User talk:Markedwalla

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigGameFish. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. I am not editing with any ill intent and the review was mixed at best for AICN. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1st off it wan't and why do you delete all positive reviews and only post negative reviews. There are over a dozen positive reviews out there and I only have seen 2 negative. Looking at the log you have spent quite a bit of time on a page doing nothing but trying to make it look bad. A mix, is a mix, not 3 negative quotes and no positive. It would be nice if you explained why you delete all positive quotes and make sure to only add negative? You obviously know you are misrepresenting reality. Its clear others have said this yet you have shown no interest in working with anyone, just pushing a very obvious agenda. I would say you are a viewer who did not like it, but being that your page shows you have not seen or followed the project I am thinking you have probably been paid by someone.

The problem is that the review wasn't only positive. It had criticisms and it's important to note those. Also, the other issue is that many of the reviews people are trying to add are not usable per our WP:RS policy. Most of them are unverifiable, as they're blog sources or on websites that allow anyone to review. I'm trying to verify one review but haven't received a reply from the website. If it is a usable review I'll add it, but we are very strict about what we can or cannot use as a reliable source. It's not that I want the review section to be negative or have any agenda against the film. Largely I love films that market themselves like this and it's been one of the things I loved about movies such as Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity. I created the article because I thought the marketing was pretty cool. It's just that the reception in reliable sources has been mixed for the most part. Every review out there that we can use on here has something negative to say about the film, making the reviews mixed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen other refer you to other sites which are not blogs. Simply going to their IMDB page you can see about a dozen critic articles. While there Rotten Tomatoes page has 3 reviews, two of which are positive. You can pretend you are not being biased in these messages but you have shown zero willingness to work with anyone.

While I doubt this will get unblocked, I'm responding anyway. The problem with going to IMDb is that they aren't exactly discerning in what they list in the news section. Not every review or blog that links to IMDb is considered to be a reliable source. We can get around that somewhat when these reviews are posted on a site such as Rotten Tomatoes that has some oversight with who they allow to be reviewers but IMDb is something that is pretty much unanimously considered to be an unreliable source for anything other than the most basic of info. This means things such as when a movie was released, the length, who was in it, and so on. Even then it's not infallible since anyone can edit those. While editing and adding movie data to Wikipedia, I've seen movie information that was clearly added as a joke that was not fixed on IMDb. That's why we can use little to nothing on IMDb for sourcing, although we can post it in the external links section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of BigGameFish (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:43, 21 December 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Not a sock puppet in anyway please let me know what has to be done to prove this. Long time reader that is frustrated to see someone purposely putting a film down that I have been a long time supporter of. Several people have shared my thoughts and it seems they are using their status on the site to push someone else's agenda. Markedwalla (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If we believe you're a sockpuppet, as far as we're concerned you are one. Your reason for wanting to be unblocked also supports this, as well as the timing of when your account was created. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2013 (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.