User talk:OgdenShapiro1

Welcome!
Hi OgdenShapiro1! I noticed your contributions to Alexandra Pelosi&#32;and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. ''That magazine is not known for its movie reviews, new editor. You are welcome to take your case to the article talk page.'' Drmies (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * re "That magazine is not known for its movie reviews" - you are clearly misinformed. This website does, in fact, well known for its film criticism, notably by this author: https://jacobin.com/author/Eileen%20Jones OgdenShapiro1 (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Alexandra Pelosi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Your insistence that this source is not "knowledgeable" or "reliable" is not backed up. Wikipedia reports that Jacobin is "a paid print circulation of 75,000 and over 3 million monthly visitors." Further, by any fair an objective metric, the article itself is well-informed and detailed about the filmmaker's work. Please explain why you feel this source is not "knowledgeable" or "reliable"? OgdenShapiro1 (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't play dumb. It's a highly partisan source and it is not known for its objective evaluation of documentary film. That it has 75,000 readers doesn't mean anything in that regard. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate to see you change the terms of your dispute. First you claim the source was not "knowledgeable"; now you say it is "partisan." Criticism and commentary are, by their very nature, based in opinion. However, that does not mean that this article fails to meet basic journalistic standards. This is clearly the longest and most comprehensive piece of critical literature on this filmmaker, and the source is clearly a well-known and reputable brand. Since you choose to accuse me of "playing dumb," I sadly feel I must do the same to you: clearly your own biases are getting in the way of objectively editing this page. OgdenShapiro1 (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your unblock request is improperly formatted. Also, it fails to address your own behavior and blames another editor instead. You are not permitted to ram your content changes through just because you are convinced that you are right. Wikipedia does not operate that way. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)