Please keep any messages or content posted here brief, to the point and polite. Thank you for visiting my talk page!

Hi, thanks for the kitten. If you want to add an infobox to an article, you click on the insert button at the top and select the template option. Once you've done that, type "infobox book" (or any subject) into the search bar, click on it the one you want and then you'll be able to fill the infobox details.

Also while I'm here, I'd like to help out on the Handbook for Mortals article. I got interested in the story a few months back and was planning on making an article on it; I was about to get start doing it when I discovered there was one already. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Excellent New Editor's Barnstar A new editor on the right path
		Congragulations on setting up your new user page! QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 22:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182

Thank you for creating Byrd Dickens.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182

Thank you for creating Shauna Taylor case.

User:Kudpung, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please check that links do not need disambiguation. Use piped links to the correct article to avoid the redirects. E,g. Munchausen by proxy

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Kudpung)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182,

Thank you for creating List of plagiarized books.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

See Category:Novels involved in plagiarism controversies I wondered if this was synth, but there are many articles on the subject.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Bruxton)). Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bruxton (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in talking to you Kristin carlicci (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "talking" to you. You get an automatic notice whenever somebody mentions your username. That is nobody's fault. It is merely a response to posts you made yourself. PetSematary182 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182

Thank you for creating Gloria Tesch.

User:Slywriter, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Not sure lede is appropriate especially the negative description. I get there notability stems from the incident but this is a pretty negative article concerning in incidents that occurred while she was a minor.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Slywriter)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Slywriter (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a way to make sure it's noted that Tesch was a minor during the incident. As far as I know, she was a legal adult in the final years of the scam but was still heavily controlled by her father, and so I'm not sure I would consider her a perpetrator so much as a coerced accomplice. PetSematary182 (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place ((Ds/aware)) on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Woodroar (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, PetSemetary,

You received an alert earlier about the BLP DS regime. That alert states "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." This warning is to be clear that there are in fact very serious issues.

I've looked at your creations Draft:Gloria Tesch and Draft:Brittany Johnson, and found major WP:BLP violations in both. The former contained numerous unsourced or poorly-sourced allegations of crimes by a deceased person, with unsourced speculation as to whether a living person was involved in any of that, and, most of all, seems to violate the privacy of someone who has tried to distance herself from bad things that happened when she was a child.

The latter had greater issues. It had a section of various depraved acts that the subject was alleged to have committed, sourced to two primary sources and a very very unreliable-loking "news" site. More troubling than that, it had a long paragraph that gave the name (never reported in reliable sources) of a living minor who was the victim of abuse and accused the subject of a specific very serious felony that I did not see reference to in any of the sources, even unreliable ones.

I asked an oversighter to review the latter. They agreed that that last bit was an oversightable BLP violation and oversighted that material. I deleted both drafts under WP:BLPDEL: Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard.

I've looked through your contributions, and I see that you have a history of constructive contributions to biographies of living people. But creating pages like the Tesch and Johnson ones is not acceptable. If you haven't read WP:BLP in full, please go do so now. Please pay special attention to:

• WP:BLPCRIME: As a rule of thumb, unproven allegations against a person should not be mentioned unless the sourcing is impeccable and the relevance clear.
• WP:BLPPRIMARY: In general, it is not permitted to source material to primary sources, including government records. There is a limited allowance for the subject speaking about themself, but not when the claim is exceptional or the speaker's credibility questionable.
• WP:BLPNAME: People's relatives etc. should usually not be named. This is especially true if the relative is a minor.

The BLP policy is best understood in tandem with the reliable sources guideline. Adding excessive negative content that is sourced to reliable sources is a content issue. Adding any negative content that is sourced to unreliable sources is a conduct issue. You cannot cite Internet-celebrity tabloid sites, or people's YouTube videos, or, again, court records, to support any important claims in a BLP, especially not serious negative claims.

With all of that in mind: If you again add such seriously negative statements about living people, without sources or with low-quality sources, I will place you under an editing restriction regarding living people, potentially up to a ban from editing about living people entirely.

