User talk:Mandyevenmoore

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Eagleash (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, punctuation goes before refs and bare urls are subject to linkrot. Please see WP:REFB for the guidelines to correctly adding citations. Note, per WP:UGC, IMDb and social media are not acceptable as references. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

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 ~~~~}}. MER-C 14:14, 7 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. I have never added anything to Wikipedia that is biased or without citations. I believe this block is unnecessary as I have always followed Wikipedia guidelines and have never used it for self promotion. Mandyevenmoore (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't believe that you are a random fan of the film. I am declining your request, but you may make another to attempt to convince someone else. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2021 (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.

What is your connection to Micaela Wittman, and why are you interested in SEO? 331dot (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a fan of the film ‘Clairevoyant’ and thought more information should be available. Mandyevenmoore (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

According to my research, I haven't violated any terms that would result in my account being blocked. According to conflict of interest, this would be problematic due to "The content they add is typically unsourced or poorly sourced". I do not fall into this category given that I adequately sourced my research, from online news sources that weren't first-hand accounts. In regards to notability, there are many news articles on the subject, not all of which I included in my article. There are also other reliable third-party sources available to be cited in the article, if the current ones were found to not be adequate, if I had been given the chance. In reviewing the article in question, the use of the words "recognition" and "breakthrough" may be considered biased. I did not intend for those words to cause a problem, I simply noticed those words being utilized in other Wikipedia articles. According to WP:INDEF "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy." A reliably sourced and neutrally written article does not fall under significant disruption. Finally, based on my research of Wikipedia's terms, the only thing I could be blocked for is [[|Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only]] Wikipedia:Single-purpose account in which case a warning is required. On top of my previous points, I never received a warning, therefore my blocking is unsubstantiated. Mandyevenmoore (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you are unwilling to address the nature of your conflict of interest, if any, we will not consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2021 (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.

If you have a connection to Micaela Wittman, you need to share what it is. If you work for or represent her, you are required by the Terms of Use to declare that per WP:PAID, even if you are not specifically paid to make Wikipedia edits. 331dot (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there is no requirement for any warnings; the page you cite is an essay, not policy. 331dot (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard designed for this purpose. Blocking me without use of that feature seems to be an abuse of power under WP:TOOLMISUSE. Furthermore WP:PAID states it is strongly discouraged, not against terms, and either way, still does not apply to me.

There is no requirement to raise COI related issues on the COI noticeboard. What is the nature of your conflict of interest, and why did you not say you had one when I asked earlier? You seem to be deliberately wikilawyering instead of giving straight answers, and that does not help you regardless of who reviews this. It is true paid editing is not forbidden, but it must be disclosed, and any paid relationship triggers the disclosure requirement. You don't have to be specifically paid for edits. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no requirement to raise COI related issues about as much as there’s no requirement to indefinitely block someone based on an accusation. What’s the point in having all these guidelines if I’m going to be accused of wikilawyering for using them? I’ve given straight answers, that didn’t work, so I assumed Wikipedia guidelines and terms would help my case (this is called an appeal). I have no paid relationship with anyone, but everyone had their decision made from the beginning. I highly recommend reviewing some of the materials I sent because the only problem here is that admins aren’t required to follow the same Wikipedia guidelines they work so hard to police. Mandyevenmoore (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you declining to tell what the nature of your conflict of interest is? 331dot (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Micaela Wittman

Hello, Mandyevenmoore. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Micaela Wittman, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Micaela Wittman

Hello, Mandyevenmoore. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Micaela Wittman".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]