User talk:Fraction7

This is for discussion.

Your submission at Articles for creation: VIYCE (January 19)[edit]

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

It appears that your submission is either an attempt to be humorous rather than factual, or is an obvious hoax. As Wikipedia strives to contain only factual entries, we can not accept your submission at this time.

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:VIYCE 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:VIYCE, 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 need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fraction7! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:VIYCE[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Draft:VIYCE, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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. KylieTastic (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: VIYCE (January 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by AngusWOOF was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Wikipedia is not for posting about your web film projects. If you think your film is notable, please find secondary sources independent of the subject that cover the film.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VIYCE is not a web movie.[edit]

VIYCE is available for public distribution. I only put it on YouTube for free because nobody was buying it. My article on my movie was unbiased and accurate. I am not trying to "get the word out," as you put it. Rather, I am trying to make Wikipedia as complete as possible, since Wikipedia has no article for my film as of yet. It is absurd to prohibit a filmmaker from creating an article about his own film. If you wish to buy a DVD, <promo link removed>. I see no reason why Wikipedia should have an article for this but not for this.

Your submission at Articles for creation: VIYCE (January 20)[edit]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 films). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Even if this film is for real, it needs to be shown to be notable. Anyone could upload stuff on YouTube. Why is this film notable from my dog videos?

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:VIYCE 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:VIYCE, 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 need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: VIYCE (January 20)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by AngusWOOF was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Enough. By your own admission, it is not a notable film unless it gets promotion by Wikipedia.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019[edit]

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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:VIYCE[edit]

Draft:VIYCE, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:VIYCE and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:VIYCE during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2019 (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).

Fraction7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not created this account purely for self-promotion. I have created it so that Wikipedia can be more complete. If my draft for VIYCE is accepted, I will go on to edit articles not related to my work. If my draft is not accepted, I must persist in editing it and resubmitting it until you value it as a competent article which meets your standards. I have been honest and transparent in my edits, and have not lied or done anything shady. I wrote an article for my movie. I don't care that it is my movie. It is a movie without an article, thus, it deserves one. I suggest you watch it, beginning to end, then decide. My article is not spam, it is accurate and truthful. Fraction7 (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You cant use Wikipedia to tell the world about your film. You offer no independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of your film, nor have you shown that it meets the notability guidelines written at WP:NFILM. If you just want to tell the world about your film, you should use social media or a personal website that you control. Please read about conflict of interest. Since you indicate that you will persist in editing about your film, you cannot be unblocked at this time. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2019 (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.

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).

Fraction7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock me so that I may discuss this in a reasonable and thoughtful manner. I do not understand why I have been blocked, nor do I consider my film, VIYCE, invalid for an article on here. I wish to talk this over.Fraction7 (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wikipedia doesn't have articles on just anything that exists. Instead, we have criteria for notability, such as WP:NFILM for films. Your film doesn't meet those criteria; thus Wikipedia should not have an article about it. That's not something that can be fixed by editing the page. This has been explained to you before (including in the reply to the unblock request right above). You seem unwilling to accept those explanations. Unblocking you would thus just waste more time (including your time). Huon (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2019 (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.

Someone else will be along to review(and decline) this request, but please state what it is that you do not understand about "You cannot use Wikipedia to tell the world about your film" and "spam/advertising only account", the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using Wikipedia to tell the world about my film, I am using Wikipedia to make Wikipedia more complete and accurate. I would not need to write an article on my film if somebody had already, but I can find no results for my film, so I can see that an article is in need of creation. Fraction7 (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The mere existence of your film does not merit it an article. Please read WP:NFILM for what does merit films an article here. You have said elsewhere that no independent sources have written about your film, that means it cannot have an article here. You have to get word out about your film in some other way. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attempting to get word out about my film. I am only creating an article for a film which exists. It is an OK film. Not Citizen Kane, but a film nonetheless. Why does it matter that no newspapers have talked about my film? How can they if they do not know that it exists? Of course they will write about Vice by Adam McKay. He is famous! Lots of people have seen Vice by Adam McKay. My film, Viyce, is less well-known. This is not my fault. I made the film. Nobody has seen my movie. Since it is readily accessible, I have come to the conclusion that they do not wish to view my film. If they choose not to watch my film, that is their choice and I am not responsible if people refuse to watch my movie. It's a good movie nonetheless with a two hour runtime and a plot. Fraction7 (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note in light of the unblock request that this user has now been banned 3 times from the help channel and has continued to engage in evasion despite this but has also apparently made it their mission to continue to waste people's times. Their block has been thoroughly explained, multiple times as has the deletion. We've gotten far past WP:IDHT. Praxidicae (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lie- I only engage in constructive discussion. My only wish is an article for my film. It is an OK film. It exists. it's an Ok film. There should be an article for it. Fraction7 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is clear you are not hearing or just ignoring what you are being told, I have decided to remove talk page access. Any admin is free to restore it if they see merit in doing so. If your request is declined, you may use WP:UTRS to request unblock. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Fraction7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23811 was submitted on Jan 22, 2019 22:27:40. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Fraction7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23813 was submitted on Jan 23, 2019 00:13:01. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]