I don't want to do that. I've written all of this in hopes that I can steer you away from that outcome. I would strongly suggest you take some time away from any "true crime" BLP editing while you familiarize yourself with applicable policies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. After running into some issues attempting to create articles for a number of tabloid-popular figures (too many non-reliable sources conflated with reliable ones or made to look reliable when they're not; I was recently informed that Newsweek may be deprecated and unreliable), I have decided to only stick to creating/editing pages for media (such as books) for the time being, in order to keep my account in good standing. I had no intention of attempting to re-publish the Gloria Tesch or the Brittany Johnson articles, either. After those were proposed for deletion, I figured that the general consensus was that these are non-notable people who don't need whole pages about them. Thank you for the warning; I will stay away from BLP articles for now, or consult an admin if I have any further questions. PetSematary182 (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see Tamzin has given you some similar warnings above. You've now created the page Cristiane Serruya plagiarism scandal using several low-quality sources, intermixed with okay sources. Although it doesn't sound as severe as what Tamzin described, this is still not acceptable. There is also inappropriate synthesis through the inclusion of sources which do not describe Serruya herself, only plagiarism in general. I have removed most of the problematic material and draftified the article. Ovinus (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

PetSematary182 is indefinitely topic-banned from

1. Editing or discussing biographies of living, recently deceased, or possibly deceased people. (For the avoidance of ambiguity, "biography" may here refer to a biographical article, a biographical draft, or a biographical section in a non-biography article or draft.)
2. Editing or discussing any content about controversies involving such people, on any page.

PetSematary182 is warned that further issues with BLP compliance will lead to a full ban from the BLP area, and/or a block from editing.

You have been sanctioned because I warned you at length above regarding unsourced or poorly-sourced negative statements about living people, and you proceeded to create an article that accused someone of a tort that, at least based on what is said on the article, she was never found liable for, with the main thrust of the accusations sourced to self-published sources. I do not feel that it is in your, the encyclopedia's, or our BLP subjects' best interest for you to continue this kind of editing. Full BLP TBANs are often tricky, so I've stopped short of issuing one, but please heed the warning above. Full disclosure: My philosophy is that if I do need to issue a full BLP TBAN, that should generally come with an indefinite block.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to be clear, The New York Times, CBC News, The Guardian and other sources all exploring this case at length are "self-published"? Or unreliable? I'm not interested in appealing this thing (though it seems arbitrary to me, all things considered), but I'm just curious. I could see a source like The Daily Mail or something being considered deprecated and unreliable for BLP, but The New York Times and CBC, really? They were never listed in Wikipedia's deprecated sources list when I read up on the rules originally. PetSematary182 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your article did not cite a single reliable source saying that its subject definitively engaged in plagiarism. All three of those RSes reported on the accusations without endorsing them. The only sources saying it as more than an accusation were self-published ones. Furthermore, none of the RSes—nor even the plaintiff in the plagiarism case, I don't think—even use the word "fraud", which you asserted in the encyclopedia's voice in the lede sentence. Maybe reliable sources exist saying that, although I can't find any. Either way, all controversial claims in a BLP must be sourced now, not eventually. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC) ed. 23:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. I thought at least one of the secondary sources mentioned the word "fraud", but I'll leave that up to somebody else to sort through. PetSematary182 (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, all of the sources say alleged or some variant; the subject was not convicted of copyright infringement. It is always inappropriate to state in wikivoice that someone committed a crime or tort, if they were not convicted of that crime or tort. It is also inappropriate to omit all denials from the subject ([1] contains one, for example). Anyway, those points are moot, but I'd encourage you to enjoy editing some less-controversial areas of Wikipedia—there are plenty. Ovinus (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I apologize if I came off as rude in my last comment. PetSematary182 (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI @PetSematary182 this falls under editing a BLP. As does this, this. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to it. I suggest you self revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you thanked me for the above edit, which means you've read it. Your next edits should be self reverting, rather than making even more edits dealing with living people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit any other BLP articles, and I will revert the edits linking to the film Family Sins (note that somebody will most likely put them back eventually). PetSematary182 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying you did, I linked the three that you very much did edit though. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I have responded to each of those by reverting the edits. I was unaware that the film Food of the Gods II was a BLP article, though: to quote ScottishFinnishRadish, "your next edits should be self reverting, rather than making even more edits dealing with living people." Where are these "even more edits"? I edited a film page, not a BLP article. PetSematary182 (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. You edited Jill Eikenberry, Brent Spiner, Mimi Kuzyk which are BLPs which you are currently topic banned from. It doesn't matter what you're adding, you're not allowed to edit BLPs in any manner. What about this is confusing or unclear? PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're not reading the prior messages on my user talk page. Not you, but another Wikipedian, accused me of continuing to edit BLP articles post-the now-reverted links added between cast members and the movie Family Sins (I was not aware that this was included in the ban, I have since reverted those edits, and so that's over with. The other Wikipedian above, not you, accused me of continuing this even though I had reverted the edits and the only other recent edit I made was on a film page for Food of the Gods II That page is not BLP, it's a page for an 80s horror movie. You can check my history (presumably?) and see that Food of the Gods II was the last and only recent edit I have made to Wikipedia since the Family Sins edits that were reverted. PetSematary182 (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biographical section in a non-biography article or draft. Your best bet is to stay away from anything dealing with a BLP at all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: That's not a biographical section, at least not how I intended the phrase. I meant things like if an article on a band has a section that serves as a biography of each band member. Or something like the sections at Boston Red Sox minor league players. A cast list is fine. The three diffs that Prax linked are all indeed violations, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're really not trying to give you a hard time. I've seen several editors end up blocked due to not understanding the extent of a topic ban, so I was trying to prevent that. Also, recognizing the extent of the topic ban and self reverting will look good if and when you appeal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this information, and I'm very sorry if I was snappy or mean. I should not have responded so rudely, and this was immature of me. I just find that the rules seem very arbitrary. I may be misunderstanding the system here for how things are handled and why, and I'll try to improve in the future. PetSematary182 (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PetSematary182! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What's up with this article?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violation of your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~)). If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

