User talk:49Bottles

Hi, I'm 49Bottles. Glad to meet you all!

Jesus Franco filmography

This is the original filmography that was removed from the Jesus Franco wiki article and replaced with a much streamlined version by another editor:

previous iteration

Hi 49Bottles. I've re-removed the list. Per WP:NLIST. Several pieces of material in that list were uncited or cited poorly, or were not backed up by the two books (which were just cited without page numbers or scrutiny). Without context for various items like alternative titles, this list is not useful for the average reader.

The current article is a far clearer read, and does follow the sources strictly without interpretation or flat out unsourced material. Please do not revert it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I do appreciate its good to know what actors Franco has worked with, this requires context or a third-party source to bring up signifigant coverage. I'm sure fans like to see people were together as teams, but to the average reader, the importance of this would not be known. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted more than 80% of the Franco article with the click of a button, without any discussion on the talk page whatsoever. The section you deleted was meticulously designed so that a wiki-reader could quickly search the "NOTES" column and see the entire history of the collaborations (in date order) between Franco and the various actors and crew members he worked with. That column contains an ENORMOUS amount of researched data that took years to amass and verify. You replaced it with a bunch of near-empty columns that do not contain any of that information which you so casually deleted! 49Bottles (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, almost every Franco film has alternate titles. The filmography you created only shows one title for each film (apparently chosen randomly by you) which means if someone is trying to look up a title on your filmography page, they have to be able to guess which title you chose for each film. If they know the film by an alternate title, they cannot possibly find it on your filmography page. I have no objection to your creating that separate filmography page (although it was unnecessary in my opinion), but I don't understand why you so cavalierly decided to erase almost everything on the main article page without even consulting anyone. A lot of people worked for YEARS to create that page, and you just delete the whole thing without asking?? This is outrageous behavior. Every scrap of data on that list was backed up using the same two Stephen Thrower books you refer to yourself. 49Bottles (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a compromise? I suggest we leave BOTH lists up so the readers can avail themselves of ALL the available information, instead of having you censor certain data that you personally are not interested in, wouldn't that be fair? I located the link to your filmography page above the other section, so the reader would see your page first. If you wish, you can even move your filmography's link all the way up to the top of the article. But PLEASE do not take it upon yourself to boldly delete 80% of an article that has been on wiki for so many years on a whim? You can correct any errors that you find in the research, no problem. But you have no right to barge in like you own the page and make wholesale alterations to an article like that! 49Bottles (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were no sources or any the material and simply cited two books without specific references. It shouldn't have been written this way as it fails WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC). ::Not to mention the current filmography was also against WP:FILMOGRAPHY, which suggests "The notes field should not be allowed to get overly cluttered." Which it has been to a more than what I would describe as an "extent." Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'd agree that user 49Bottles was not always civil in their criticisms, I do believe that their criticisms were very valid. The old Franco filmography section was the most accurate and thorough catalog of Franco's films generally available on the internet. The new version, while sleeker, is basically useless (especially given the proliferation of titles for many films). Cloreenbaconskin (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, Cloreen. I can tell you are a Jesus Franco fan. The page he created is almost void of any useful information. 49Bottles (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How did you end up here, @Cloreenbaconskin? Valereee (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cloreen, I don't know who you are, but did you get blocked also for emailing that comment regarding the Franco article? 