User talk:Bloodybrilliantmusic

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Whitewashing in film. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 06:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC) I did not add any original research. I removed items from the list of films because they did not meet the qualifications of said list. How do I site a source for something NOT qualifying for this list? (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Whitewashing in film, you may be blocked from editing. Please use the article's talk page EvergreenFir (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Again, I removed items from the list because they did not meet the qualifications of the list. "Without adequate explanation"? I explained every removal in detail. Removal of 'Batman Begins' "In the superhero film featuring Batman, actor Liam Neeson plays Ra's al Ghul, who is traditionally depicted in Batman comics to be of Arab descent." Reason for removal: Since 1944, Arabs have been deemed "white" by law. Liam Neeson is Irish-American, and also considered to be "white". A "white" actor portraying a "white" character does not constitute "whitewashing”.[reply]

Removal of 'The Wind and the Lion' "In the historical film "The Wind and the Lion" actor Sean Connery plays Mulai Ahmed er Raisuni, a leader of Berber insurrectionists." Reason for removal: The United States Census Bureau defines "white" people as those "having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa." This includes Berbers. Since both Berbers and English are considered "white", this is not an example of "whitewashing”.

Removal of 'Doctor Strange' "In this superhero film, actress Tilda Swinton plays the Ancient One, who in the comics is a man from Kamar-Taj, a fictional kingdom in the Himalayas” Reason for removal: this does not constitute “whitewashing” because the Himalayas are located in the Middle East, and the United States Census Bureau defines “white” people as those “having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.”

Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Yep did that EvergreenFir (talk) and it doesn't change the fact that I haven't published any original material.[reply]

you're coming to your own conclusions based on your own analyses, instead of looking at what the sources say. Perhaps WP:TRUTH would be a better place to point you toward. We only WP:VERIFY what reliable sources say. If you have an issue with content that's sourced, a WP:BOLD removal is fine but discuss it on the article's talk page. Otherwise it just appears you're removing things you don't like EvergreenFir (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Shouldn't there be sources provided for the content that I removed? Quoting the United States Census Bureau does not qualify as "coming to my own conclusions". Where are your sources that contradict the reasons given for removing the films from the list?[reply]

EvergreenFir (talk) , I suspect this user is the same person as User:Cpurcellartwork, who was banned for these exact same sort of OR additions and edit warring on this self same page last week (see their talk page here and the admin noticeboard for edit warring, here [1]). I am going to report this user to Wiki admin again now. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Kohoutek1138 - I have not engaged in any 'edit warring'; if you consider my edits to be 'edit warring' then you must acknowledge the fact that a 'war' is comprised of at least two sides (it takes 2 to tango) and thereby you implicate yourself as a participant in the 'edit war' - if my account is blocked or penalized due to this "edit war", Kohoutek1138 should receive the same penalty.[reply]

Edit warring

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you have been involved. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Whitewashing in film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What did I post that you consider to be a violation of 'neutral point of view'? I have not inserted any 'personal analysis' into any article, please let me know what was inserted that you consider to be 'my personal analysis'. Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You personally analyzed the article text, which is based on secondary sources, and elected to disqualify parts of the text that you personally found incorrect. Wikipedia editors are not supposed to engage in this kind of editorializing. We only summarize what sources have written about a topic, including the way they word their coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For example, regarding Doctor Strange, you engaged in personal analysis to try to "prove" that the listing was incorrect. It does not matter. The film is already the subject of such criticism, and both points and counterpoints can be included. There is no "ah-ha" item that would warrant its removal. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC) I understand regarding 'Doctor Strange', but how are the other 2 films I removed considered acceptable? I provided detailed reasons why I felt all 3 films did not qualify for the page, and the explanations were purely factual, not based on my personal feelings, beliefs or point of view. Fact is fact and I'd like to know why you see my explanation of such as anything but neutral. Even if you consider the explanations to be 'personal' and from my point of view, my edits of the article didn't include ANYTHING that could be misconstrued as such. Also, why was the page 'Blackwashing in film' removed?[reply]

I see a citation for Batman Begins, that specifically mentions whitewashing. I can't check the citation for the third film because it's a book and I don't happen to have a copy. I can find no evidence you built consensus for your changes on the article's discussion page, and I checked 1,000 edits there. As such, your claim "noone has provided information or any sources that contradict" is objectively false in at least two of the three cases, and strongly appears to be false in the third case. Your "detailed reasons" appears to refer to your edit summaries. That's not where you build consensus for your changes. That happens on the article's talk page, and most certainly does not permit you to blank sourced content or engage in edit-warring. You seem to misunderstand WP:CITE, WP:NOR, and WP:EW. You are quickly in danger of losing access to this talk page, so I very, very, very strongly suggest you stop, read those articles, and don't resume editing here until you have done so. You are wrong. Multiple people, including at least two admins, have told you that you are wrong. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs; see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Bringing up "blackwashing in film", is actively harming your case here. Drop that stick. --Yamla (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and I'm afraid I'm going to require an answer to this in your next edit, are you the same person behind Cpurcellartwork (talk · contribs)? If not, do you have any relationship at all to that user? --Yamla (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and 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 ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not make any disruptive edits! Why am I blocked? I removed several entries from the list of films on the 'Whitewashing in film' page. This was because they are not applicable. I provided examples for doing so and noone has provided information or any sources that contradict the reasons these films were removed! PLEASE ADVISE. Thanks. Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You haven't addressed your edit-warring. Additionally, I took a look at a string of edits you made to Whitewashing in film, specifically this string of edits. I see you are removing sourced content. All three of the films you removed are cited. Given the edit-warring and the sourced content removal, I believe your block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2018 (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.