PetSematary, I get that it might not feel like this, but I'm really trying to work with you here. I've made this a partial TBAN when I could have made it a full one, in recognition that a full one would force you to completely avoid the topic areas you most edit in. I declined to block you for the three TBAN violations Prax identified. I clarified, in your favor, that you are not banned from editing a cast list. But I don't understand how you could read the sanction I issued and think that creating a page like All My Friends Are Invisible is okay. Being a memoir, the "Plot" section is just a biography of the author. And then about half of the "Reception" section is people questioning the author's parenting decisions, so controversy involving a living person. That is both halves of your TBAN.

In the future, if you have questions about the scope of your TBAN, please ask me. Such questions are exempt from the TBAN. And if it would be easier for you for it to just be a full TBAN, I can do that, but again, that would preclude most of the editing you do here. Or if there's a way that I can word it better, let me know.

But because this was a pretty clear violation of both the "biographical section" provision and the "controversy" provision, I don't think I can let this off with just a warning. I'm blocking you for a week. Again, that probably feels unfair, but I'm being as generous here as I can justify. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My block expired today. Just to be sure, and to avoid any further issues, am I still banned from editing BLP articles, and does this also include non-fiction books/topics? PetSematary182 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To recapitulate:

• You cannot edit biographies of living, recently deceased, or possibly deceased people.
• You cannot edit sections of other articles that, if they were their own articles, would constitute biographies of living, recently deceased, or possibly deceased people. This includes plot sections of (auto)biographical works.
• You cannot edit about controversies involving living, recently deceased, or possibly deceased people, on any article page.

Does that make sense? Because if it doesn't, I can try to reformulate the restriction in some way that does, although it would probably wind up being broader. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does make sense. I will stay away from editing such pages or page sections. Thank you. PetSematary182 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear it. Also, please note correction above: "any page", not "any article". ("Page" includes talk pages, noticeboard threads, etc., while "article" would mean only mainspace.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @PetSematary182! A few days ago, I proposed your article The StoryGraph and proposed it for the Translation of the week project on Meta-Wiki. Up to now, it has received 2 positive votes. I would really appreciate it if you could vote here for the proposal to succeed so that other Wikipedias are encouraged to translate it. Thank you! --Brunnaiz (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing; I just added my vote of support. Thank you for proposing my article! PetSematary182 (talk) PetSematary182 (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182,

Thank you for creating List of anti-communist books.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This page has no references at all.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|FormalDude)). Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

––FormalDude talk 09:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182. Thank you for creating An Excess Male. User:FormalDude, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This article's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|FormalDude)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

––FormalDude talk 03:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182. Thank you for creating Letting Ana Go. User:VickKiang, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article! A good idea is to look at WP:RECEPTION (it's an essay, but still helpful).

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|VickKiang)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

VickKiang (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! PetSematary182 (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182. Thank you for creating Long Journey Back. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Bruxton)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182. Thank you for creating The Best Little Girl in the World (novel). User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Bruxton)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182. Thank you for creating The Grizzly (novel). User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

You're on a roll!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Bruxton)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Thank you for reviewing my articles! PetSematary182 (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Picture of Mairlyn Smith.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text ((Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>)) below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for engaging in sockpuppetry to violate your topic ban, as documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PetSematary182, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~)). If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

• It should go without saying, but the next block here will be indefinite. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:09, 13 September 2022 (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).

