User talk:Donairpizza9999

Welcome!

Hello, Donairpizza9999, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Your first article
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

— Dismas|^(talk) - 22:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Lynn

The reason I removed the info about Things is because none of it was sourced. Reading it over again I see that a lot of it doesn't really have much to do with Lynn but with the film itself and should therefore go on the article for the film. Also, there are five paragraphs about a single film appearance. It wasn't even some Hollywood blockbuster, it was a B-movie. Then there are the statements like "...has since become one of the biggest cult films in Canadian history..." Who says it's the biggest? Any source for that? By whose standards is it the biggest? Also, "...Amber Lynns legendary mainstream performance in the film..." Who said it was legendary? Are they noted movie critics? Or just some guys who put up a web site?

Those are my problems with the material. Basically, it's unsourced, contains weasel words, and makes much ado about a very small movie. Dismas|^(talk) 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of THINGS (1989)

An article that you have been involved in editing, THINGS (1989), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THINGS (1989). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions; however, it appears you may have written a Wikipedia article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – please see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to or change an existing article about yourself, you are welcome to propose the changes by visiting the article's talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was the page I created deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss this with the deleting administrator. Thank you. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Barry J. Gillis

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Barry J. Gillis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Lopifalko (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this to draft for development, per messages on the talk page. You can edit it at Draft:Barry J. Gillis. Are you connected with Mr Gillis? If so you should declare your connection, and ask for a review of the article once completed at the Articles for Creation service. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself for details. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry J. Gillis moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Barry J. Gillis, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your page to draft space (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can work on it with minimal disruption. When you feel that it meets our notability and neutrality requirements, and is thus ready for mainspace, please submit it using the Articles for Creation template on the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barry J. Gillis at the Calgary International Film Festival in 2012.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barry J. Gillis at the Calgary International Film Festival in 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Barry J. Gillis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barry J. Gillis is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry J. Gillis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Barryjedmonton. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Barry J. Gillis‎, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2019 (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).

Donairpizza9999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My Account is being Blocked and this is not right. Also User:Lopifalko has taken down most of the Information from the page, claiming that the Sources are not reliable. He is determined to not to have this Page Appear on Wikipedia, ad he should be investigated for this, whether he is a long time user of Wikipwedia, or an Administrator, or whatever he is. When he is taking out information that is linked to the National Post, CBC, News, CTV News, Maxim Magazine, yahoo News, and other reliable Resources, and absolutely hacking the page to bits, because he does not want to see the page exist, you have a problem at Wiki with User:Lopifalko. Since when was the National Post not a Reliable Source? The National Post is Canada's National Newspaper. Since when was Maxim Magazine, Yahoo News, CBC News, and CTV News not Reliable Sources? The Wikipedia Page for Barry J. Gillis, has been hacked down to practically nothing, because this User, does not want to see the page exist. This is wrong, and I cannot change it back to what it was. This should be Investigated, as someone like User:Lopifalko does not shed Wikipedia in a good light. This should be investigated. He Edited a Page down to practically nothing, from a page that had full Sources, and Backups, and that proved all of the info on the page. The only thing i would have agreed with, was the Deletion of the Books, on a History of Canadian Filmmaking/Horror Movies, and a couple of other Books, because there is no way to add a link from a Printed Book, to prove that Barry J. Gillis was actually in the Books, even though he was. So, that would be fair game, but everything else that User:Lopifalko Deleted, and claimed that the Sources were no good, this is unfathomable, when there were so many sources that were all Substantial Resources. Again, User:Lopifalko is on a mission to have this Page Deleted. and is doing all he can to ensure that the page is Deleted, and now someone is Blocking me from Editing the Page? This is not right. I have been a Member of Wiki for many years, and I am being Blocked for no reason here. I cannot help it that I have roommate who is at the same IP Address as me, (and who said that he wanted to help with the page) and that we use the same IP Address. If this Roommate has been doing things to be Blocked, then that is fair game, and I can have a talk to him about this. I am not sure what he has been doing, although I know he updated a few things on the Barry J. Gillis Page... I have done nothing wrong, and I am requesting that the Block come off, so that i can enjoy Wikipedia once again. As I say, I can have a talk with my roommate. Because I am thinking that he did something wrong, and i should not have to pay the price of being Blocked because of him. I can even tell him to stop helping to edit the Barry J. Gillis Wikipedia Page. Anyway, this is wrong what is happening. And User:Lopifalko should be Investigated by higher ups, for Deleting al kinds of reliable sources, and hacking the Barry J. Gillis Wiki Page, down to almost nothing.

Decline reason:

Your account is blocked because it was compromised, and this wall of text does not address that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2019 (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).

