User talk:Hayal12

Welcome!
Hello, Hayal12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Zhivago
Hello Hayal12, you recently restored some of your edits to Doctor Zhivago (film) that I had previously removed. I have listed the issues I have with your edits at Talk:Doctor_Zhivago_(film). Please do not restore your edits again without first addressing my points at the discussion; repeatedly restoring opposed edits is classified as WP:EDITWARRING, and if wish to add content to an article that is challenged you need to obtain a WP:CONSENSUS for those edits. I see you are a new editor so please feel free to contact me at my talk page if you wish to query anything else. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop restoring your edits to the article and address my concerns at Talk:Doctor_Zhivago_(film). The edits you keep restoring contain numerous manual of style violations and misrepresent some of the financial data regarding the film. While I welcome your commitment to the article and on the whole your edits have helped improve the critical reception section the constant reverting without engaging in discussion is problematic. Per WP:BRD you need to engage in discussion and address the problems. If you do not I will have no choice but to engage an administrator to deal with the situation. I don't want to do that because you clearly want to improve the article but I will if you leave me with no choice. Betty Logan (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Column splitting
On another note, I have noticed on several articles you have removed the column splitting template, such as Arthur Kennedy, Jack Hawkins. As I explained in point #4 at Talk:Doctor_Zhivago_(film) this is not particularly helpful: readers access Wikipedia on a whole range of resolutions, and on large displays single columns leave large amounts of whitespace to the right. Not only is this aesthetically poor, it also causes needless scrolling so it is economical for displays to "split" the columns when they are large enough. The number of columns can be set dynamically using  as seen here. Betty Logan (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite my request to not remove column splitting you have done so once again removed them at The Madness of King George. As I have already explained readers access Wikipedia on a range of resolutions and the number of columns should be set dynamically by the reader's browser. If you continue removing this feature from articles I will raise the issue with an administrator. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again you have removed column splitting at Sophie's Choice (reverted by ) and at Kind Hearts and Coronets (reverted by me). It has been explained twice to you already why column splitting is used in cast sections in these articles, and yet you continue doing it. You didn't respond at the Doctor Zhivago discussion I started and you have not responded here. Would you care to explain why you are removing the columnn splitting from such articles when it is a common feature, and why you believe it is better to impose a single-column style on a reader and override their browser settings? Betty Logan (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * is correct about this. You have also removed them when editing logged out here and here. That can be considered as socking and is most certainly disruptive. Continuing on the path can lead to a block. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 11:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Hello, I'm TheOldJacobite. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Commitments (film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  The Old Jacobite  The '45  16:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Don't Look Now, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, I'm AddWittyNameHere. I noticed that in this edit to Swing Time, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

April 2017
Hello, I'm KNHaw. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Deer Hunter without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KNHaw (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Red Shoes (1948 film), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at British New Wave. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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 stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Richard Lester. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Final Warning
Hayal12, editors have been trying to discuss some of your edits with you for several months now. They have especially asked that you discuss those edits which are contrary to standard Wikipedia practice. Despite their requests and explanations, you have failed to communicate with them at all. Please note that WP:Communication is required on Wikipedia. Persistent refusal to communicate or to discuss edits is considered Disruptive and will result in being blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Please respond here. Thanks. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for one month for making a large number of disruptive edits without logging in to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Vertigo (film), have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have just reverted your edits at The Lady Vanishes and The 39 Steps (1935 film) because they follow the same problematic pattern that you were recently blocked for. You either have to stop making edits of these nature or engage in dicussion about them, otherwise you will end up permanently block from editing Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hayal12, you have received numerous good-faith requests during the past year to discuss those of your edits which contradict consensus. But you have never bothered to enter into a discussion here or on any talk page. And you were warned that failure to collaborate with other editors would result in a block from editing. Despite this, you came back from a recent 1-month evasion block and returned to the same disruptive editing behavior. I have indefinitely blocked you from editing unless you can provide assurance that you will communicate and collaborate with fellow Wikipedia editors. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

{unblock|Very well then, I understand that the reason I was blocked was because I made a few too many disruptive edits and failed to communicate about them on the talk page.}

{unblock|I think this shows I fully properly understand the reasons for my being blocked, and since I have clearly now shown my ability to communicate with other users, I may be permitted to rejoin Wikipedia.}


 * I recommened that you pursue the WP:Standard Offer in six months time, and if you choose to return to Wikipedia bear in mind it is a collaborative project and that WP:Communication is required. Betty Logan (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That seems unreasonable, seeing as I was only blocked for a month previously and the behaviour which prompted that block was, if anything, more troublesome than that which prompted this one.

