User talk:Ring Cinema/Archive 6

July 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Godfather. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Godfather. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Talkback
Stefan2 (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
You have now reverted two different editors to restore your preferred version. here and here. You are edit warring, so please stop or I will take this to 3rr. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for 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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rationalobserver (talk • contribs) 18:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Aoidh (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I attacked no editors. If you're an admin, apologize for abusing your privileges. I expect you to take care of that today, and I expect you to avoid any repeats of that abusive behavior. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''Claiming Bbb harassed you when they explained policy to you is a personal attack. I'm going to remove that nonsensical comment from the edit-warring noticeboard, since an innocent passer-by might think that you know what you're talking about, and that there is merit to your claim. For the record, edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Edit warring does not require the 3R rule is broken. Et cetera. '' Drmies (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. Another sad attempt to intimidate me for correctly pointing out an admin made a mistake. I note that you are so afraid that word might leak out that the admins got something wrong that you actually removed the evidence. Only admins think other people believe that admins don't make mistakes. I'm improving Wikipedia and this continued harassment for correcting the admins when they are mistaken is not. I would suggest you follow my example and try to improve Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The English Patient (film)
Here is a copy of the message I left you on TEP talk page:


 * To Ring Cinema: You have some fundamentally mistaken ideas about what a film plot should be, as well as mistaken ideas about what constitutes fact vs. original research (please see WP:OR). The guidelines are very clear! Your insistence on including your feelings about what the characters do, feel, are (Caravaggion is "ready for forgiveness"; Hana "puts her fears to rest"' a bomb is "frightening", the patient was "once-dashing") all constitute original research and have no place in a film plot summary. For the most part, adjectives get you into that territory and should be avoided. The plot summary should not contain reproduced dialogue, as this: WP:FILMPLOT states explicitly, so I removed all of what you put back in. It is your opinion that Hana is "catching a ride" to join Kip--that may be implied but it is not stated; there is no scene involving Clifton and Katherine getting into the plane, so I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that she was "lured." This, again, constitutes OR. I do not understand your need to refer to the patient as "the Count" as he is never referred to thus in the film. Please read the guidelines for writing Plot Summaries. --TEHodson 21:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back Ring!
Just noticed you editing The Godfather article. I had started to wonder if we'd ever see you again. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Very kind of you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No Country synopsis
Hello. I just wanted to alert you to the fact that I took up the issue you cited in your revert of this edit to the No Country for Old Men (film) article on the article's talk page. I find the plot point I added to the synopsis to be centrally important, so if we can trim fat elsewhere in the article to remain under the limit, as you say, I think the synopsis and article would benefit. I await your input eagerly. Best, CCS81 (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

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 this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. When you're an admin, you should try to learn the policy of Wikipedia. Too hard for you! LOLOLOLOL. So I'm a good editor contributing to Wikipedia and you, Swarm, are a total idiot who can't learn the simple policies of WP. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yes, you're a laughable fool! --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) S warm ]]  ♠  00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Another idiot admin who doesn't know the policy of Wikipedia. Good job, Swarm, you stupidly blocked me for returning the page to the last consensus. That's what we're supposed to do in the case of a content dispute. Yes, I know, that is so hard to learn! Another moron example of how admins are the sickness of Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

--Ring Cinema (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

August 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. When you're an admin, you should try to learn the policy of Wikipedia. Too hard for you! LOLOLOLOL. So I'm a good editor contributing to Wikipedia and you, Swarm, are a total idiot who can't learn the simple policies of WP. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yes, you're a laughable fool! --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) S warm ]]  ♠  00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Another idiot admin who doesn't know the policy of Wikipedia. Good job, Swarm, you stupidly blocked me for returning the page to the last consensus. That's what we're supposed to do in the case of a content dispute. Yes, I know, that is so hard to learn! Another moron example of how admins are the sickness of Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

--Ring Cinema (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

August 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. When you're an admin, you should try to learn the policy of Wikipedia. Too hard for you! LOLOLOLOL. So I'm a good editor contributing to Wikipedia and you, Swarm, are a total idiot who can't learn the simple policies of WP. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yes, you're a laughable fool! --[[User:Ring Cinema|Ring Cinema (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) S warm ]]  ♠  00:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Another idiot admin who doesn't know the policy of Wikipedia. Good job, Swarm, you stupidly blocked me for returning the page to the last consensus. That's what we're supposed to do in the case of a content dispute. Yes, I know, that is so hard to learn! Another moron example of how admins are the sickness of Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

--Ring Cinema (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Sockpuppet investigation
CCS81 (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list