User talk:TheycallmeDoug

Hello, TheycallmeDoug! 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 name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply ] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi TheycallmeDoug! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Doug Isaac The Ultimate (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Requesting second opinions". Thank you.

Regarding the article you recreated, which I'm still not sure about, I've posted a request at the administrators' noticeboard for uninvolved editors to have a look. This notice is required by process. Please comment at the noticeboard if you like. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ivanvector I have responded on the page. Although I may get water-boarded I thank you for giving me this forum to explain myself. (TheycallmeDoug (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2017 (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 why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I do apologize for not being coherent to Wikipedia's guidelines from the beginning. My edits under Melchor44 were one sided and only cohesive to one particular subject matter. I do promise to take the vow and not edit/contribute to anymore movie, film studio or entertainment related articles. I hope you take my plea into consideration and I may continue to contribute diversely to the Wikipedia community TheycallmeDoug (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have to agree with the below: This unblock request does not address the issues this account was blocked for, including the attempt to evade scrutiny. Huon (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2017 (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.

Reviewing admin please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting second opinions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll offer a quick summary of why I blocked:

• The User:Melchor44 account edited only articles about Ave Fenix Pictures, and people, films and events related to it - an area in which a (probably paid) sock farm was operating. Several of those articles were deleted.
• The User:Melchor44 account was abandoned just before User:TheycallmeDoug was created, the day after one of those articles (about a film) had been salted, and we had a sudden change to editing articles not related to Ave Fenix Pictures.
• Then a couple of weeks later, User:TheycallmeDoug asked an admin to restore the deleted article, Arise from Darkness, and when that was declined created a new version of it at User:TheycallmeDoug/sandbox - without disclosing any previous editing in this area. The new sandbox article contained a howling spelling error (the name of the subject of the article!) that was also in the last deleted version of the article, and I'd say that's evidence that TheycallmeDoug had access to the text of the deleted article. They claimed it was made by reference to the es.wiki version (es:Arise from Darkness), but that version did not contain the error (and was very similar in format to the deleted en.wiki version, despite being created after the latter was deleted).
• None of these issues has been adequately addressed, and instead we see waffly non-answers like "not being coherent to Wikipedia's guidelines" and "one sided and only cohesive to one particular subject matter".

My conclusion is that there is an organized attempt to promote this company and that this account is caught up in it in some way. It's possible that it was originally innocent, but I think we have seen a clear attempt at covering up those first edits to related articles and continued evasion since then. TheycallmeDoug says he has had contact with the company (to "ask permission" to recreate the film article), but it seems very likely that is not the full extent of the communication between them (and one specific question I asked abut the source of the text for the article was not answered). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]