User talk:LimeyCinema1960

Welcome!
Hello, LimeyCinema1960, 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: 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction 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

3RR rule
You've reverted three times on The English Patient in less than 24 hours. There's a rule against that. See WP:3RR. Another revert from you will be a violation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

When they are appropriate the number of times can be irrelevant. Would you like a third party decision?

So funny! You have no idea what you're talking about. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

??????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordWrightUSA (talk • contribs) 03:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can't put your question in words, this is not the best forum for it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems that any message from you best deserves a blank in return.

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 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 find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:The English Patient (film)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 11:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

3RR warning
There is a rule against reverting excessively. You have reverted me at least three times today, so if you do it again I'll lodge a formal complaint. See WP:3RR if you have questions.

I've opened several discussion sections, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you were not mnother at tea so much then there would not be so much attributed to you. But as you know, you feel like you are OUR and Wikipedia's editor-in-chief. So just as has so surprisingly been told, you act as if you have nothing to lose from yet another dispute. You have essentially lost the first one over those words you held tightly too that you strangled them into a run on sentence. You have threatened others with 3 revert policy and now me. What's your game? Disruption? Something more seedy, deceptive, what? And now I see plot language that has never been touched has been found out under your watchful eye to be false. You are too much a master to have let this go through especially after you insisted on script detail to support that airplane fuel issue that when you thought no one was certain about the reference you happily accepted SPECULATION as the basis of your wrong conclusion. So others cannot use speculation but then when it serves your purpose you can, probably under the guise that no one could challenge you. Next time you are in a card game, you have to play the right cards. You were trumped on your own play. Talk about karma?

As for your discussion they could easily and cooperatively been handled in the originally established section where as a group those that wanted to review the article particularly the plot could go line by line to get a consensus. That would be too much a challenge to your attempts at controlling this group. And it seems that yet another phrase will be your rue: your actions are part of the review of 3 revert disputes.

So there you have it, true and accurate! Lodge a formal complaint. What, are you going ti lodge complaints about everyone on this article which when review of your won actitivities deem it appropriate to include you in any administrative action will leave this whole matter to others.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones, you may be '''blocked from editing without further notice. Do not fill my Talkpage with 90,000 bytes. Keep off my space!''' — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 10:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, when you have Ring Cinemawants to use your page to spread lies then you sort of have to expect all the info to flow.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing of various sorts. Amongst other things, you have made absurd posts on talk pages, posting huge amounts of text copied from other talk pages, and entire copies of an article, in at least one case two copies of an article. This makes the talk pages almost totally unreadable, as it is horrendously difficult to find what is what. It also achieves nothing constructive, as a simple link to the other page in question would enable anyone who wishes to do so to see its content. If that were the only issue, I might take this as a rather strange and extreme case of good-faith but misguided editing, and simply drop you a note explaining that it was unhelpful. However, it is by no means the only problem. You have been exhibiting a battleground mentality towards other editors with whom you disagree, making threats and accusations. You have exhibited an ownership attitude to an article, believing that you are in a position to tell other editors what edits they may and may not make, and have announced your intention of edit warring indefinitely to keep your preferred version of the article in place, as can be seen here. Openly announcing your intention of defying Wikipedia's policies is unacceptable. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Advice on film language content and notation in article coding
Sorry to inconvenience you but In film article coding of languages is that limited only to spoken rather than as in the case of "The English Patient" in one of the affair scenes the music is in Hungarian. Would that qualify as language in the film?LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 08:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would imagine not. Template:Infobox film states clearly that the language parameter should convey (emphasis in original). Background music, which doesn't even contribute to the dialogue, would not count as a primary language use (and indeed, a single entry for this parameter is preferred; genuinely bilingual films are few and far between). Remember, Wikipedia doesn't strive to contain every bit of triva about its subjects. Yunshui 雲 水  12:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)