Andreonethousand

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced editorializing like "the film was met with mostly positive reviews" without citing a source that specifically says this. Sometimes you find such summaries at the Los Angeles Times or Entertainment Weekly, but it's not the place of Wikipedia editors to use their own interpretation of reviews to judge whether they've been mostly positive or not. Also, you should avoid quoting only part of a sentence in order to give it as positive a spin as possible. When summarizing a review, it should be representative, not cherrypick the most positive sentence fragment that you can find. If you are associated with the film, please read our guideline on how to manage a conflict of interest. If you were paid to edit this article, you must disclose this fact. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Several Wikipedia pages use "film met with positive reviews." I am not part of the film. It does however seem that you have created this page to show the project with a negative light. It seems as though you have a biased opinion about this film which is not what Wikipedia is for. Additionally, your synopsis of the film is incorrect. I will correct that again.

You're engaging in cherry-picking again. Stop misrepresenting sources to provide only the most positive snippets of quotations. If you continue to do this, you may end up blocked from editing as a promotion-only account. Your summary of a New York Times quotation included only the most positive aspects of it and excluded all criticism. The full quotation is: "a feature stunning to behold if somewhat unpersuasive in narrative", and you did not include anything beyond "stunning to behold". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not copy-paste text into Wikipedia. This is a copyright violation, and it's against U.S. law. If you are the the owner of the copyrighted text, you must first donate the text to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia can not accept copyrighted text with a restrictive license. This is important, as it has real-life legal implications, and you can put Wikipedia at legal risk by copy-pasting copyrighted text. This is the second time I've had to remove the same copyright violation; if you do it again, I'll be forced to file a complaint. first violation, second violation, source of text. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are youedit warring to move a positive review to the front of the reception? Please stop. I started a discussion on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring to make positive reviews more prominent. If you have a conflict of interest with the film, you should not be editing it. In addition, if you have been hired to edit this article, you must disclose such things publicly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Consensus is determined through discussion, not through reversions. NinjaRobotPirate has explained his edits and you have yet to participate in discussion on the article's talk page. Please do so, because without discussion, you cannot have consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to The Boy (2015 film) because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)These are not promotional. This page was clearly created with a negative agenda in mind.

Thank you Betty. However, the page was created with bad intentions. We came to an agreement and the NY Times and Indeiwire reviews were posted up front. I recently made a new adjustment with a new quote and Ninarobot went back to the initial page she created. I am suggesting that we stay with what we had previously agreed upon. I am not affiliated with film but I will not tolerate a user clearly creating a page to cause harm to the film.

Your recent editing history at The Boy (2015 film) 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I am only correcting edits that continuously change for no reason. There is clearly an act of ill intention going on here. Please leave the edit as previously agreed upon as is. I have re-inserted the mixed reviews of the New York Times along with Indiewire. It's important to note that this IndieWire quote is not the quote that I intended on including. It's a mixed review quote that NinaRobot continues to insist upon using. Andreonethousand

Betty I noticed that for some reason the reception page had be reordered again. I have re-inserted the MIXED reviews of the New York Times along with Indiewire as per the previous compromise. It's important to note that this IndieWire quote is not the quote that I intended on including. It's a mixed review quote that NinaRobot suggested we use. Please stop top adding the negative criticism to the top and the leave the compromised text as is.

• Following your continued disruption I filed a case at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Andreonethousand_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29 should you care to explain your actions. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The person who created this page intentionally put all negative reviews up top. I have placed two mixed reviews up top in hopes of finding a middle ground. You'll notice that the first two quotes have both a positive and negative aspects. My hope is that we can just leave this as is and continue to not engage in editing wars. I do not have a real-world connection to this film. I just want to see it accurately represented. Thank you. - Andreonethousand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreonethousand (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

See the edit warring report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andreonethousand reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: ). It is likely you will be blocked unless you promise to stop reverting. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andreonethousand reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked). Per my post above, you were given a chance to avoid a block if you would agree to stop edit warring. You didn't accept my offer. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am unfairly being blocked. The wiki page in question was favoring negative reviews up top. My intention was to balance this out accurately by inserting two mixed reviews up top. It was my understanding that this was an agreement reached between both editors. I would request that we include the New York Times quote and IndieWire quote up top. Thank you. Andreonethousand (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring, and edit warring is never acceptable even if you are right - and that does appear to have been adequately explained to you, yet you continued. The block is about your behavior, and not about the disputed content, so you will need to convince an admin that you will change your approach to disagreement about article content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

Comment you can see from the talk page there clearly was no "agreement" between editors since one editor opposed Andreonthousand's restructuring of the section, and after arriving at the talk page via an RFC request at the Film project I also concurred that Andreonethousand's restructuring was promotional. He has a history of promotional editing at the article. You can see from the discussion I was amenable to some restructuring and proposed placing the more even handed reviews first. I would like to see this situation resolved so if Andreonethousand promises to not re-arrange the section until a clear order is agreed on the talk page then I will support his unblock request. We do need a clear commitment from him to discuss the issue though. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

""Comment"" I was under the impression that we agreed to list the New York Times and IndieWIRE up top since they were mixed reviews. Following those two, we would include the Variety and Hollywood Reporter that were negative. Please let me know if this is acceptable. I can assure you that I do not want to continue being involved in an edit war. I just want to see this wiki page fairly reported. Thank you for your understanding.