Donairpizza9999 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here Donairpizza9999 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The issue is not that someone else used your internet access, it is that someone else used your account. Two different things. As such, this account cannot be unblocked per WP:COMPROMISED, as we have no way of knowing who is sitting at your computer operating this account. Please read that page for information on how you can resume editing; I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2019 (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 believe that my Message does address that, and I said near the end of the Message that there is someone else living here, that has been helping with the page. The person asked me if they could help, and I said yes. I believe that person is the reason the page is Blocked. That person is at work right now, but I can tell that person, not to engage in doing anything else with that page, as I was saying in the message above. I have done nothing wrong myself to deserve this Block, and should not be Blocked, because of the actions of someone else. --Donairpizza9999 (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your "roommate" used this account, which makes this account compromised. And your lengthy diatribe against another editor is of no relevance to that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where else was the diatribe supposed to appear since I am Blocked? This person is actually renting a room off of me and I can have them STOP going to Wikipedia from this IP Address, or give him his Notice to leave the premises. I can have a stop put to this, is what I am saying. I can talk to him when he gets here after work, and put a stop to whatever he was doing, which I have no clue, as to what he was doing, other than he showed me, some things that he had added to the page. Again, i can put a STOP to this right away, and that should be taken into consideration. --Donairpizza9999 (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put every reply in a new unblock request - we only need one, and another admin will be along to review it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for your advice. I can also tell this person that they will have to get the Cable company in, to set up their own Internet. Again, I have no clue as to what this person did. He was only supposed to help with the page, and try to find as much, (or more) information on the Subject as possible, and even showed me some things he had added. But, if it going to have me Blocked, I can put a Stop to the person, one way or the other. Either the person is leaving here, or not using the Internet, which is included with the rent, and will have to set up their own Internet. In any event, thanks for your advice, as I say. --Donairpizza9999 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser notes I have doubts that this account was compromised at all and this is instead outright socking. The Jasminhhhh account was created on the same device on the same day that Donairpizza9999 created the Barry J. Gillis article, several hours after it was nominated for deletion and Donairpizza contested the deletion. The Jasmin account is then used almost exclusively to promote Gillis except to make some random punctuation edits ([1] [2]) to Filmmaking, only to have Donairpizza make the similar random punctuation edits ([3]) to Rock and roll from the same device just two minutes later . The Jasmin account states that "I forgot to sign into my account, and used my roommates account. We live in the same house, with 2 computurs" (emphasis mine). I think this is just a single person who got caught out using multiple accounts. If it is two distinct individuals, they were working much more in concert than what it asserted here, and I very much doubt Donairpizza is going to kick out their roommate out of their own home for getting them blocked on Wikipedia. If you're being obviously dishonest about one thing, I'm not going to trust anything further you say.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{[[User talk:Ponyo}}|bons mots]]} 22:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I had little doubt this was just plain socking all along, but I thought I'd leave a little more rope to tie it up for sure. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much, but wanted to save any poor future reviewing admin from tying themselves in knots trying to AGF.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can think what you would like, but I have given you the facts, even though you think it's a load of B.S. I also don't see User:Lopifalko being investigated for deleting about 2/3's of the Barry J. Gillis article, when there are many substantiated sources, such as the National Post, CBC News, CTV News, Yahoo News, Maxim Magazine, and many other sources, that are all reliable. I have talked to the person, after he got home from work yesterday, and he has said that he created all of those accounts. ( I read the comments here, and confronted him) Although you believe it is me doing all of this, and it appears to be that way, from your perspective, this is just not the case. This person has done other things, while renting here in the past, that I have not been happy with, outside of the Internet, or anything to do with Wiki, and I have told him, he will have to get another Internet Provider, because I am not happy about this. (and yes I was contemplating kicking him out, because of other things this person has done in the past, that have nothing to do with this situation) So, as I say, you can think what you like, but what you believe to be the case is not correct. I don't see any Editors, or Administrators Reviewing the page, and investigating what User:Lopifalko has done to the page, when there were many notable sources quoted in the Article, and User:Lopifalko, hacked the article down to almost nothing. The only Edit that I would agree with, is his edit taking out the Film Books, because there is no links illustrating that the filmmaker, is actually in those books, although he is. But, deleting info from reliable sources, about the filmmaker working on a Movie with Bret Hart, Corey Feldman, along with other info, on a film festival that he runs, and all substantiated by reliable sources, is a disgrace, and more of a disgrace, that Wiki, which is an Honorable Institution, is letting an editor get away with this kind of conduct. There is nowhere else for me to write about what User:Lopifalko did, as I am Blocked, so, hopefully, you're not going to see this as another strike against me.

You are continuing with your transparent make-believe - and while I do not share Ponyo's access to checkuser data, I can see timings of activities and behavioral characteristics that make your story literally unbelievable. You are also continuing to attack another editor. I have, therefore, revoked your ability to edit this talk page. If you should some day decide to be fully honest, you can make an unblock request via WP:UTRS. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Things (film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Things (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Things (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]