Easter also starred in "Seconds from Disaster: WACO Siege "[2] with full television screening. Best regards Kate3Gjay (talk) 11:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks McGeddon i will still input here, Thanks Kate3Gjay for your contributions,Reading this article [3] Paul TT Easter is one of the "new breed of prolific British directors of whom almost nothing is known". The first of his brace of 2012 DVD releases was challenging mockumentary U Mugs, although there seems to be some debate over its horror credentials. 'Jackass meets Blair Witch. The mention of "new breed of prolific British directors" may be of help. Lot7000 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.csfd.cz/film/285823-beyond-the-rave/
  2. ^ http://actorole.com/tv/Seconds%20from%20Disaster:%20WACO%20Siege
  3. ^ http://www.hemlockbooks.co.uk/News/Blog/news/43
WP:GNG requires two sources which describe Easter "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - by this yardstick, a couple of sentences in an article about "all UK horror features which debuted in 2012" is not significant enough. (The source seems like it might be okay since M. J. Simpson is a noted expert, but he needs to say more than a couple of sentences about Easter.)
WP:ENT requires "significant roles in multiple notable films [or] television shows". Easter has clearly starred in several of his own films, but so far as I can see none of them are yet notable by Wikipedia's standards. Is "Seconds from Disaster: WACO Siege" a reference to the "Waco Cult" episode of Seconds From Disaster? Did he have a significant role in the show? --McGeddon (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(M.J. Simpson) ref need more than couple of sentences, [1] The IMDB lists 15 directing credits for Easter, mostly gangster/action films but also including Black Shuck, Thumb N It and Lone Walker, all of which are horror. U Mugs might also be horror too as it's pitched as 'Jackass meets Blair Witch'. Or it might just be a found footage movie about knobheads hurting themselves...

The reviews on Amazon suggest that Easter's films are somewhat basic in their execution, but he has released several through Amazon Prime including the four titles mentioned above - and that makes him a representative of the British Horror Revival as far as I'm concerned.