49Bottles (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing...you claim the research on that page was "not backed up by the two books (which were just cited without page numbers...). They were the same two books YOU used yourself to create your filmography page. You should know that those books feature a separate chapter on each Franco film, chronologically arranged in the table of contents. So it's obvious what pages correspond to each film in the two books. Also you wrote "to the average reader, the importance of this (information) would not be "known" (meaning relevant, I'm guessing?). The people who have used that Franco article for reference all these years are not "average readers", they are obviously VERY interested in learning about who Franco collaborated with or they wouldnt be researching the topic to begin with. The readers should be permitted to read any or all parts of the article and decide for themselves what facts regarding the topic are relevant to them, without your censoring what information they are permitted to read. Let's compromise and agree to leave both sections up, ok? That's the fairest thing to do. They'll be set up as two separate articles, so they won't interfere with each other at all. In fact, they will compliment each other. 49Bottles (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fans are going to want to know various different elements. And yes, I did cite those books, but on reading the material, I couldn't find a lot of the material said being backed up. I'll agree that Franco's filmography is complicated, but extrenious detail will make it more unusual for a general audience, which is who Wikipedia is written for. If you want to create the extra details, I'm sure several fan wikis will accommodate such information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What arrogance! Why don't YOU write for the fan wikis and stop your disruptive behavior? I think your actions border on vandalism! Another thing --- your filmography is rife with errors. It's not even well-done. You even admit that "Franco's filmography is complicated" and yet it looks like you created the entire page in less than TWO DAYS!! The page you are deleting took ten YEARS to create! 49Bottles (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your future comments directly to the "Jesus Franco" Talk page. I don't want you cluttering up my talk page with insanely long walls of text like you have done to other editors. 21:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 49Bottles (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to follow-up there. If you could follow up with the aspects that are "rife with errors" or not well done? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You created that entire page in TWO days?? Then you used it to replace a page that took about TEN YEARS to create??And you don't believe your work contained any errors?? You weren't even equipped to tackle a topic that complicated and intricate to begin with! 49Bottles (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andrzejbanas: After you vandalized the "Jesus Franco" article unnecessarily today by deleting almost 80% of the article's content without consulting anyone on the Franco talk page, I did a bit of research and I see you are currently blocked from editing a number of wiki pages due to "disruptive behavior" and "Sealioning". Apparently you have a HISTORY of boldly deleting whole sections of various wikipedia articles without going through the proper editing procedures. You have exhibited an amazing arrogance by erasing a number of people's work, and then blaming it all on your personal psychological problems. You have harassed and annoyed a number of editors by posting novel-length "walls of text" on their talk pages, in an attempt to force your opinions on them during various talk-page discussions. (See August 6, 2024 and August 12, 2024 on this guy's talk page above). I guess you haven't learned your lesson? I see you haven't changed your ways, that's for sure. Needless to say, i'm not responding any further to your future comments other than to advise you to get some serious help with learning proper editing procedure as soon as possible. 49Bottles (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bottles, I'm not sure what the rule stand on linking to older version of articles as you've done here falls into wiki standards or genuinely removing the entire article and replacing it with the older unsourced filmography here stands, but I would suggest not adding unsourced material per WP:RS ("articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.") I'm not going to go into a revert war over this, but I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit that you noted here was just an error on my part. I just messed it up, but another editor fixed it before I had to, which was a relief to me. I'm sorry about that error, but it's fixed now.49Bottles (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee said I should take it upon myself to research the information you deleted and add .the missing sources you referred to. So I have to save it so the information can be verified. This way it's still accessible to readers if they wish to access that information, which may be a good solution to this whole problem. I would agree that we should NOT get involved in a edit war over this, especially if you are already blocked from editing for disruptive behavior. You already reverted it twice.49Bottles (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest creating a draft page to work on it. (see WP:DRAFT for instructions). Also, I reverted your edit once, the article history here shows its other editors. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

