User talk:Wall poster cinemas

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).

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

Request reason:

This a movie production house to understand. Wall poster cinemas (talk) 11:28, 23 October 2024 (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. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2024 (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 is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

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

Blocking administrator: HJ Mitchell (talk)

Reviewing administrator: --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request reason:

I believe my account was blocked in error. I was editing in good faith and did not intend to violate any policies. Please let me know if I need to make changes to my approach. Thank you. Wall poster cinemas (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=I believe my account was blocked in error. I was editing in good faith and did not intend to violate any policies. Please let me know if I need to make changes to my approach. Thank you. Wall poster cinemas (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

[reply]

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed|1=I believe my account was blocked in error. I was editing in good faith and did not intend to violate any policies. Please let me know if I need to make changes to my approach. Thank you. Wall poster cinemas (talk) 11:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

[reply]

HJ Mitchell, it doesn't look like this editor managed to make any edits before being blocked, but there's no link to an SPI case either. Can you comment on the block? -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: Putting the unblock request on hold while we wait, so that the appeal is not listed in CAT:RFU in the meantime. Feel free to swap your signature in if you'd like. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering they're on a range populated by spam accounts and they want to write about a company. That's a hard pass from me. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so it's not a checkuser block for being associated with anyone in particular, meaning this is basically a standard "blocked for promotional username" with extra grounds for skepticism? -- asilvering (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it's a checkuser block because only a CU can review the original basis of the block but the information received since makes me extremely sceptical that this was a false positive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, I think. @Wall poster cinemas, I'm afraid it's not looking great, but do you want to tell us about what you were planning on writing on wikipedia? -- asilvering (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]