User talk:EuroHorrorGuy

Hi, I'm EuroHorrorGuy. Feel free to contact me here if you have something to say.EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EuroHorrorGuy, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi EuroHorrorGuy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Trilby (disambiguation)[edit]

Please note that disambiguation pages like Trilby (disambiguation) are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory
Do not add articles to acronym or initials disambiguation pages unless the person or entity is widely known by that name (in which case it should be stated in the linked article).

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, edit summaries[edit]

Hello, EuroHorrorGuy. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. You might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing. Eric ^talk 02:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1911 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Nichols.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok I fixed it. Thanks.EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references! However, you should know that adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just URL copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between <ref>...</ref> tags, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already entered one or more bare urls to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles, and to avoid future link rot, please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full, inline citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. More information can be found at Wikipedia:Inline citations. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Mario Bava, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only put that link there to bring to your attention how the internet fans regard Weisser's book as riddled with errors. You apparently regard it as a legitimate source on Bava's career. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. This in response to your edit on Shéhérazade (film) here Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added three sources as references EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did, but you are using low quality sources. I've asked before but please read WP:RS. Do not use User driven databases for sourcing. This includes Rate Your Music which any user can edit and Film Affinity per the reasons above. If you have questions, I'm happy to try and help so you can contribute. You have been editing here under this user name for three years, so you aren't new. You know that these aren't usable sources. Also, try to use a full citation instead of just adding ref tags. See template:cite web to try and get the hang of it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

High quality sources[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. I have to ask. Why do you think As stated above, why did you think FilmAffinity, Rate Your Music or Pinterest were acceptable sources? You had previously discussed with me how you found one book unreliable, but then went for user-submitted content on Pinterest and FilmAffinity and RateYourMusic. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sites looked legitimate and seemed very popular with users. They seem to pop up immediately on google searches. I am not privy to the inner workings of resource sites on the web, I don't know who runs them personally or how their information is verified. Many times I see these sites used as references in other wikipedia articles, so I assume they are legitimate. Technically speaking, imdb is not banned outright on wikipedia, it's just not preferred. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not the only one who found Weisser's book unreliable. It is notorious for being ridiculed by many reviewers and movie fans. There are sites that even WARN people not to use it as a reference source. Even though it's an entertaining read to many, Weisser is not an expert on Mario Bava's career. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you based on your edit that says we should use information Weisser's book as you said "look it says it's directed by Both Bava and Antonio Román!" then saying the book isn't reliable. I was using an opinion from the book, who is as published as an author as Troy Howarth. I wasn't pulling "facts", and am not trying to apply him as a director or not, he states a contemporary note that declares it's controversial to who actually directed that film. Which is an overall statement, backed up Cox, Lucas and Howarth giving varied reports on who directed what. Now, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE wikipedia infoboxes should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article." We are pretty guilty of doing this on films, but as it's not clear who did what and how much due to varied reports, it's better to have users read prose and let them figure it out within the Savage Gringo article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine, but you deleted the title entirely from the "Mario Bava" filmography page. I have no idea what percentage of the film Bava actually directed or what percentage Roman directed, but that's not the issue here. The fact is, ALL of the reference sources agree that Bava worked on that film to some extent, so all I'm saying is, it should be listed in his filmography, just like Caltiki and I Vampiri are listed. It doesn't matter how much of the film he directed, but it should at LEAST be included in his filmography on the Mario Bava page, since all of the sources agree that Bava worked on that film in SOME capacity (otherwise Lamberto wouldn't have been involved). Why not just list it on the filmography and write in the Notes Column "Bava aided in this film's completion after the director was fired". Wouldn't that cover it? To omit it from his filmography altogether when we know he worked on the film leaves a gap, in my opinion. I'm just saying it should be acknowledged in his filmography. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm curious how we should handle that. I think we should figure out someway to credit that some parts of the film he directed without going into overt detail. (as he did with a lot of the uncredited work.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about listing it on the filmography and leave all the boxes blank except for "Other". Then write in the Notes Column "Helped to complete film after director was fired". That's vague enough, isn't it? EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure we can probably do something like that. I'll get in the sources on it later.Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Unblock my Account[edit]

