User talk:Horrorhistorian

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Horrorhistorian, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Edison Records, 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 click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

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

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! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why I reverted your edits (besides grammar and comprehensibility)[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Fan fiction. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do research what I add so don't dismiss that. Someone who worked with The Boston Globe's contributor on a publication I fact check. Don't implicated I fabricated sources ala Stephen Glass. Horrorhistorian (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Edison Records, you may be blocked from editing. Do not re-add this. It is also promotion. It has nothing to do with the 1929 company. If you re-add this without reliable sources which directly tie your added material to the topic of I will report you to WP:ANI. I would block you myself but I am WP:INVOLVED. PLEASE, please read our policies and try to understand why your additions here violate Wikipedia terms and policies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC) modified 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Huon (talk) 20:16, 7 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).

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

Request reason:

you are not my fucking biographer. Huon is history denier and NB is not Pacione's biographerHorrorhistorian (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 8 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).

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

Request reason:

I am not disruptive editing but the edits another is doing are malicious lies. And you support a malicious liar as he was one of my stalkers. You block this then you are by association allowing stalkers to remain. An Eye In Shadows voiced Sophie Lancaster and my roster voiced Emmett Till. Disruptive Editing? What you're whitewashing history and you're just as bad as Encyclopedia Dramatica on that department. You fail to omit information about Victor with his publishing home which houses Matthew S. Carroll and An Eye In Shadows. I want to know why The Book Patch doesn't have a home on here. You're lying as much as CreateSpace and Lulu.com are by omission. I was trying to make useful edits but Naaman Brown is the one disruptive editing and using Weasel Words. Horrorhistorian (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Finger pointing, blaming others, and calling others liars is not the way to go. When in a disagreement over content, seek consensus though discussion. When in loggerheads, see dispute resolution. Please address your own behavior in your next request. Please see boilerplate that follows. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:02, 8 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).

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

Request reason:

I was making truthful edits, but if you have the one I spoke of white washing history, I will not tolerate being seen on par to Stephen Glass. Wikipedia as a whole owes me an apology for that factor because I will not tolerate being seen as a liar. I will not cause damage but the admins are being abusive and I know which admin that's a plagiarism advocate.Horrorhistorian (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:36, 8 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).

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

Request reason:

I understand your misguided reasons, and I was making useful edits. I will not cause damage or disruption. But do not put me ever on par to Encyclopedia Dramatica because that's a pile of untruths. Horrorhistorian (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can't simultaneously say you understand something and say it's misguided at the same time. As you don't seem to concede that you did anything wrong, nor indicate how you will change your behavior going forward, I am declining this request. As you don't seem to be getting what you are being told, I am removing your talk page access to prevent any more wasting of time. You may use WP:UTRS to request unblock should you decide to heed what you are being told. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 8 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 is ample behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry (that is, abuse of multiple accounts, specifically, creation of a new account to edit while another account is blocked). Furthermore, practically all this account's edits to articles were unsourced, largely incoherent, at times veered into possible violations of the policy on biographies of living persons (!), and to my knowledge they had to be reverted without exception. That's not even considering edits like this. Huon (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

UTRS appeal #23731 was submitted on Jan 08, 2019 22:28:43. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]