PetSematary182 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I don't so much wish to appeal, because perhaps my actions were still wrong here in some way, but I did want to point out that this other person, "KarenThurston1", is not a "sockpuppet". I emailed a friend who had a Wikipedia account for just uploading one image to a page about themselves, told them I'd been banned from certain edits, and asked them, since they had full editing privileges, if they would consider the edits since they were accurate edits. These edits have since been reverted by somebody I think, but I didn't make the edits myself. Maybe I shouldn't have asked another Wikipedian to make the edits in the first place, but isn't sockpuppetry where you literally pretend to be two different people at once and create multiple accounts managed by just one person? . PetSematary182 (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined due to WP:SNOW. What you are describing is sockpuppetry. Yamla (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2022 (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.

Note that the above explanation is likely an attempt to mislead, given the  Confirmed sockpuppetry here. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, asking a friend to add an edit under their account would be Meatpuppetry (but I wasn't trying to get them to support any one side to anything, it was just linking a book to an author and a photo to a person), but I guess that's a moot point. I accept the temporary ban, but I don't own or use the "KarenThurston1" account. That account belongs to someone else. PetSematary182 (talk) 13:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182,

Thank you for creating Lucy in the Sky (2012 novel).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for creating this! Though, I'm unsure if Lady Reader's Bookshelf is WP:RS.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|VickKiang)). Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

VickKiang (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Franco Garofalo poster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, The Good Mother (2013 film), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Sideswipe9th, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Conspiracy of Silence (1991 film), for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: ((proposed deletion/dated...))
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Sideswipe9th)). And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Baby-Doll, a character from the DC Comics franchise.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Calendar Girl from Batman.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak (talk) 05:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Deborah Gail Stone, 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 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) 11:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of age-related terms with negative connotations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Incontinence.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dying to Dance has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of films with no digital media release has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:OR. E.g. first source is from 2015, and only discussed DVD/Blu-Ray, not other digital releases.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dying to Dance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dying to Dance until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DonaldD23 talk to me 02:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Title page for Dying to Dance.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Newbia (book series) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lack of notability, as the page topic is a series of two self-published books based on references that are either hyper-local media outlets or online promotional descriptions.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:HerbandNikkiinWKRP.jpg, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• The image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled-down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated. (See section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
• It is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. (See section F2 of the criteria for speedy 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. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 12:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Newbia Bus Ad.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~)).   -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've made clear that I really didn't want it to come to this. As I said recently, I came to feel that this TBAN was not well-structured. For that reason, I've maintained a personal policy of not looking into whether you were violating it. But I happen to have Criticism of Amazon watchlisted due to its relevance in an SPI I worked. And when I saw this edit, which dances just on the border of the TBAN, I looked at your other recent edits, and saw [2] [3] [4] [5], all of which are, to one extent or another, about controversies involving living people, and which show the same issues with BLP sourcing that led to this TBAN in the first place, heavily relying on primary sources. (They also could be taken as promotional of Rebecca Maye Holiday, given your past edits about her.) I was trying to find a reason to not indefinitely block you when I noticed this. That one is just egregious. You say Some political pundits and activists, for example conservative political commentator Matt Walsh and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, have made a point of deliberately deadnaming public figures as an act of opposition. This is, to be clear, a blatant TBAN violation regardless of if the edit complied with WP:BLP and other policies, but it very much does not. The cited Xtra article mentions Peterson but does not reach that conclusion, and does not mention Walsh at all. Vice versa the Media Matters piece; even if it did reach that conclusion, it's not a reliable source for such claims. And finally, the third source... I mean, seriously? It's a random guy's rant-blog.

I'm going into all of this detail not because I have to—any one of the six diffs above could be grounds for an indef for TBAN violation—but to dispel any notion that this is you being blocked for construcitve edits on a technicality. You added unsourced and poorly-sourced negative content about living people, which is what the TBAN was in place to prevent. Clearly a TBAN is insufficient, and a siteblock necessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Good Mother (2013 film), 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 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) 12:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PetSematary182. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Good Mother".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Posters from two different media adaptations of the story of Gypsy Rose Blanchard.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Is Greta Thunberg Just A Puppet? book.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]