E-mail
Hayal12, this is to acknowledge the receipt of your two recent e-mails. The current status of your block, as mentioned above, is for you to avoid editing of Wikipedia for a period of six months. After which the WP:Standard Offer will be available, and you can apply for reinstatement through the WP:Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that this was a consensus among several administrators and editors. However, I do appreciate your recent communication and request at reconciliation; and will take that under consideration during the next week or so -- in consultation with the others involved. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hayal12, In light of your recent communication with me, I have restored your talk page access. If you wish, you can post another unblock request using your email statement. Thank you. — Cactus Writer (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Zhivago (film)
Upon its initial release, Doctor Zhivago was criticized for its romanticization of the revolution. Bosley Crowther of the New York Times felt that the film's focus on the love story between Zhivago and Lara trivialized the events of the Russian Revolution and the resulting civil war, but was impressed by the film's visuals.

Also critical of the film was The Guardian's Richard Roud, who wrote: "In the film the revolution is reduced to a series of rather annoying occurrences; getting firewood, finding a seat on a train, and a lot of nasty proles being tiresome. Whatever one thinks of the Russian Revolution it was certainly more than a series of consumer problems. At least it was to Zhivago himself. The whole point of the book was that even though Zhivago disapproved of the course the revolution took, he had approved of it in principle. Had he not, there would have been no tragedy". In a positive review, Time Magazine called the film "Literate, old-fashioned, soul-filling and thoroughly romantic".

Reviewing it for its 30th anniversary, film critic Roger Ebert regarded it as "an example of superb old-style craftsmanship at the service of a soppy romantic vision", and wrote that "the story, especially as it has been simplified by Lean and his screenwriter, Robert Bolt, seems political in the same sense Gone With the Wind is political, as spectacle and backdrop, without ideology", concluding that the political content is treated mostly as a "sideshow". Geoffrey Macnab of The Independent reviewed the film for its 50th anniversary and noted director David Lean's "extraordinary artistry" but found the film bordering on "kitsch". Macnab also felt that the musical score by Maurice Jarre still stood up but criticised the English accents.

Generally, however, the film has come to be viewed in a more positive light than at the time of its release. Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a "Certified Fresh" score of 82%, with an average rating of 7.5/10, based on 44 reviews; the critical consensus reads: "It may not be the best of David Lean's epics, but Dr. Zhivago is still brilliantly photographed and sweepingly romantic."

Peter Bradshaw, reviewing the film for The Guardian, also for its 50th anniversary re-release, gave the film five stars and claimed that: "Zhivago conjures grand romance and a gigantic, almost panoptic vision of the Russian landscape; Lean and Bolt pay tribute to a Tolstoyan ambition in Pasternak’s samizdat novel, and also to a real contemporary relevance: the story of a suppressed writer." In another five-star review, David Parkinson of Radio Times wrote that "this adaptation of Boris Pasternak's classic novel has all the sweep and stateliness that characterised David Lean's mastery of the epic." Hayal12 (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)hayal12

Ryans' Daughter
Hi, Hayal12. I have removed the vandalism template dropped on your page by User:Banner. It was an inappropriate action on their part, as was their blanket rollback of your edit at Ryan's Daughter without any explanation. Your edit was factually correct: the Country listing in the infobox should certainly be United Kingdom as defined by BFI and Variety magazine. And given that the adjective "British" is commonly used to refer to matters relating to the United Kingdom, a film produced by the United Kingdom can be defined as British. Should there be any further problems with reversions like this, please remember to address them with edit summaries and on talk pages. Thanks — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Dear CactusWriter, Thank you for doing that; it is much appreciated. Hayal12 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Hayal12

December 2017
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Last Emperor. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''You also violated WP:FILMPLOT. Given your rather checkered history it's hard for me to assume good faith here. You were blocked previously, so it seems reasonable to believe that you would exercise a bit more care in your editing conduct.'' DonIago (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Draughtsman's Contract, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hugh Fraser ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Draughtsman%27s_Contract check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Draughtsman%27s_Contract?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Giant (1956 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''You have been warned numerous times on this, please stop now. Thank you.'' David J Johnson (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Giant (1956 film), you may be blocked from editing. This is the second time you have been warned on exactly the same change. Please stop now. David J Johnson (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

October
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Doctor Zhivago (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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.

Disambiguation link notification for November 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Musical film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gentlemen Prefer Blondes ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Musical_film check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Musical_film?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2021
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Exodus (1960 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

January 2022
Hello, I'm Denisarona. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Schindler's List, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

February 2023
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Lawrence of Arabia (film), you may be blocked from editing. Do not remove or change sourced information without providing a source that will support your changes. DonIago (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)