User talk:AMCream

comment at Adult Adoption

You'd posted: Valeree - I'm not sure what is happening here. You seem to be targeting the work of Ellie Moon, for some reason. I've just noticed that you have included negative comments about the film and left out the positive parts of reviews that overall are very positive. You have omitted reviews that are glowing. I don't understand what is motivating this. AMCream (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

You notice I got the article to a point it could be published, after literally a year and a half of sockpuppets trying to get it there? Literally I could have rejected it out of hand as being the creation of a sock, but no. I recognized a notable subject, and I spent HOURS getting it up to snuff. We have to include the bad with the good. You should be thanking me. Seriously. Valereee (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First - I am not Ellie Moon. The reviews of the film were remarkably positive - yet you picked the most negative comments in the only two reviews that had negative comments. If you want to include negative comments - why not also the positive comments in the same reviews? On the question of citations - Hollywood News is a serious review source - which Rotten Tomatoes uses - and as you may know RT only uses reliable review sources. As I recall you discounted certain sources such as TalonBooks which published Ellie Moon's first two plays. It is one of the two most important publishers of plays in Canada - and if you do a search of TalonBooks on wikipedia you will see that it is cited hundreds of times. I could go on .. Can you understand why some people are wondering if you have an agenda here? I am willing to accept that you do not - but based on what appears on other pages - particularly of other Canadian writers an artists - there are appears to be a double standard operating. AMCream (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Adult Adoption. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Wendypeter1981 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wendypeter1981. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:00, 2 December 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here: I am one person, with one account. The only other person in my household, my wife does not have an account. I don't edit often, but when I do it involves things I know something about - such as human rights in Canada and Canadian theatre AMCream (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Well, according the SPI one account is directly connected to yours. It's possible that the others are meat puppetry. This doesn't address the reasons for the block. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2023 (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.