User talk:PianoMan58H

December 2020

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Snowfall (TV series)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Run (2020 American film). Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Run (2020 American film) was changed by PianoMan58H (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.891907 on 2020-12-12T02:27:09+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2020 (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).

PianoMan58H (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was permanently blocked tonight for leaving snippets of my film reviews under "Reception" on the pages of certain films. According to whoever blocked me, I am guilty of "vandalism" and "spam". I really did not intend for any of this to happen. I'm new at Wikipedia, but I am an experienced film reviewer, with hundreds of reviews to my credit. My intention was merely to weigh in with my opinions on certain films that have Wikipedia pages. I don't really understand the complexities of all this, especially when they said my username was "inappropriate". When I signed up, I was advised by Wikipedia to pick a username not like my real name, so I did. And in looking at the edits I made on these several films, I don't see anything at all that would raise an eyebrow or could remotely be construed as "vandalism". I did disagree with the majority opinion on the 2020 film "RUN", but it was my honest opinion. As for the other films, I was in more or less complete agreement with the herd. I'm clearly not trying to sell anything and I don't stand to profit in any way whatsoever. Please look this over and unblock me. I think this is what you guys call a "false positive". Thanks, Mike Dennis

Decline reason:

I don't see where someone says something is wrong with your username, it seems fine to me. It is a severe conflict of interest for you to post your own reviews to articles. This makes it seem like you are promoting your own work. You won't be unblocked to continue to do that(at least in the short term, and not directly); if there are topics unrelated to your conflict of interest that you wish to edit about as a general contributor, please tell what those might be. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2020 (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 Wikipedia is not

When you write, "... I am an experienced film reviewer, with hundreds of reviews to my credit. My intention was merely to weigh in with my opinions on certain films that have Wikipedia pages." you demonstrate that you don't understand what this crowdsourced encyclopedia project is. Wikipedia, while it is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", is not an encyclopedia which persons who wish to share their opinions on line ought to edit. Wikipedia repeats what independent, published reliable sources have said on a subject. It is not a forum, nor a free-for-all. What you have on offer is not of value to Wikipedia. That is why you were blocked.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: You may find What Wikipedia is not an informative read, as I would assume you have been blocked due to using Wikipedia as a means to promote your website.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to "promote my website" any more than Rotten Tomatoes is trying to promote its website,, so your assumption is incorrect. Film reviews, whether written by me or Rotten Tomatoes or anyone else, are by their very nature subjective, and as such all film criticism should have a place on Wikipedia. ^^^^