Ref, "Seconds from Disaster: WACO Siege" Easter played the team leader FBI (tactical attack leader) photograph of Easter was featured on the television screening website in full body armor bullet proof vest assault rifle . Lot7000 (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Simpson's blog at british-horror-revival.blogspot.co.uk could be used as a source about films, but not (per WP:BLOGS) about Easter himself: Wikipedia should "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
It looks like that episode of Seconds From Disaster is on YouTube: so far as I can see from skimming it, the three FBI roles are all non-speaking, and are part of short dramatic reconstruction clips intercut with documentary interviews.
WP:ENT needs to see "significant roles in multiple notable films [or] television shows". From what you're saying, we only have a minor role in a notable television show, and significant directing roles in his own films. Do any of those films meet the criteria for notability laid out in WP:MOVIE? --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated McGeddon helping here,I have checked WP:MOVIE criteria Easter having a movie on BFI film archive and the fact that there are many films listed on Wikipedia, with poor and bad reviews should mean that [2] [3] could be acceptable having checked myself it's not possible for just anyone to add write reviews on Horror News. No one is saying that Easter is the next Steven Spielberg bearing in mind Easter's plan with the first releases was only to gain reaction, plus the fact that none of his work had any publicity marketing "budgets" his films caused a great deal of controversy. Easter himself said early last year he had taken the no budget micro budget film genres that he had covered as far as possible. Easter has since made three higher budget films which are set for release in 2016. Lot7000 (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://british-horror-revival.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/indie-auteur-paul-tt-easter-selling-up.html
  2. ^ http://horrornews.net/93573/film-review-black-shuck-2012/
  3. ^ http://horrornews.net/52468/film-review-u-mugs-2012/
WP:MOVIE needs "full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics": "Rio" and "Angel van Croft" from horrornews.net are not nationally known critics. (If other Wikipedia film articles are inadequately sourced, that isn't an argument for all such articles being tacitly okay, it's an argument for deleting them: see WP:OTHERSTUFF - "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not.") --McGeddon (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point that, completed a search on Easter there are several links and reviews ref, his work none of which seem to be by nationally known crititcs [1] but many British films are reviewed here. Easter gained a very mixed review here [2] Easter has many television and documentary credits The British UFO Files (TV Movie documentary),Hiroshima (TV Movie documentary),Insiders (TV Series),The Chief (TV Series),Silent Witness (TV Series),Seconds from Disaster: WACO Siege (TV Series), Beyond the Rave (film),Jack Said (film),Halfway to Heaven (film) over the years. Lot7000 (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT only needs evidence of two roles that meet "significant roles in multiple notable films [or] television shows" - would you say that any of those in the list fit this? --McGeddon (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes two early major roles of Easter's were in The Chief (ITV TV Series) Insiders (BBC TV Series) Also found futher (M.J. Simpson) Ref,[3] Sophia Disgrace (The Shadow of Death, Spidarlings and Paul TT Easter’s Thumb N It) and, erm, The Human Centipede II. Can I get another ick? [4] Collateral Consequences (d.Paul TT Easter) - Camcorder auteur Easter remains a mysterious figure, all Easter's horror genres releases have received a mention from Simpson. Lot7000 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What were the roles?
Per WP:SPS, Wikipedia can't use Simpson's blog for statements made about Easter. It may be possible to use it as a source for some of Easter's films, though. (Although it would be awkward that we wouldn't be able to quote anything he'd said about Easter specifically.) --McGeddon (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Easter was a key Witness in "Silent Witness" (TV Series), and Easter played the main victim in "The Chief" (Anglia television production ) filmed in Norwich Norfolk (TV Series). Lot7000 (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb lists these roles as "Witness" and "Victim" respectively, each in a single episode of the series. If that billing is accurate, these do not sound like "significant roles" in the sense intended by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (I can't find a solid definition of what Wikipedia means by a "significant" TV character, but I'd assume at least a recurring role, a name or perhaps a review which singles out the character as remarkable.)
From all this, I'd suggest the best route to establishing an article about Easter would be to establish the notability of at least two of his films, at which point he'd automatically meet WP:ENT for having had a significant role as director and/or actor in them. If that can't currently be done for his back catalogue, it'd mean waiting for some published reviews to hit - perhaps in 2016 when his higher-budget films are released? --McGeddon (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you McGeddon yes that sounds like the to route to take here, Found that two of Easter's own films are on the Mubi database not screening at the moment, so must have been at some point or screening soon. which is independent from IMDB. I can remember seeing Easter play a central character (John) a inmate in the BBC's Insiders. Lot7000 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT needs "significant roles" plural, so if you can find a second one and demonstrate that they were both significant, that would be enough. WP:MOVIE covers Wikipedia's guidelines for what a film article needs to have. --McGeddon (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mubi have added Black Shuck [5] to database along with Thumb N It [6] & U Mugs [7] Ref, Television Easter played Mr.Jones in (1994) The Chief (TV Series). Lot7000 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://darkeyesoflondon.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Paul%20Easter
  2. ^ http://eastscapes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/eastscapes-film-club-1-black-shuck-2012.html
  3. ^ http://mjsimpson-films.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/threes-shroud.html
  4. ^ http://british-horror-revival.blogspot.co.uk/2013_12_01_archive.html
  5. ^ https://mubi.com/films/black-shuck
  6. ^ https://mubi.com/films/thumb-n-it
  7. ^ https://mubi.com/films/u-mugs
If you can clarify how "Mr Jones"/"Victim" and "John" were significant roles, we can look at building an article on that basis, perhaps with some input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film on what counts as "significant".
Mubi's website is a database of user-submitted films that attempts to catalogue "every movie ever made", in much the same way as IMDb, so the fact of a film's inclusion doesn't by itself grant it any notability. --McGeddon (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • McGeddon, significant roles are considered to be roles that have received coverage in independent or reliable sources. Characters that appeared in one or few episodes can sometimes qualify, but it is fairly rare - especially if the characters did not have a large role in the episode(s) they appeared in. (By large this is considered to be large speaking roles where the actor appears in multiple scenes rather than via photo images or reference.) The best way to discern if a role is major (ie, significant) or minor is to look at the coverage of the work. This aspect of NFILM was put into play because for a while we had a sizable amount of actors that were trying to add themselves to Wikipedia after performing minor roles in one of the Law & Order shows, arguing that the show's notability transferred to their role. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. --McGeddon (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Jones"/ played by Easter and was the key "Victim" for a complete episode based around that character. "John" again played by Easter was in 2 episodes of the BBC's Insiders with a storyline around the time John serviced in the open prison. Lot7000 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given Tokyogirl79's comment above - do we know what coverage Easter's portrayal got in press reviews of these shows, at the time? --McGeddon (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref, BBC Easter had another lead role in a multi episodic televised show.

