Jump to content

User talk:24.224.195.28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 2010

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steve McQueen (artist). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. freshacconci talktalk 02:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Steve McQueen (artist). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. freshacconci talktalk 12:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Steve McQueen (artist), you may be blocked from editing. freshacconci talktalk 20:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steve McQueen (artist). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. freshacconci talktalk 20:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits to Steve McQueen (artist). If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the edit warring case

[edit]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|your reason here}}.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#24.224.195.28 reported by Modernist (Result: 72h). This block may be lifted if you will agree to follow our policies, and seek consensus for any controversial changes, such as removing Nouvelle vague from articles. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Wars

[edit]

My advice to you concerning your deletion of other editors material, and your deletions of material that you disagree with is use the talk pages achieve agreement and/or consensus before making anymore changes...Modernist (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your systematic reversion of my contributions to Wikipedia is completely out-of-line. You restored unsourced and plainly incorrect material, such as this. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, your claim that I "do not understand Wikipedia" is just silly. It's evident that you did not understand my complaint. WP:CIRCULAR sources are against policy. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False material restored

[edit]

User:Modernist has restored incorrect and biased material while indiscriminately reverting my edits. I would appreciate if another user would check these completely unwarranted reversions:

24.224.195.28 (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you....Modernist (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing your edits to you is not a "personal attack". 24.224.195.28 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with those edits, then use the talk pages and discuss them before you edit war...Modernist (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were not controversial in any way, and I explained most in the edit summaries. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of changes

[edit]

Very few of these changes should even be controversial. They were reverted indiscriminately without any specific explanation.

Ann Faraday

[edit]

I removed the "PhD" after her name in accordance with the manual of style and changed her unencyclopedic and promotional description as a "dream expert" to the neutral "author of books about dream interpretation". Faraday does not even have a degree in psychology. She is not a "dream expert". I also added two categories, which were removed without any explanation.

Bio of living persons WP:BLP requires special care. Is this person a Dr.?..Is she the author of books on dreams? Who claimed that she was a psychologist?..Modernist (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're being ridiculous. This has nothing to do with WP:BLP. Ask someone else else to review your actions. My edit was clearly an improvement. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watch out who you call ridiculous...Modernist (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel

[edit]

I removed a one-sided review of this movie that gave no source and used WP:WEASEL words. The text incorrectly states that "the general consensus among historians is that, while he likely knew about it, he was not a participant" -- despite the near universal acceptance that Rommel was an active participant of the 20 July plot.

If you dispute what an article text says - either modify (edit) what needs modification or tag - (ask for references) or go to the talk page and ask for other editors input before making unilateral deletions...Modernist (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art film 1

[edit]

I removed a WP:SYNTHESIS of sources, none of which contain the term "art television". "Art television" is not in use outside Wikipedia.

Art television. Blue link means article, which means we don't unilaterally delete, change to quality television if you have to...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Color of Pomegranates

[edit]

The article wrongly claimed that this film was "considered to be one of the best movies ever made, by Federico Fellini, Jean-Luc Godard, Michelangelo Antonioni, and many others". The source says that it received praise, which far from being "one of the best movies ever made".

I read the source and I disagree with your interpretation and the article's claim - modify the claim rather than delete text and the references...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream interpretation

[edit]

I corrected grammatical errors, put various statements in less absolute terms, and removed a few unsourced sentences.

Ask for a reference rather than delete the material using this tag - [citation needed]...Modernist (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that requires me to ask for a reference before deleting false statements. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again other views are called for to establish that, tag it - wait a few days - then delete the material if nothing turns up to correct a mis-statement...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-psychoanalysis

[edit]

I corrected NPOV problems by removing an essay in support of neuro-psychoanalysis and softening absolutes.

Ask for references before you delete the text...Modernist (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above, and the entire section was unencyclopedic. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic is your pov and consensus is needed...Modernist (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Kurosawa

[edit]

I removed the biased description of Ran as Kurosawa's "masterpiece". Completely uncontroversial. I can't imagine what would cause anyone to revert this.

Here's a thread on the talk page asking for opinions:[1]...Modernist (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. I think it's a masterpiece too, but that's an opinion, not a fact. Are you aware of WP:NPOV? 24.224.195.28 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am but opinions are allowed in some cases - like this one - by the way...Modernist (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Masterpiece is a usable word in English when properly applied - as to describe a great film by a great director...Modernist (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art film 2

[edit]

I removed a paragraph that claimed art films "require a level of intellect to appreciate", which was supported by a reference to a single film that Roger Ebert thought to be a "cerebral experience" (without ever describing it as an "art film"). This is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. It's also wrong; most consider Terrence Malick's films "art", but they hardly require intellect to appreciate (as explained in this essay).

You removed text, and references that you did not like - consensus on talk is called for...Modernist (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. References that actually support the text are called for. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then ask for reference with [citation needed]

The four abandoned children of Sugamo

[edit]

I removed an unsourced opinion that the "the harsh realities of four young children struggling to survive penniless and alone in Tokyo are documented unflinchingly." Another change reverted for no conceivable reason.

24.224.195.28 (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for a reference rather than delete the material using this tag - [citation needed]...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement violated WP:NPOV. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, not mine, ask for consensus on the talk page...Modernist (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for intervention from experienced editor

[edit]

Many of my changes have been reverted by an editor who does not appear to understand Wikipedia policy. He maintains, in the above section, that opinions may be stated as fact on Wikipedia, contrary to WP:NPOV, and that I am required to use the {{fact}} tag before removing unsourced and dubious information, contrary to WP:BURDEN ("The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.") 24.224.195.28 (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the edit war that got you blocked?..Modernist (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had time to get involved with any of this during the last day or two but I can assure you that Modernist has a great deal of experience. You are free to disagree with his interpretation of Wiki policy and guidelines but don't attack his knowledge of how Wikipedia works. freshacconci talktalk 00:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When someone interprets a policy to mean the exact opposite of what it says, I question their understanding. He thinks we should describe a film as a "masterpiece" if enough people on the talk page agree it's a masterpiece. I have no words for that kind of logic. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How's this for your logic [2]...Modernist (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Modernist, I'm aware that many people regard Ran as a masterpiece. Have you read WP:NPOV yet? Particularly WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? 24.224.195.28 (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The film is a masterpiece, and was called a masterpiece, and you deleted it; and I restored it, drop your WP:Stick already...Modernist (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you can edit again - go there and add some film critics consider the film to be a masterpiece; rather then edit war again...Modernist (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I asked for someone who understands Wikipedia policy. You're welcome to leave my talk page. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Christopher Nolan. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.-5- (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Christopher Nolan. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.-5- (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit, you are incorrect. Here is a screenshot that supports the 57% score: link-5- (talk) 08:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. 24.224.195.28 (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 2011

[edit]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Syrthiss (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.224.195.28&oldid=1136401558"