Can someone please help me to unblock my wikipedia account? Someone reported me for being a sockpuppet, and now my account is blocked. EuroHorrorGuy is my only account, I do not have multiple accounts. I haven't been accused of violating wikipedia rules. There has been a misunderstanding here, or else someone is maliciously trying to block me from editing. Please help?? See my editing history to see how long I have contributed to editing wikipedia and I have not been accused of any wrongdoing. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A report at User talk:EdJohnston#Potential sockpuppetry 68.129.15.71 links to some past discussions involving EuroHorrorGuy and bad editing of film articles. The complaint included unsourced changes, and the use of a book that nobody else could access. The pattern suggested that the editor 68.129.15.71 (talk · contribs), blocked in the past for as long as one year, had created a series of registered accounts to get around the IP block. People such as User:Andrzejbanas and User:Betty Logan who often edit film articles may know more about this guy. See a 2020 report on my talk. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrzejbanas is the only person who wrote hurtful things on my talk page, because he and I used to edit the same topics all the time, and he didn't want anyone else editing "his pages". If you look at my editing history, you will see he literally stalked me from topic to topic, always deleting my work and trying to get me blocked. The slightest error on my part would result in days of my work being entirely deleted. He would fill my talk page with nasty, threatening messages trying to intimidate me into quitting wikipedia. Look at my editing history and you will see how this individual was obsessed with cyber-stalking me for years. Yet no one else ever complained about my work. He simply did not want anyone else editing any of the pages he was interested in. If you discount his harassment, you'll see that no one else ever had a problem with my work. It's not right that one bully should be able to harass the other editors into quitting wikipedia. Why is such behavior allowed? Now he's accusing me of abusing multiple accounts when I only have one account. He just wants wikipedia all to himself. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awhile back, I lost the use of my personal computer and a local bookstore was nice enough to allow me to use their public computer to access wikipedia. I only have one account, so this sockpuppet accusation is totally false. User:Andrzejbanas has been after me to quit wikipedia for quite some time now, and he is falsifying this sockpuppet accusation now to get rid of me. He is very hostile toward competing editors, just look at his history of harassing any editors who try to edit his favorite articles. It is harassment like this that dissuades people from contributing to wikipedia. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~So you have a sort of WP:BROTHER excuse for how~~. It is curious that you and the other blocked accounts all happen to be using the same internet access. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbLightman/Archive for the technical evidence. If a group of adjacent people all happen to use the same internet connection (as in a bookstore), how likely is it that those particular people would share a certain pattern for editing movie articles? Pure coincidence? If they worked on different parts of Wikipedia it would be less surprising. As it is, it looks to be just one person. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed several of your edits over the years and that is because several of them go against the rules of MOS:Film and WP:RS and WP:OR. Any glance at your talk page history shows excessive patterns of these messages being removed and the same editing patterns for years that ignore the rules. it's okay to make mistakes, but it's the same pattern of mistakes for years now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand if I'm such a terrible editor, why you are the only one who kept writing warnings on my page? It seemed like you were following me from topic to topic, trying to find anything to criticize. Even when I used an authoritative published source (hardcover books), the reference I used was never good enough. Now my friend's bookstore IP is being blocked. He didn't even know he was doing anything wrong, why can't they at least unblock his store's IP? He's being punished for being a nice guy. Very sad. Well, enjoy your editing! EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again i'm not a mod, but it was several edits by the user names suggested that the accounts were editing the same article, and even other editors were removing content from other editors talk pages. As for your edits, after you made edits sourcing editable databases ( see WP:RS, or just not even having sources, or going against the manual of style MOS:FILM, or not adding page numbers, there were several edits that just didn't seem interested in following the rules, and this has gone on for years. I'm curious now you seem to know what an IP was because last time you were accused of using multiple accounts, you said you did not even know what an IP was... Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use multiple accounts, I only have my one account. That's why I didn't know what I was being accused of. /i think this whole thing is a case of mistaken identity, and nobody's interested in fixing it. EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing a block on my account[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Can someone please help me to unblock my wikipedia account? Someone reported me for being a sockpuppet, and now my account is blocked. EuroHorrorGuy is my only account, I do not have multiple accounts. I haven't been accused of violating any wikipedia rules. There has been a misunderstanding here, or else someone is maliciously trying to block me from editing. Please help?? See my editing history to see how long I have contributed to editing wikipedia and I have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Awhile back, I lost the use of my personal computer and a local bookstore was nice enough to allow me to use their public computer to access wikipedia. I only have one account, so this sockpuppet accusation is totally false. User:Andrzejbanas has been after me to quit wikipedia for quite some time now, and he is falsifying this sockpuppet accusation now to get rid of me. He is very hostile toward competing editors, just look at his history of harassing any editors who try to edit his favorite subjects. It is harassment like this that dissuades people from contributing to wikipedia by making them feel unappreciated.EuroHorrorGuy (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's not false, once one user on a computer is blocked, others making similar edits on that computer are blocked. This is called meat puppetry. The originally blocked user has requested unblock, that will probably need to be resolved first. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2023 (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.