User talk:Arataman 79

August 2008[edit]

Hi Arataman 79! Referring to your recent edits: please do not link items in headers. See this guideline on internal links. Cheers! -Samuel Tan 06:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite clear...[edit]

..that you are the same person who had been editing as User talk:72.14.117.122, because you are adding the same kind of information in the same way as that editor, and there are the same problems with what you're doing.

As the editor above indicated, please do not link "American Film Institute" in the section header.

If you remove prose text in order to insert the same information (or more) in list form, please move any references that are there to the new format as well. If you do not do this, I will revert your edit for removing referenced material, as I just did at the article for Vertigo.

I have informed the editor who blocked User:72.14.117.122 that you are here. It will be up to them to decide if you are evading a block by editing under this name. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You removed references from Stagecoach (film). [1] I've reverted your edits. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to continue to list the articles which you removed referenced material, but there are have at least four more of them, and it's getting a little difficult to assume good faith that you're not aware of what you're doing. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue[edit]

Please don't delete mentions of AFI rankings from the lede paragraph -- it's OK for the lede to duplicate information from the body of the article, since it's a summary or introductory paragraph. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding new sections to movies detailing their AFI rankings. As you have been told repeatedly (and blocked at User talk:72.14.117.122), it is not necessary. Dayewalker (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the purpose of your exercise[edit]

You're spending a fair amount of time and energy on collecting this information and putting it into articles, but because you aren't listening to what's being told to you, a lot of it is being reverted, thus completely wasting your effort. I would think it would be better for you to enter into a discussion here, get things straightened out, and work together with other editors so that your contribution to the project will survive. What is it that I'm missing? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Please Stop[edit]

Your continued removal of AFI information in favor of a list is vandalism, and has been reverted. You seem to be the same user as [[User talk:72.14.117.122], who was blocked tonight for doing the same thing. Again, please stop and discuss your edits. Consensus is against you as per the discussion at WP:ANI, and you refusing to discuss your changes makes you seem like a vandal. Please stop. As per the ANI discussion, I will continue to treat your edits as vandalism unless I hear from you. Dayewalker (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

My friend, this encyclopedia is built on the principles of consensus and the most important tool is communication. I am advised that your contributions are potentially very useful, but you are placing them in a manner which is not appropriate and you have not responded to any request for discussion. When your ip was blocked you created this account to continue your editing. I have therefore blocked this account until you open a dialogue, and would warn you that any other accounts you create will also be blocked unless you change your attitude. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

responding to the issue[edit]

Hello. My name is P.J. and in response to my being blocked from editing, etc. my explanation is I wasn't answering to my messages and I give my apologies. I really do want to continue editing on this website and I will continue to respond to any messages I receive in future and to communicate in general... I do have one question, am I required to contact you or any other editor as soon as I've made any changes to an article?

thank you, P.J. Arata

It's my understanding that you were blocked for failiing to communicate with other editors about problems with your editing. As far as I know, once you are unblocked you have no obligation to inform anyone about the articles you've editing, but, as a practical matter, if you continue editing in the same manner as you were, and continue not to discuss your edits, it is inevitable that you will be blocked again.

So, given that, can we discuss what I see as problems with what you are doing?

Most important, to insert your list-formatted AFI information, you are deleting prose-formatted AFI information. Although some editors may object to this, I generally don't, since it's actually easier to read some information when it is in list form. However if the text you are deleting contains any citations -- anything contained within <ref> and </ref> markers, you must transfer these references to your list, or else you will have deleted referenced information, which is a very big no-no on Wikipedia. If you need any help in making this kind of transfer, let me know and I'll be glad to assist you.
As I mentioned, some editors are adamant about the superiority of prose over lists, so you should be prepared to have your contributions reverted sometimes on this basis. I would agree with them when there are only one or two AFI rankings to deal with -- in that situation, prose is probably better -- but I would agree with your list when there are more rankings.
You seem to understand now that your information is not important enough to be a main section of any article, but should be a subsection of a the "Awards" or "Reception" section. If there is no "Awards" or "Reception" section, I would recommend that instead of simply inserting your list as a main section, you create a new main section called "Awards and honors" by putting ==Awards and honors== above your subsection.
As I mentioned before, the usage "#2 in the genre of Mystery" is pretty awkward. Why not just say, for instance, "#2 Mystery film", or "#2 on the list of Mystery films" or, at the very least, "#2 on the Mystery genre list"?
My suggestions are, of course, not in any way commands, I have no special authority here, I'm just another editor. If you disagree with what I'm saying, let's discuss it and see if we can come up with something that's satisfactory to both of us. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Arataman 79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked due to failure to respond to several messages regarding communication. I wish to continue participation on this website and will do my part as far as communicating is concerned. My apologies for any disruption.

Decline reason:

Since you can continue to edit this talk page, please discusss the issues with the other user first - the outcome of those discussions will determine whether your account should be unblocked or not. _Gb^T/c 12:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm contacting the blocking administrator for his review. Thank you for addressing the reason for your block. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that the blocking administrator will note that although Arataman 79 has indicated a willingness to discuss, there is, as of this moment, still no response to my comment, and therefore no discussion. I don't believe it would be wise to unblock until we see some actual, positive discussion from this editor, who was blocked as an IP (see User talk:72.14.117.122) before continuing the same editing pattern under this previously registered username. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see a step forward, in that we're getting a response, though I still echo Ed's concern to some degree. Could be that the user wanted to keep things short and sweet in the unblock request, and does legitimately intend to participate in dialogue if unblocked, though clarification on that point wouldn't hurt much. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arataman 79 is obviously aware that he can edit his talk page, since he has done so already, so there's nothing preventing him from entering into a conversation with me or other editors about his edits. I hope that we'll hear from him soon, but I continue to believe it would be best not to unblock him until then. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to unblock upon evidence of Arataman 79 discussing, on this talkpage, any of the matters brought to his/her attention. As soon as there is a dialogue then the account can be unblocked, and any admin satisfied that communications are established can do the necessary without further reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the above response to my appeal to unblock my account. I appreciate any help in resolving this mistake. I'm still new to all the discussions but I like the concept herein. Regarding the AFI articles, I'm a stickler for all that film trivia, hence my inclusions of the multiple listings. I've been told by several people that adding the listing is admissable but that the basic paragraphs are to be left as they are and I'm all right with that. Should I leave feedback over the next several days in order to establish a history of user talk? I'm happy to leave a notice with fellow editors whenever I make an addition to an article.

I don't think you've quite got the main point, which was don't remove references. If you add your list, move the references over. If you add your list without removing duplicated information in prose, your list will be removed as a duplication, so you need to remove the existing information, you simply have to move the references to your list. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- That's fine. To User:LessHeard vanU): Is there any chance I would be unblocked some time this week. I would like a chance to prove my point on communicating. I wanted to add to an article and then have you "proof-read" it so to speak to check for any errors.