File:Filming for the BBC in Norfolk United Kingdom.jpg
Filming for the BBC in Norfolk United Kingdom

BBC granted Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository. JoeyDeener (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please just stick to one account here, and do not ask friends to join Wikipedia purely to join this discussion.
What was the name of this show? --McGeddon (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easter has made no bulk direct social media email requests for some time! most of us are people who actually like and get his work, Wikipedia seems unable and unwilling to accept that fact. Lot7000 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the page I just linked says, Wikipedia doesn't really distinguish between bulk-directed fans and a single person creating multiple accounts, when deciding whether to block users who are making very similar edits.
So what's the BBC show that Easter has a lead role in? --McGeddon (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of that show myself McGeddon as the photograph has been deleted and the user has been effectly muted (blocked), he or she will be unable to confirm that now. Lot7000 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they've got anything to say they can request an unblock on their talk page, per the message that was left there.
So going back to the earlier question - did Easter's earlier BBC roles as "Mr Jones" and "John" attract any press attention to show that they were significant characters in those episodes? --McGeddon (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Paul T.T. Easter.jpg
Paul T.T. Easter live on Wikipedia Dansk Deutsch Español Français Italiano Nederlands cant fit them all on here.


Happy 5,000,001 article many are ill sourced & not as well researched as the many articles written on Easter's work amd films.


Blocks[edit]

Kate3Gjay blocked join the club it has lots of members. Lot7000 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone help with this article without being labelled as Easter, seems ironic the blocks here alone. As far as i can see are made on users who never wrote new article pages & were submitting supporting links and photos which had free media rights. 1992MandyK (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEAT: "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." - this new account (even in the absolute glowing best-faith situation that they're a Paul Easter fan who was just googling around and happened to clicked all the way through to an obscure talk page, and thought they'd continue someone else's conversation along much the same lines, apparently knowing the history of the blocks) will now most likely be blocked by another editor if they haven't been already.
Successfully demonstrating that Easter has lots of fans who want to create an article about him is a dead end, and won't change anything here. Whether Wikipedia has an article about a given director or actor is simply down to WP:ENT and WP:GNG. That's the fundamental reason why Wikipedia has no article about Paul Easter right now - there is no shortcut to creating an article if he can demonstrate that enough fans want to see one, and there is no barrier to having an article about him simply because of past sockpuppetry.
Easter could request an unblock of his User:Paul Easter account and submit a draft article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation, acknowledging the conflict of interest. That draft would be considered on its own merits, and the fact of past sockpuppetry would not be held against it. If he meets WP:GNG/WP:ENT, it'd go in; if it doesn't, it wouldn't. --McGeddon (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Easter yet I'm blocked he has more than a fan this whole page was Facebooked months ago! it had lots of interest. Google Wikipedia it has a far from glowing reputation for allowing new editors to write new articles. Lot7000 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia and aren't Paul Easter or someone acting at the direction of his "bulk direct social media email requests", by all means request an unblock. I'll give you the {{sockblock}} template that should have been put here when you were blocked:
If you are Paul Easter, that's fine: you can head over to User talk:Paul Easter and make an unblock request there, which would be the most positive way to take any of this forward. --McGeddon (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2015 (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).

Lot7000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not Easter,his agent or acting on his behalf

Decline reason:

You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC) OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:26, 16 September 2015 (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.

For reference, User:790hh‎ has now also joined the "club", apparently being blocked an hour ago for creating P A U L E A S T E R (Director/Actor), an article which addressed none of the notability issues discussed above. --McGeddon (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lot7000&oldid=1087652294"