User talk:Post-scriptums

Welcome

Hello, Post-scriptums, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Spamflix

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:Spamflix, 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. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 23:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Post-scriptums. 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 organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
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 WP:Spam);
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. – Athaenara ✉ 00:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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 ~~~~}}.

– Athaenara ✉ 00:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I've been low-key editing wikipedia articles for years (mainly correcting typos or reverting vandalised pages), I think I only created an account when an article couldn't be edited by non-users but was vandalised. The first time I try to create a page about a service (which I have no affiliation with by the way) I get blocked for "advertising" and the article is sent for deletion? I followed the structure of other video on demand and streaming services on wikipedia like Shudder_(streaming_service) and Mubi_(streaming_service). But okay, if it's bad, it's bad, delete it, but can I get unblocked?

Accept reason:

See the discussion below for the reasons for unblocking JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 09:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One should write articles according to our core content policies, not what you see in other pages. What would you edit if you were unblocked? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: And I thought I did, I studied journalism. I have no issue writting unbiased and factual only info. If you were to tell me it was light on info, fair point. There was so much info out there and it's relatively new thing, I sourced everything and nothing was made up. Even thought about cataloging all the films available, but I feared this might happen and I didn't want to spend more hours on something that could be easily thrown out. Though that you would say not to thrust articles on such staple services, that does blogges my mind. Considering this sour experience, I would never try drafting anything else and would stick with my yearly "correcting a typo" or "reverting pages that were brigaded". Post-scriptums (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was concious or subconscious, I'm guessing the name "Spamflix" triggered a reaction in some users given the highly negative connotations of "spam". I've declined the speedy deletion of your draft, as I don't think it's promotional enough for that. It's probably for the best that you didn't include even more promotional materal about Spamflix, such as what films it carries. An encyclopedia articles shouldn't focus on minutiae like that. Instead, it should focus on what reliable sources say about the service. If they don't say anything, it's too early for an article. Bloggers from the Forbes.com contributor network generally aren't a very good source for Wikipedia. Despite posting articles on Forbes's website, they are generally not staff and not supervised by the magazine's editorial board, which makes them self-published. You don't have to give up completely on article creation, but it would probably be best to be a little choosier with what topics you select (topics that have mainstream coverage) and what sources you use (not bloggers). @Athaenara: it seems the editor mostly just wants to go back to fixing typos. Do you have a problem with giving Post-scriptums another chance? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I did source Cineuropa which is a known and reputable news source related to european distribution of films (and has multiple articles on the platform), which is more in line with this service since it's a platform more about unknown foreign films. There was also a Latamcinema article (another reputable news source in the film industry in south america) but I chose not to include as I thought it was more of the same. I agree those 2 publications are not as "important" as a deadline/indiewire/variety/hollywood reporter nor there's an abundance of info, but the existent news go in line with the scope of the platform. I just thought that since there was on article on it and I could try doing on it. But I'm just a nerd that works in an unrelated field and I will respect how "you" (every admin/the guidelines) want this encyclopedia to be. I genuinely don't mind if you give me a 6 month block, but a permanent ban does sour me with wanting to do anything with Wikipedia in the future. It's not like I made an account just for this. Post-scriptums (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: "back to fixing typos"? I see only two non-spamflix edits by this user. "I sourced everything"? Half the references cite spamflix.com itself, which is linked five times on the page. If reliable sources don't say anything about it (as you pointed out), it's not an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. – Athaenara ✉ 18:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Post-scriptums: An indefinite block is not a permanent ban, it's a block for an unspecified length of time, subject to discussion and negotiation as seen here on your user talk page. – Athaenara ✉ 18:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not like Post-scriptums called Spamflix "the premier site for streaming beloved cult films". It's unlikely the draft will be accepted until there's substantially more coverage, but it's not the worst draft I've ever seen. If Post-scriptums goes back to the draft and adds something really promotional like that, we can always reblock. I don't see what the harm is if this editor fixes a bunch of typos and maybe tries to fix the draft after reading more about our policies. A spammer probably wouldn't offer to fix typos – they'd demand that we publish their spammy advertisement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Per NinjaRobotPirate, and WP:ROPE I'd support an unblock in this case. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft that Post-scriptums created is somewhat promotional in tone, but by no means blatant advertising, certainly not promotional enough to warrant an indefinite block. The two articles that Post-scriptums has linked are both written in promotional terms, in the case of Mubi (streaming service) appallingly so, and although taking those articles as an indication of what is acceptable is a mistake, it is a perfectly reasonable mistake for an inexperienced editor to make. I made far worse mistakes in my early days as an editor, and so did many of us. This was a situation which warranted a friendly message to the editor, explaining what improvements are needed for his or her draft article, not a block out of the blue without any warning. Athaenara is an experienced and reliable administrator, for whom I have a good deal of respect, but I think on this occasion she has made a mistake. In view of the fact that I and both the other administrators who have commented here all think unblocking would be reasonable, I shall go ahead and unblock. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 09:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spamflix (November 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sagotreespirit was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Spamflix and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Spamflix, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Sagotreespirit (^talk) 14:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Spamflix concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Spamflix, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Spamflix

Hello, Post-scriptums. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Spamflix".

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! Lapablo (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]