User talk:Ring Cinema/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ring Cinema. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
July 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Godfather. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Godfather. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
You have now reverted two different editors to restore your preferred version. here and here. You are edit warring, so please stop or I will take this to 3rr. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rationalobserver (talk • contribs) 18:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Aoidh (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- I attacked no editors. If you're an admin, apologize for abusing your privileges. I expect you to take care of that today, and I expect you to avoid any repeats of that abusive behavior. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Claiming Bbb harassed you when they explained policy to you is a personal attack. I'm going to remove that nonsensical comment from the edit-warring noticeboard, since an innocent passer-by might think that you know what you're talking about, and that there is merit to your claim. For the record, edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Edit warring does not require the 3R rule is broken. Et cetera. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Complete nonsense. Another sad attempt to intimidate me for correctly pointing out an admin made a mistake. I note that you are so afraid that word might leak out that the admins got something wrong that you actually removed the evidence. Only admins think other people believe that admins don't make mistakes. I'm improving Wikipedia and this continued harassment for correcting the admins when they are mistaken is not. I would suggest you follow my example and try to improve Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The English Patient (film)
Here is a copy of the message I left you on TEP talk page:
- To Ring Cinema: You have some fundamentally mistaken ideas about what a film plot should be, as well as mistaken ideas about what constitutes fact vs. original research (please see WP:OR). The guidelines are very clear! Your insistence on including your feelings about what the characters do, feel, are (Caravaggion is "ready for forgiveness"; Hana "puts her fears to rest"' a bomb is "frightening", the patient was "once-dashing") all constitute original research and have no place in a film plot summary. For the most part, adjectives get you into that territory and should be avoided. The plot summary should not contain reproduced dialogue, as this: WP:FILMPLOT states explicitly, so I removed all of what you put back in. It is your opinion that Hana is "catching a ride" to join Kip--that may be implied but it is not stated; there is no scene involving Clifton and Katherine getting into the plane, so I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that she was "lured." This, again, constitutes OR. I do not understand your need to refer to the patient as "the Count" as he is never referred to thus in the film. Please read the guidelines for writing Plot Summaries. --TEHodson 21:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back Ring!
Just noticed you editing The Godfather article. I had started to wonder if we'd ever see you again. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Very kind of you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
No Country synopsis
Hello. I just wanted to alert you to the fact that I took up the issue you cited in your revert of this edit to the No Country for Old Men (film) article on the article's talk page. I find the plot point I added to the synopsis to be centrally important, so if we can trim fat elsewhere in the article to remain under the limit, as you say, I think the synopsis and article would benefit. I await your input eagerly. Best, CCS81 (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
August 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.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. [[User:Swarm| When you're an admin, you should try to learn the policy of Wikipedia. Too hard for you! LOLOLOLOL. So I'm a good editor contributing to Wikipedia and you, Swarm, are a total idiot who can't learn the simple policies of WP. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yes, you're a laughable fool! --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Swarm]] ♠ 00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Another idiot admin who doesn't know the policy of Wikipedia. Good job, Swarm, you stupidly blocked me for returning the page to the last consensus. That's what we're supposed to do in the case of a content dispute. Yes, I know, that is so hard to learn! Another moron example of how admins are the sickness of Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ring Cinema (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Swarm very stupidly failed to follow policy. While that is a very common problem with admins, this is an obvious case. Good editors like me don't have time to waste with morons like Swarm. I expect an apology and a prompt reversal.
Decline reason:
Due to personal attacks, your block has been extended indefinitely. Max Semenik (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Due to your stupidity, you are banned from having an opinion. LOL. Let's be clear, pea brain: I create value on Wikipedia and I've done that for years. Moron admins like you are afraid of your shadows because you are told the truth. Okay, so you all are the disease of Wikipedia. You are ruining WP because of your incompetence. All right, now you know. Now lift my block and stop proving you're over your head with a thimble of power. I expect you to correct your stupid error by the end of the day. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
--Ring Cinema (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
(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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
August 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.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. [[User:Swarm| When you're an admin, you should try to learn the policy of Wikipedia. Too hard for you! LOLOLOLOL. So I'm a good editor contributing to Wikipedia and you, Swarm, are a total idiot who can't learn the simple policies of WP. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yes, you're a laughable fool! --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Swarm]] ♠ 00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Another idiot admin who doesn't know the policy of Wikipedia. Good job, Swarm, you stupidly blocked me for returning the page to the last consensus. That's what we're supposed to do in the case of a content dispute. Yes, I know, that is so hard to learn! Another moron example of how admins are the sickness of Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ring Cinema (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Swarm very stupidly failed to follow policy. While that is a very common problem with admins, this is an obvious case. Good editors like me don't have time to waste with morons like Swarm. I expect an apology and a prompt reversal.
