User talk:166.205.130.225

Yesterday Was a Lie
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, from an examination of their contributions, it appears that at least four of the accounts used to edit the article: Helicon Arts Cooperative, Sorrywrongnumber, Boxcarwillie and Filmsnoir are all single purpose accounts used (basically) only to edit this and related articles. In addition, several dozen IPs, all from the same area, are likely to be COI editors as well. For this reason, I have revert your revert of my changes – but I have removed the redlinks you objected to. (In truth, I usually don't leave that many redlinks in place, but it was an attempt to undercut the PR objectives of the editors by showing that the fesitivals in question are not major ones.) Since the other edits I made were very constructive to the article, I think your total revert to the previous COI-infected version was too broad a stroke. Sach (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that before making any further changes to the article, it would be a good idea to participate in the thread I've started on the article's discussion page. Sach (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From where are you getting the information to correct the "needless errors" I supposedly introduced? And, BTW, what are those errors? Sach (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in a previous post, I have asked for folks from WP:Films to take a look, so I suggest that we both back off for the moment, especially since your edits broke the infobox. Sach (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are in violation of 3RR and AGF. You need to stop reverting the article needlessly (my recent edit changed virtually nothing from yours, other than spelling and credit order), yet you accuse me of introducing promotional material. The messages you left on the editors' talk pages whom you are accusing ("your film") are grossly inappropriate and serious GF violations. You need to stop now. BTW, the infobox is formatted correctly; there appears to be an internal Wiki problem.166.205.130.225 (talk)
 * Please take another look at the article, you broke the infobox. Sach (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's not an internal Wiki problem -- other infoboxes on other movie articles look just fine. Something you did mucked it up, the least you can do it try to fix it. Sach (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)May I suggest that any further discussion on this topic take place neither here nor on my talk page but on the article's talk page? That's the proper place for discussions about editing the article, and it's also where I posted the thread about possible COI problems (which have been all but confirmed by the vandalism of the 69.23x.xxx.xxx editor(s)). Sach (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Yesterday Was a Lie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ''In fact, some portions of IMDB are vetted. There is no policy stating that IMDB may not be used as a citation. '' Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution.  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 05:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been  blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

SPI complaint
This sockpuppet complaint concerns you: Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)