User talk:Darkamhi

July 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to This Time (film) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: This Time (film) was changed by Darkamhi (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.914406 on 2016-07-30T05:41:52+00:00.

September 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Barcelona: A Love Untold, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Hollyckuhno (talk) 08:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hollyckuhno,

I got your message and I do know the format.

But why is my update unacceptable? Why are you calling it disruptive? I followed the rules. I have appropriate citations. Now, let me point out the flaw in one of your updates that I was trying to correct.

First your update, "Je C.C. of Philippine Entertainment Portal gave a mixed review writing about the film as "still falling into the pitfalls of Star Cinema cliches, Barcelona: A Love Untold becomes a film of blemished beauty, but that is fine." is misleading because the author's review was not mixed. In fact, he was saying that even though the movie falls into the usual cliche of blemished beauty, it was fine and the whole article was positive but your update was putting a negative spin to it. So I just added a few more blurbs in the article to show that it wasn't a negative review. And the fact that you explicitly stated that Oggs Cruz of Rappler had a "negative review" is redundant because the readers can already read that it is negative based on Oggs' words ""dull and ineffective" and "feels too mechanical, too designed to work." It shows malice and subjectivity not objectivity, which, as editors, we should uphold.

Rod Magaru provided a positive review and you deleted it. Why, because it was positive? What makes you the authority to only include negative reviews and not the positive ones? Unless you are biased. Editors should not be biased and provide only facts. And my updates had appropriate references.

Please review my updates again. I'm contesting and requesting reinstatement of my update. If I have appropriate citations, my updates should be acceptable and NOT disruptive. We can discuss this amicably or we can take it to an admin for arbitration.

Thanks, Darkamhi Darkamhi (talk) 20:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted your revision because it does not conform to MOS:QUOTATIONS. Hollyckuhno (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Hollyckuhno. I have read the manual. I just don't see the non-conformity of this sentence and quotation, Rod Magaru writes, "Olive Lamasan’s BARCELONA asks you to forgive & live." VERSUS this, Oggs Cruz of Rappler gave a negative review stating that the film is "dull and ineffective", and added that the film "feels too mechanical, too designed to work." Why is the latter acceptable to YOU and not the former? Why is adding to Je C.C.'s quote the sentence, He wrote, "Kathryn Bernardo is brilliant and (surprisingly for me) commanding as the ambitious, but easily discouraged Mia. Daniel Padilla has an equally persuasive depiction with his restrained Ely, a character who possesses compelling dignity ..." not acceptable and disruptive as you called it? It was stated in the article itself. Please explain how that's supposed to be disruptive? Explain to me why that doesn't conform with MOS while the other quotations do?

This isn't the American Journal of Medicine. These are Critical Reception comments to a Filipino movie. The statements aren't false. They are based on the articles being referenced. And the quoted sentences are succinct enough.

Again, it's a bit obvious that you want to censor information that doesn't conform to YOUR own bias, it seems. Otherwise, you could've just corrected the quotations yourself but NOT DELETE it completely.

I'd welcome suggestions from you on how to quote or phrase it correctly but request again for you to reinstate my updates before I submit a dispute to the admin.

- Darkamhi Darkamhi (talk) 09:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)