User talk:Hytioplion
|
It is suspected that this user has used one or more accounts abusively. The abuse of multiple accounts is prohibited; using new accounts to evade blocks or bans results in the block or ban being extended. See block log and lists of suspected and confirmed accounts. |
|
Image in Film noir[edit]
First, please stay civil in your discussion. Using the f-bomb in everyday discussion is generally frowned upon here. According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, articles should have an image in the introduction situated to the right. The image now present does typify the characteristics of film noir, and thus is a good illustration. If you would like a different illustration that you think better shows film noir, then feel free to propose one. Otherwise, keeping the present image is probably a good idea, and is supported by guidelines. VanTucky talk 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Removing an image with no more justification than the inexplicable comment that it's "bogus", and then becoming abusive toward another editor who questions your edit both stand as strong indications that your purpose is simply to be disruptive. Please note that such behavior is not acceptable in Wikipedia, and can quickly result in an indefinite ban. RedSpruce (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- On my talk page you not only continue to be abusive, you also say that the image in question is "completely irrelevant." Can you explain to me how an image from a famous film noir is irrelevant to an article about film noir? You can answer here. I don't want your abuse and trolling on my talk page. RedSpruce (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- You continued deletion of relevant material has crossed the line into pure vandalism. Please stop. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Watch your language[edit]
You don't address strangers in the real world with the language you use here, I presume. If you want to participate, apologize for your abusive tone and start rationally explaining your position. If you continue communicating in the manner you have been, you can effectively be blocked from participating. As it is, you can see that all your desired edits are and will be swiftly reverted. Unless you apologize, they will continue to be, without further comment.—DCGeist (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Three-revert rule warnings[edit]
Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Film noir, or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you.
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Film noir. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.
Simply put, according to policy, if you touch the photo again in the next twenty-three hours, you will be administratively blocked from any further Wikipedia editing.
As for the image, I refer you to the introduction of Alain Silver and James Ursini's The Noir Style, where the authors (the two most widely published scholars of noir) discuss Alton's importance in general and, specifically, "the often-reproduced image from the end of The Big Combo."—DCGeist (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Crossing the line[edit]
You have violated the three-revert rule on Film noir. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring.
You violated the rule by deleting most of the caption for the fifth time--once to begin with, as part of your initial edit, and then as part or all of four reverts. Since you're new to the site, I won't yet move to have you blocked, but if you make another such edit on the article, I certainly will.—DCGeist (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Temporary block[edit]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. This is for putting a speedy-delete tag on Punk rock. You're blocked for three hours -- please use that time to review Wikipedia policies such as WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and WP:3RR. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive edit warning[edit]
I see you've been blocked for an egregiously inappropriate edit on punk rock. Please note that you are still on the hook for all your repetitive disruptive edits of film noir. If, after your editing privileges are restored, you make one more such edit there, you will be swiftly blocked again.—DCGeist (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack warning[edit]
Note also that you can be blocked for making personal attacks on other editors and using abusive language. You have made a slew of such posts to three different editors' talk pages:
Please review WP:CIVIL and attempt to maintain civility when communicating with other editors at all times. Remember, this is a collaborative project, so insults and incivility help no one. One more attack on another editor or use of abusive language can result in your being blocked, and for a longer period than the block you just received.—DCGeist (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I looked at the edits, none of them constitute personal attacks except for no. 5 and no. 6. The mere use of the word "fucking" or "what the hell" here does not constitute a personal attack as nothing is said about the actual editor. I just thought I'd let people know. 71.113.22.99 (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
December 2007[edit]
