User talk:Cerenok9919

January 2012

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit to Jennifer Grey, please be advised that the Lead section of an article is to be a summary of the most salient things for which a subject is notable, which is generally stated upfront in the opening sentence of that section. Jennifer Grey's debut film is not that for which she is best known, and is covered further down in the article's Career section. If you have a valid, policy-based rationale with which you disagree with this, then please, let's discuss this on the article's talk page. Otherwise, please do not disrupt the article, as WP:LEAD is clear.

Since your edit is identical to one that has previously been made by four IP accounts, 178.167.177.233, 92.251.152.218, 178.167.215.84, and 92.251.136.142, all of which are traced to the same general area in Ireland, and the last of which was recently blocked, you need to be aware that sock puppetry is not permitted on Wikipedia, and is a blockable offense. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, not only will you be blocked from editing, but the article itself will be protected against any further disruption. Please do not make that necessary. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Grey's debut film is the first film in which she has appeared therefore making it notable for her career.

Are you going to continue to participate in the article talk page discussion? Nightscream (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reverted the article yet again, despite the fact that you have chosen not to participate in the talk page discussion. You're not going to be permitted to simply revert the article without discussion if you are in involved in an editorial disagreement with other editors, as the article does not belong to you, any more than it does to me. Editors who have editorial disagreements with one another are required to discuss such disagreements, and resolve them before reverts are made to the article. If one editor refuses to do so, then that editor forfeits the right to continue reverting the article, as doing so constitutes edit warring. Edit warring is an offense that can result in your being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. Now are you going to continue to discuss the matter with me so that we can attempt to resolve this mutually? Nightscream (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is causing disagreement then I apologise but Jennifer Grey's debut film is very notable because it was her first significant work in showbusiness so I think it is only right that this information be kept in the opening paragraph. If you have a different opinion on the matter then please try to make it clear to me. talk 19:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It adds to the notability of Reckless and should be in that article's intro. However, most of our articles about film actors do not mention their debuts (Harrison Ford, for instance, does not mention his debut in Dead Heat On A Merry-Go-Round), particularly if they were small or uncredited roles. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Here's an excellent example: It's worth mentioning in the lead of The Tiger Makes Out that it's Dustin Hoffman's film debut (probably the only thing notable about that film in retrospect). But the article about Hoffman doesn't mention it in the intro, instead properly referencing The Graduate as his breakthrough role (much as Ferris Bueller's Day Off is Grey's). Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I request that we please keep this discussion on the article's talk page, where it began? I've copy and pasted the above recent responses to that discussion, and responded. Please let's go there. Nightscream (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cerenok, I thank you for (it seems) grasping the point above. However, your latest edits to the lede of that article have been seen as somewhat disruptive as well. Please stop revert warring; I've initiated another discussion thread on the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Continually reverting to your preferred version while other editors are trying to discuss with you at Talk:Jennifer Grey.

I would be happy to unblock if you show that you're willing to work with others to find a consensus on the talk page, and understand that the continual reversion is disruptive and you agree to stop. - jc37 18:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Nightscream and Daniel but I think that Jennifer Grey is better known for 'Dirty Dancing' than for 'Ferris Bueller's day off' making it obvious that she became known for her role in the latter first which I don't think that you made clear in your revision of the page. And I think it is unreasonable that you should accuse me of edit warring when you are the person here who is constantly restoring the page without good reason. I ask that you remove the block Jc37, or I will have to report you for edit warring as you did not make your point clear. Cerenok 9919

I don't care which version the page resides at. The constant reversion was disruptive. and even when warned (both here and at the article's talk page), you continued. Hence the block. - jc37 22:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constant disruption was also aimed at me, and even when I tried to come to a respective solution by leaving out her debut film my revison was disrupted. It seems that only their opinions have been considered, so I urge you to take away the block because I have now tried to reason with you. Cerenok 9919

"Excuse me, Nightscream and Daniel but I think that Jennifer Grey is better known for 'Dirty Dancing' than for 'Ferris Bueller's day off'..."

It doesn't matter what your argument is for your preferred version. When other editors disagree with you, then you talk it over with them on the article's talk page. You don't revert over and over, without leaving edit summaries for your edits (which also require your rationale), and ignore others' polite attempts to communicate with you. You were told about the policy prohibiting edit warring, you were warned that it was a blockable offense, and you brazenly engaged in it anyway. So stop pretending that you're in the right here.

"And I think it is unreasonable that you should accuse me of edit warring when you are the person here who is constantly restoring the page without good reason." I provided my reasons for my edits in my edit summaries, and in further detail on your talk page, and on the article's talk page, as did Daniel. This demonstrated both our adherence to the site's policies and good article writing, as well as our good faith attempt to resolve the dispute with you. In addition, when it appeared that you might have been interested in discussing the matter, I ceased reverting the article (as is required by the edit warring policy), hoping to hear back from you, and only reverted it again when you made it clear that you had no intention of participating further in the discussion beyond that one message on January 25. By contrast, none of this can be said of you. So for you to claim that we were the ones "constantly restoring the page without good reason", and that any accusations of edit warring leveled against you are "unreasonable", is spurious, to put it mildly.

"I ask that you remove the block Jc37, or I will have to report you for edit warring as you did not make your point clear." All three of us have made our point plainly clear numerous times since the beginning of your edit warring and sock puppetry on January 21 in our edit summaries and in our numerous attempts to communicate with you on the two aforementioned talk pages, and this includes links placed on your page to the relevant policy pages. If anything was unclear, you should've read those policy/guideline pages, and engaged us in discussion in order to ask us to clarify anything that was unclear. You didn't. But if you honestly believe that there is some place on this site where other members of the editing community are going to block Jc37, of all people, when he's reverted the article precisely twice, and you've done so a dozen times (seven with your username account, at least five more with your IP socks), and especially after they review the behavior on your part that got you blocked, by all means, please be sure to link us to that discussion.

"Constant disruption was also aimed at me..." Nothing was "aimed" at you. Other editors tried to talk to you in order to work things out with you. You ignored them. Stop trying to play the part of the victim. It doesn't suit you. Nightscream (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point that I did not discuss the matter in any talk page when I should have to begin with.