User talk:EAndrewL

Welcome![edit]

Hello, EAndrewL, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Exhibition On Screen, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Exhibition On Screen[edit]

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 Draft:Exhibition On Screen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

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

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it is fairly obvious that this is a second account registered to evade the block on User:ExhibitionOnScreen, which is itself a policy violation. You should stop using this account, go back to your original account, and follow the process to get it unblock and renamed. MrOllie (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Ollie,

I believe I already disclosed I do work for seventh art when I had a pop up asking me to disclose this. The changes made to the Phil Grabsky page were adding citations that were requested of external sources and adding these only on the information that was already there. All the best. EAndrewL (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added a bunch of unreliable sources that don't help the situation at all - and you must stop evading your block. Even after you get that addressed, you must stop abusing Wikipedia to promote your employer. MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because this account exists for the purpose of editing in a promotional manner on behalf of a business or a person connected to that business, and because the account has been used to evade a block on another account. (Whether the two accounts have been operated by the same person or by different people editing for the same business is immaterial.) This is at least the third account which has been created for the sole purpose of making promotional edits for the same business or person. If it continues, the article on that person can be protected from editing, and any website to which links have been posted can be added to the spam blacklist, which will mean that the mediawiki software will prevent anyone from ever posting links to that website. However, I hope that you won't choose to make that necessary, as it could cause inconvenience for some legitimate editors as well as stopping your spamming.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Hi, I have a couple questions I'd like to raise about this ban and issues surrounding the disallowed edits.

First, "You added a bunch of unreliable sources that don't help the situation at all" - I believe this is untrue. The sources I added were a local newspaper from the festival location which had news about the festival, mubi a highly notable streaming service, a .edu online library that included information that requested a citing. Which of this is unreliable? Second, there seems to be a real difficulty for anyone to make changes about these films being added even by people not connected to the company: [[1]] & [[2]] This is due to the film(s), for some reason, not being classed as 'notable' having 'not won awards' once again this is untrue. These films and this company have been mentioned by many news outlets and praised by them as well as within the art community. The company has broken box office records and has been a leader of alternative arts content in the cinemas for years, not only that it has also won a BAFTA. An award that is highly coveted in the film industry and should then classify it as notable by MrOllie's standards.

Lastly, even when edits have tried to be made without the producers website, using reviews instead, they have still been disallowed and yet other films are allowed using these. Why is this? I understand that the company site is not allowed as a source, I won't continue to edit these page via this account (as it is a personal one) and will try to produce better edits in the future. I'm just confused about a few things and if this company and films are even allowed any mention on this site. Apologies and all the best, EAndrewL

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hi, I have a couple questions I'd like to raise about this ban and issues surrounding the disallowed edits. 
First, "You added a bunch of unreliable sources that don't help the situation at all" - I believe this is untrue. The sources I added were a local newspaper from the festival location which had news about the festival, mubi a highly notable streaming service, a .edu online library that included information that requested a citing. Which of this is unreliable?
Second, there seems to be a real difficulty for anyone to make changes about these films being added even by people not connected to the company: [[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_19#Sargent_movie|1]] & [[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_19#National_Gallery_movies|2]] This is due to the film(s), for some reason, not being classed as 'notable' having 'not won awards' once again this is untrue. These films and this company have been mentioned by many news outlets and praised by them as well as within the art community. The company has broken box office records and has been a leader of alternative arts content in the cinemas for years, not only that it has also won a BAFTA. An award that is highly coveted in the film industry and should then classify it as notable by MrOllie's standards. 

Lastly, even when edits have tried to be made without the producers website, using reviews instead, they have still been disallowed and yet other films are allowed using these. Why is this? I understand that the company site is not allowed as a source, I won't continue to edit these page via this account (as it is a personal one) and will try to produce better edits in the future. I'm just confused about a few things and if this company and films are even allowed any mention on this site. Apologies and all the best, EAndrewL |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hi, I have a couple questions I'd like to raise about this ban and issues surrounding the disallowed edits. 
First, "You added a bunch of unreliable sources that don't help the situation at all" - I believe this is untrue. The sources I added were a local newspaper from the festival location which had news about the festival, mubi a highly notable streaming service, a .edu online library that included information that requested a citing. Which of this is unreliable?
Second, there seems to be a real difficulty for anyone to make changes about these films being added even by people not connected to the company: [[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_19#Sargent_movie|1]] & [[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_19#National_Gallery_movies|2]] This is due to the film(s), for some reason, not being classed as 'notable' having 'not won awards' once again this is untrue. These films and this company have been mentioned by many news outlets and praised by them as well as within the art community. The company has broken box office records and has been a leader of alternative arts content in the cinemas for years, not only that it has also won a BAFTA. An award that is highly coveted in the film industry and should then classify it as notable by MrOllie's standards. 

Lastly, even when edits have tried to be made without the producers website, using reviews instead, they have still been disallowed and yet other films are allowed using these. Why is this? I understand that the company site is not allowed as a source, I won't continue to edit these page via this account (as it is a personal one) and will try to produce better edits in the future. I'm just confused about a few things and if this company and films are even allowed any mention on this site. Apologies and all the best, EAndrewL |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hi, I have a couple questions I'd like to raise about this ban and issues surrounding the disallowed edits. 
First, "You added a bunch of unreliable sources that don't help the situation at all" - I believe this is untrue. The sources I added were a local newspaper from the festival location which had news about the festival, mubi a highly notable streaming service, a .edu online library that included information that requested a citing. Which of this is unreliable?
Second, there seems to be a real difficulty for anyone to make changes about these films being added even by people not connected to the company: [[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_19#Sargent_movie|1]] & [[https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie/Archive_19#National_Gallery_movies|2]] This is due to the film(s), for some reason, not being classed as 'notable' having 'not won awards' once again this is untrue. These films and this company have been mentioned by many news outlets and praised by them as well as within the art community. The company has broken box office records and has been a leader of alternative arts content in the cinemas for years, not only that it has also won a BAFTA. An award that is highly coveted in the film industry and should then classify it as notable by MrOllie's standards. 

Lastly, even when edits have tried to be made without the producers website, using reviews instead, they have still been disallowed and yet other films are allowed using these. Why is this? I understand that the company site is not allowed as a source, I won't continue to edit these page via this account (as it is a personal one) and will try to produce better edits in the future. I'm just confused about a few things and if this company and films are even allowed any mention on this site. Apologies and all the best, EAndrewL |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I'm concerned about your comment "I won't continue to edit these page via this account" - do you have another account? While you are blocked, you are not permitted to edit using any account. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies PhilKnight, I should have been clearer. I meant I have another account I initially intended to make these edits on that was banned (I didn’t realise this was against the rules and I’ll put my hands up and apologise to that) but when I was trying to appeal that block/ban and asked some similar points to the above I was ignored so I attempted to be impartial and add other external secondary sources to the posts, learning from those mistakes which I’d argue I did by trying to find the best and clearest sources for the citation that were flagged as needed. EAndrewL (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies PhilKnight, I should have been clearer. I meant I have another account I initially intended to make these edits on that was banned (I didn’t realise this was against the rules and I’ll put my hands up and apologise to that) but when I was trying to appeal that block/ban and asked some similar points to the above I was ignored so I attempted to be impartial and add other external secondary sources to the posts, learning from those mistakes which I’d argue I did by trying to find the best and clearest sources for the citation that were flagged as needed. EAndrewL (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]