Decline reason:
Due to personal attacks, your block has been extended indefinitely. Max Semenik (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Due to your stupidity, you are banned from having an opinion. LOL. Let's be clear, pea brain: I create value on Wikipedia and I've done that for years. Moron admins like you are afraid of your shadows because you are told the truth. Okay, so you all are the disease of Wikipedia. You are ruining WP because of your incompetence. All right, now you know. Now lift my block and stop proving you're over your head with a thimble of power. I expect you to correct your stupid error by the end of the day. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
--Ring Cinema (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
(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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
August 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.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. [[User:Swarm| When you're an admin, you should try to learn the policy of Wikipedia. Too hard for you! LOLOLOLOL. So I'm a good editor contributing to Wikipedia and you, Swarm, are a total idiot who can't learn the simple policies of WP. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yes, you're a laughable fool! --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Swarm]] ♠ 00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Another idiot admin who doesn't know the policy of Wikipedia. Good job, Swarm, you stupidly blocked me for returning the page to the last consensus. That's what we're supposed to do in the case of a content dispute. Yes, I know, that is so hard to learn! Another moron example of how admins are the sickness of Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ring Cinema (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Swarm very stupidly failed to follow policy. While that is a very common problem with admins, this is an obvious case. Good editors like me don't have time to waste with morons like Swarm. I expect an apology and a prompt reversal.
Decline reason:
Due to personal attacks, your block has been extended indefinitely. Max Semenik (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Due to your stupidity, you are banned from having an opinion. LOL. Let's be clear, pea brain: I create value on Wikipedia and I've done that for years. Moron admins like you are afraid of your shadows because you are told the truth. Okay, so you all are the disease of Wikipedia. You are ruining WP because of your incompetence. All right, now you know. Now lift my block and stop proving you're over your head with a thimble of power. I expect you to correct your stupid error by the end of the day. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
--Ring Cinema (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
(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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.
Sockpuppet investigation
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ring Cinema, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
CCS81 (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
AfroCine: Join us for the Months of African Cinema in October!
.svg)
Greetings!
You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.
This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.
Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!
If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Months of African Cinema!
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.
This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:
- Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
- Country Winners
- Diversity winner
- High quality contributors
- Gender-gap fillers
- Page improvers
- Wikidata Translators
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)
AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!
Greetings!
After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.
The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.
On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:
- Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
- Diversity winner
- Gender-gap fillers
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
Greetings,
Thank you very much for participating in the Months of African Cinema global contest/edit-a-thon, and thank you for your contributions so far.
It is already the middle of the contest and a lot have been achieved already! We have been able to get over 1,500 articles created in over fifteen (15) languages! This would not have been possible without your support and we want to thank you. If you have not yet listed your name as a participant in the contest page please do so.
Please make sure to list the articles you have created or improved in the article achievements' section of the contest page, so that they can be easily tracked. To be able to claim prizes, please also ensure to list your articles on the users by articles page. We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
- Overall winner
- 1st - $500
- 2nd - $200
- 3rd - $100
- Diversity winner - $100
- Gender-gap filler - $100
- Language Winners - up to $100*
We are very excited about what has been achieved so far, but your contributions are still needed to further exceed all expectations! Let’s create more articles before the end of this contest, which is this November!!!
Thank you once again for being part of this global event! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:30, 06 November 2020 (UTC)
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
Greetings,
It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.
Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.
We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
- Overall winner
- 1st - $500
- 2nd - $200
- 3rd - $100
- Diversity winner - $100
- Gender-gap filler - $100
- Language Winners - up to $100*
Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list