If you think another user is breaking the rules, by all means seek help from other users and/or report them to the administrators, but saying things like "i'm not responding any further to your future comments other than to advise you to get some serious help as soon as possible" is not okay even if someone is engaging in disruptive behaviour. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to his contacting a wikipedia mentor and seeking some help in learning how to better follow wikipedia's rules for proper editing procedure. Apparently he's been blocked from editing a number of times!!! 49Bottles (talk) 22:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if you think there has been an infraction, seek aid from administrators. Otherwise, comment on contributions not on people. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I would suggest trying not to attack editors to get your points across. I apologize that I made a bold edit that you dislike, but lists require individual citations and need to follow the rules I've mentioned to you previously. Please don't tell readers what you mentioned above three times in a span of less than an hour. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop harassing people! 49Bottles (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Per this statement and this. I would like to continue on your thoughts on how we can improve the filmography or if there are errors, let us address that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HerbLightman. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I replied to him and explained that I do not know any of those editors. I only found their names on your talk pages, where they apparently were engaged in arguments with you for a number of months. I never knew them before that. They will verify it, I'm sure. 49Bottles (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

Just as a heads up, when citing material, be sure to state what the source says. The page number you applied here does not go into detail about the titles. Another page does, where Thrower notes an English language title for the film used from a Dutch home video release. Your edit summary said this was based on English prints of the film, but the page you cited only notes European home video and theatrical titles. While I'm glad you are offering to help, please make sure to WP:STICKTOSOURCE , as the rule states "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you wrote in the article "Films are listed by their most common English language title, whether it be home video or theatrical. The Dutch video is the only English-dubbed version of the film available ad it was called KISS ME KILLER. That wasn't the film's original title, but it was the only English language version. Problem is a lot of Franco fans refer to the film as Embrasse-Moi or La Calda Bestia (both titles being the actual original theatrical release titles in France and Italy), so someone looking up Embrasse-Moi would just think that you forgot to include it in your filmography. 18:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 49Bottles (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While definitely an issue, WP:NCFF states we should "use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world." and I think we can apply "Titles of articles should be the most commonly used title" for a filmography. In this case, I don't see your issue as the description states if the film had an English title home video, we used it, which was the case now for Kiss Me Killer.

As for possibly mixing it up with another title, I think if anyone was hunting for a specific title, they'd know it by its most common name, which we've established and you listed it as. If we really had an alternative title that was debatably just as common. As the article is already very long, I don't think we need to introduce the plethora of extra titles for relatively minor titles that don't even have their own article, let alone a clear production history. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it up to see if any other editors have suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Filmographies_and_Titles_for_Multi-country_filmakers. Feel free to chime in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should post future comments directly to the Jesus Franco Filmography Talk page, or my talk page here is going to become a novel.49Bottles (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

I would suggest to stop linking to old version of articles. Per MOS:DRAFTNOLINK "In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace". In short, the average reader expects to click a link to be brought to a regular wikipedia page, or a clearly designated external link. Linking to a historical version of an edit is not going to be obvious to editors.

This is the second time you have been reverted for doing this (see here). Please do not do it again. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my talk page blocked also?49Bottles (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My IP address is 68.129.16.246. Andrzejbanas caused my IP address to be blocked back in December for four months for sockpuppetry, claiming I was another editor named Herblightman. I complained at that time that I am not that person, but the block remained. When the block expired, I was advised by a wikipedia notice to create an account, which I named 49Bottles. That was my first real account on wikipedia, I have nothing to do with his enemy Herblightman. But since we had a disagreement, he wanted to get me off wikipedia so he accused me again of being this HerbLightman guy! If you look back in December, you'll see there was no actual evidence that linked me to Herblightman, we are two entirely separate people with separate IP addresses. Please go back and look at the earlier block I got in December, and you will see that Andrzejbanas framed me because I was disagreeing with him on the Jesus Franco page he deleted without seeking consensus on the Franco Talk Page. Thank you for your time to look into this matter, you'll see I am not connected to this Herblightman character nor to his IP address in any way.49Bottles (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|My IP address is 68.129.16.246. Andrzejbanas caused my IP address to be blocked back in December for four months for sockpuppetry, claiming I was another editor named Herblightman. I complained at that time that I am not that person, but the block remained. When the block expired, I was advised by a wikipedia notice to create an account, which I named 49Bottles. That was my first real account on wikipedia, I have nothing to do with his enemy Herblightman. But since we had a disagreement, he wanted to get me off wikipedia so he accused me again of being this HerbLightman guy! If you look back in December, you'll see there was no actual evidence that linked me to Herblightman, we are two entirely separate people with separate IP addresses. Please go back and look at the earlier block I got in December, and you will see that Andrzejbanas framed me because I was disagreeing with him on the Jesus Franco page he deleted without seeking consensus on the Franco Talk Page. Thank you for your time to look into this matter, you'll see I am not connected to this Herblightman character nor to his IP address in any way. ~~~~}} 49Bottles (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]