User talk:SparkyScrapsandZero

Welcome!
Hi SparkyScrapsandZero! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Notes about article
Hi! I'm reviewing the draft and I do see the film as notable, but it needs quite a bit of cleanup. I'm going to leave notes for you as I go through this, explaining why I changed or removed content. I figure that you may want to create more film articles (at least I hope so as a fellow film lover!), so the notes may be helpful for the future. This brochure on editing/creating film articles may be helpful, as might these training modules. They are labeled as for students, but can be generally helpful. Anywho, on to the notes:


 * I merged the information about the film release into a single section. Things like home video releases are typically not going to need their own section. You also shouldn't list every outlet where the film can be seen or obtained. It's generally assumed that a film will get released to the typical outlets for physical or VOD perusal, plus listing the various outlets can be seen as promotional - even if this isn't your intent.


 * Not all sources are usable. For example, IMDb is not seen as a reliable source that should be used in articles. You can use it as a starting point, however take any info with a grain of salt. Long story short with that, IMDb has a history of being relatively easy to manipulate and add false info into as their mods don't check things as thoroughly as they should. You should also avoid YouTube videos or any self-published sources. In most cases the source won't be considered a reliable source and with YT there are copyright concerns.
 * Essentially, anyone can publish on outlets like blogs and YT so in order to show that they're reliable we need to be able to show where they're routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources. An example of a good source would be say, FilmThreat, since they're often cited as a reliable source.

I'll add more as I clean more! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * IMDb ratings aren't considered notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. The same thing goes for audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. (You can, however, cite the critic ratings that make up the Tomatometer.) The reason for this is that anyone can submit a rating. It's easy for ratings to also be swayed one way or another, so that also poses a question of reliability. The only time it should be cited is if there is a lot of coverage about the ratings in reliable sources. Saving Christmas is an example of when an IMDb score or Rotten Tomatoes audience score should be listed.
 * Be extremely careful when it comes to reviews. You should only use articles that are specifically reviews, as otherwise there's a risk of original research or misinterpreting a source. For example, this article by Dread Central is just about the poster reveal. They haven't seen the movie so they aren't actually reviewing the film.
 * You may find WikiProject Horror/Sources helpful when it comes to sourcing, as it lists some reliable sources for horror. It's not an exhaustive list, so if you don't see something on it I would bring it up at WP:HORROR or at the reliable sources noticeboard to see if it's usable.


 * Sites like SearchMyTrash will never be seen as reliable because they don't perform good fact checking, if at all. They typically just crawl the internet and add whatever they can find. You also shouldn't use Facebook or social media in general as a source. Sometimes, rarely, it's usable but that is typically when it comes to primary sources (things released by the director or cast/crew) and even then, for things that are typically unlikely to be contested such as start of filming, locations, and so on. It isn't good to use for reviews, particularly due to the text limit that can often be applied to some.
 * I removed this source as it wasn't a review - it was actually just a notification that the film was available to watch. Even if it had included an opinion on the film, it would likely be seen as too short to be usable.
 * With sourcing, make sure that the citation backs up the claim - for awards you should use either the website for the award granting institution or you should use something like a newspaper that reports the wins. However that said, you should also be careful about listing the awards. Generally only wins should be reported unless the award is very notable (like the Oscars). You should also be careful about vanity and scam awards.
 * The Indie Fest is a vanity award. A big tell is that they are very focused on getting people to spend large amounts of money for statuettes, stickers, and so on. Another thing I've found with this awards institution is that they run more than one of these, in order to get as much money as possible. This goes over it a little.
 * With the award itself, keep in mind that it having an article doesn't always mean that the award is usable or that it isn't a scam/vanity award.


 * With content, make sure that you have sources to back up the claims. With the production section you mentioned various events that occurred in France, however the sources weren't about the film. Since they didn't mention the film we can't tie these events to the film, otherwise it would be considered original research. It's likely that all of these impacted the film but we can't guarantee that they did - Walko could have had no issues from those events. If there are sources where he mentions that they had experienced these as setbacks we can use that (as long as it's reliable), but otherwise we can't include it.

In any case, I've cleaned it up to where I can accept it! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79) Wow this had been incredibly insightful and helpful. Thanks for the advice. I'm going to brush up on all this so I can do more. Appreciate you taking the time to teach a novice. SparkyScrapsandZero (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem! We were all new on here once, after all! :) ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Incantation has been accepted
 The Incantation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=The_Incantation help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  07:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. 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:. MER-C 15:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Sathish1127. MER-C 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Jude S. Walko (director)
Hello, SparkyScrapsandZero. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jude S. Walko (director), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jude S. Walko (director)


Hello, SparkyScrapsandZero. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jude S. Walko".

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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)