I just modified the reason in the block template slightly after the unblock request was posted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC) What? Please explain, User:SarekOfVulcan...[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).

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

Request reason:

How is the content I removed 'sourced'? What do you mean by this? Yes, the movies exist, but they do not apply to the topic 'Whitewashing in film' and therefor should not be on that page. How am I supposed to 'address my edit-warring'? Why have the other users involved in the so-called 'edit-warring' not been blocked? Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You make it abundantly clear that you intend to continue doing the things which led to your being blocked, despite the fact that it must be clear to you that there is unanimous consensus against you. Unblocking you would clearly not benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2018 (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.

You can see the sources in the link I provided, the one where you removed the three movies. For example, the one on Doctor Strange links to this source. The title of that article is, quite literally, "Marvel Responds to ‘Doctor Strange’ ‘Whitewashing’ Criticisms Over Tilda Swinton Casting". I'm not making any statement on whether they are sufficiently sourced or appropriately sourced, but you claimed they were unsourced, which is just not the case. --Yamla (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC) Thank you Yamla for explaining this. JamesBWatson I never said that I would 'continue doing the things which led to me being blocked'; you have a right to your personal opinion, but please refrain from fabricating intentions and claiming that I 'make my intentions "abundantly clear"' when I have never said anything of the sort. You also said "it must be clear to you that there is unanimous consensus against you" - sorry but you don't have the right to decide what 'must be clear to me'. When you say "Unblocking you would clearly not benefit the project", to which project are you referring? Wikipedia as a whole, or the 'Whitewashing in film' article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are answers to the points you raise in your message above, and also advice relating to a couple of points from your latest unblock request, below.

I don't see any way of reading what you have written in your unblock requests other than as meaning that you don't accept that there is any problem with what you were doing and that you don't intend to change your ways. I see that in your new unblock request, you have said that you will not edit war again, which is a step forward, but you had not said that when I wrote the above message that you refer to.

Five different editors have reverted your edits to the article Whitewashing in film. Five different administrators have either blocked one or the other of your accounts or declined your unblock requests. Several of those ten editors have posted messages to this page or the talk page of your other account explaining that they think you are mistaken. Two separate reports on your two accounts at the edit warring noticeboard did not get a single editor to support you. Not a single editor has ever expressed support for your editing on any page anywhere. If it is not clear to you that consensus is against you then you have such a lack of ability to hear what other people are saying to you that it is unlikely you will ever be able to edit collaboratively.

I don't suggest accusing the administrator who blocked you of hypocrisy. Even acts which you think are mistaken may be done in good faith.

As for blocking "the other user involved" in the edit war, there was no one other editor who kept reverting endlessly, as you did: there was a consensus among several different editors who each independently reverted a smaller number of times.

Did you take the advice, given to you three times above, to read the guide to appealing blocks? If not I advise you for a fourth time to do so, as following the advice in that guide will considerably increase the likelihood of your eventually being unblocked.

By benefiting the project I mean benefiting Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

The person who denied my unblock appeal, JamesBWatson, did so based on his opinion of what my intentions may be, instead of reviewing the unblock request based on fact; I don't understand how the unblock request can be denied based on this persons IDEA of what I MAY or may not intend to do at any point in the future. I will refrain from edit-warring, although it seems extremely hypocritical that I was blocked for edit warring while the other user involved was not blocked as well.--Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2018 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

You say "I don't see any way of reading what you have written in your unblock requests other than as meaning that you don't accept that there is any problem with what you were doing and that you don't intend to change your ways.” It appears to me that a primary factor in your treatment of my account stems from your lack of ‘being able to see’ anything from my point of view, and dismissing or ignoring what I have previously said. I said that "I will refrain from edit-warring” and also "I never said that I would 'continue doing the things which led to me being blocked” - I don’t understand how you could read those two statements and then claim that I “don’t intend to change my way” when that is quite literally what I have said. Five editors reverted edits and Five administrators have blocked me - are you sure that theres no crossover here? Just curious about that. "you have such a lack of ability to hear what other people are saying to you that it is unlikely you will ever be able to edit collaboratively.” Thanks for the personal attacks and degradations, that really helps logically and professionally get your point across (not!). "Even acts which you think are mistaken may be done in good faith.” uh, have you even once considered that my actions were done ‘in good faith’ and the problem in part is due to you thinking my acts are ‘mistaken’? "By benefiting the project I mean benefiting Wikipedia.” do you really think I only intend to argue with people and work on the ONE page that has led to my being blocked? I made and plan to make other contributions, yet you conveniently ignore this.

Decline reason:

Turns out, you are also evading the block on Cpurcellartwork (talk · contribs). As such, you aren't even eligible for unblock consideration here. I have revoked talk page access and will make note you've been evading your block, over on that account. Yamla (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2018 (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.