User talk:2601:196:180:DC0:40DA:FB05:4421:4DC7

December 2023
Hello, I'm JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Edmond O'Brien have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 08:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a clearly made, and clearly summarized edit. It is absolutely not sandbox activity, nor is it unconstructive, and if you can’t tell the difference between it and that you should not be doing new changes patrol. 2601:196:180:DC0:40DA:FB05:4421:4DC7 (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't summarized or in a sandbox. What you added to the article was not NPOV or neutral point of view, and as such, I removed it. Also, please remember to be civil in your conversations with other editors. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 08:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * First, as you can see in the template you posted on this page, the edit is characterized as “sandbox” activity. Moreover, the edit summary is clear; and if you know anything about Edmond O’Brien‘s life and biography, you know he was a leading man. In fact, I watched two movies last night where he was the leading man, which is why I was reading his biography today. And in the body of the article, it highlights one of them (“DOA”) as one of his “most famous“ movies.
 * In addition, it explains he had trouble remaining a leading man because of chronic weight problems.
 * Last, actors who are “character actors“, or known for only being character actors, can be correctly characterized that way. Just having one or two odd leads, perhaps, early in a career (like say Eugene Pallette), followed by a hundred or more appearances as a character actor, would not be accurately portrayed as someone who is both a leading man and a character actor. O’Brien had many leads in the prime of his career. There’s just no arguing against that fact.
 * I’m not being uncivil. I’m simply defending a legitimate edit that was wrongfully reverted. As I invariably end up doing with the first edit or series of edits done every single day.2601:196:180:DC0:40DA:FB05:4421:4DC7 (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was sandbox activity, I said you could use your sandbox to make test edits if you would like.
 * You do seem to have some legitimate points to say he was a leading man, but the rest of the article lists the movies he was featured as a leading man in, correct? Your edit may not be "bad", but it's not constructive, because it's just not necessary.
 * If you would like, you could change it to just not say he's a character actor and just say he's an actor.
 * Finally, you are being pretty civil now, but you weren't in your first reply when you said (paraphrasing) "If you can't tell the difference, then you shouldn't be patrolling recent changes". With all due respect, I believe I am a more experienced editor than you are, and even if I wasn't, it's still rude to judge people's skill from just one edit.
 * Thanks.
 * JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 08:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I reviewed your recent edits, and it seems that you put it in the correct section of the article. I suppose I had more of a problem with the way you were conversing than your actual edit, and I apologize for letting that get in the way of my judgement. I think your new edit is fine, and if not, there's lots of other editors who are more experienced in this subject than I. Thanks for trying to reach a consensus with me, and good day/night.
 * JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 08:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there’s no arguing that Edmond O’Brien was a leading man, and that role comprised a significant proportion of his career. As I pointed out, the article itself (without a single other edit from me to do so) reinforces that at least three separate times. The edit stands. The template you posted on this user page accuses the work of being both “sandbox“ level experimentation, and unconstructive. It is neither. Last, you know nothing of my edit history. I have over 100,000 edits on this encyclopedia in two decades. I just don’t choose to have a login identity. There are pros and cons. Unfortunately, technology has made it impossible to retain the same IP address for any length of time. Once, I could rack up thousands of edits without it being changed arbitrarily. Many thousands, over months at a swath. Now, it is changed electrically at least every 24 hours, forcing me to start all over every single day trying to establish credibility as an experienced editor. Last, thank you for your civility. I have not overlooked that, and do appreciate it. 2601:196:180:DC0:40DA:FB05:4421:4DC7 (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Technology! Our two posts just crossed in space. I wish I had received yours before I hit send on mine. I would’ve toned it down. Apologies. Let’s go forward. Thanks. 2601:196:180:DC0:40DA:FB05:4421:4DC7 (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, User:JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333, I was just closing a WP web page (that happened to have the edit history for the Edmund O'Brien article still open) and saw that my original edit (that you reverted, and we had our contretemps over) had an accidental compositional edit introduced into it, prefacing my intended comment (to add merely the words "lead and" ahead of the existing "character actor") with the word "born".
 * I'm not sure exactly how that could have happened (and know only that I altered the start of the Early years section to become a plain declarative sentence ("O'Brien was born...(etc.)," rather than "Born (something, something), Edmund O'Brien...."). But can't see how the word "born" could have tagged along with that....
 * Regardless, any new text stating that O'Brien was "born a lead [and character actor]" indeed deserved reverting. I'm sorry I didn't catch the error before it was made, or even after you reverted it, as things would likely have gone more smoothly ever after (as I was never seeking to advance and defend the proposition that O'Brien was *born* anything, only that he *was*, *became* something, indisputably).
 * Hope you had a great holidays. Thought you deserved this clarification as I would have been less hair-trigger (and thus more civil) had I known of my own composition error starting out.  All the best. 2601:196:180:DC0:A4FC:5A05:D82B:9064 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hope you had happy holidays, too. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 23:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)