User talk:MarloHarris

Welcome!
Hello, MarloHarris, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page HoneyBee Movie, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for Organizations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Speedy deletion nomination of HoneyBee Movie


A tag has been placed on HoneyBee Movie, 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, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and 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 removed 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. —C.Fred (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

To expand: your reference to clearly indicates a group effort to promote this film, likely by editors who are connected to the film. You should also read the guidelines on conflicts of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks actually if you read any of it that's not the case and I'm a fan and Lin is the only one who worked on it. We are very curious about YOUR page, it's kind of interesting in a weird way... Didn't realized you just do wikipedia so you obviously know more than I do about this. It would be great since you do this 24/7 if you could offer HELP and INCITE instead of mechanically writing. That would be so amazing, thank you. Really looking forward to your knowledge.
 * I happened to notice this request while I was looking into what was going on. Normally, to be quite honest, both accounts would have been blocked in this scenario. We don't have a good way to differentiate between a coordinated campaign and a single person using sock puppet accounts, and at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Still, you haven't shown the same aggressive spamming, so to explain. First, we don't tolerate promotional content of any type. Oftentimes, again, it's essentially impossible to differentiate a fan piece from promotional material, and in this case, even the arguments presented for keeping it were promotional in nature&mdash;essentially, "Fans and people involved would really like a page here". To be quite blunt, that does not matter. We have standards for what is and is not an appropriate subject for an article, and those are not factors in that analysis at all. Also, the plot summary in the article is extremely long and seems to cover every plot point. Plot summaries should be a summary of a work, not a blow by blow. This is not just a question of style&mdash;overly detailed summaries can run into questionable territory as far as copyright. Finally, the articles gave no indication as to why the subject is notable. This would mean that it has been covered reasonably extensively by sources that meet the standards for reliability, and were produced independently of the subject (so not reprinted press releases, interviews, etc.).  But regardless of all that, in this particular case, the article, after its initial deletion, was recreated three times. At that time, I also warned the editor creating it against doing the same thing again. Instead, they at that point recreated at a different title. At that point, we've really got no choice but to escalate to a block, as clearly nothing else is stopping them.  Hope that helps to clear things up. Let me know if you have any questions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)