User talk:Rio de Janiero God

September 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Spider-man 3, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.-5- (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion request regarding Spider-Man 3[edit]

I've been asked to look at Spider-Man 3 regarding the section on the aborted sequel and the reboot film. I've posted my comments at Talk:Spider-Man 3#3rd opinion on sequel/reboot section.

I would strongly suggest all editors involved with this section address the issue there instead of continuing to edit war on the article regarding the section.

- J Greb (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010 (2)[edit]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Spider-Man 3. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Spider-Man (film series). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.-5- (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I enjoy maintaining articles. Please provide a source where Raimi discussed that, because so far you haven't.-5- (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User_talk:-5-. 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. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing information[edit]

Just to be clear on a few points:

When you add information to an article, it should be sourced to a reliable and verifiable source.
The source you point to must support the entire statement you are basing from it.
Forum threads are very rarely considered reliable.
Forum threads positing fan speculation are never considered reliable.

So, if you are adding information as fact to an article:

Provide the source you are basing it on. Do not be surprised if an unsourced statement is removed.
Do not interpret the information. If you feel you have to do this, do not add the information.
If the source includes a forum section, do not use the forum posts. If only the forum posts would support the information you want to add, do not add it.
If another editor were to verify the information against the source and would find it not to be supported, do not be surprised when the information is removed.
If the information comes from an unreliable source or a forum, do not be surprised if it is removed.

Also... Do not edit war, as you have been with Spider-Man (film series), to include information that is either unsourced or not supported by the source you point to. Doing so is a form of disruptive editing. Continuing to do it, either on one article or as a preferred method of editing across multiple articles, can and likely will result in your ability to edit Wikipedia being suspended for a time.

- J Greb (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: First Class (film)[edit]

Judging from what you were doing in other articles. You and -5- could start another edit war on this article. I do recommend you discuss your disagreements on the discussion page of that article instead of undoing edits the majority of time. Thank you. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go a bit further than that. Since the cited ref supports what -5- reverted to, that text is valid even if you don't like it. If you are going to alter text that is based on a cited source:

Check the source to make sure the text in the article is or isn't supported.
Provide an edit summary as to why you are changing the text.
If your edit is disputed, take it to the talk page.

The edit you made to X-Men: First Class (film) appeared to be capricious, at best. But in conjunction with reverting a spelling correction and filing an unfounded vandalism report against an editor you are edit warring with, speak to bigger problems. Right now I think it would serve you well to read over:

At the very least.

- J Greb (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to The Avengers film project, you may be blocked from editing. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not blanking, merely changing the way the article is written, it's not a planned cast, it's a CONFIRMED cast. Rio de Janiero God (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then change the section header, but you removed all the information and the references and left a mere list of the cast. Besides since production hasn't started everything is still planned. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-_-, almost half the film pages on wikipedia do that. Rio de Janiero God (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true that wouldn't make it proper. Doniago (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In a character section perhaps, where they talk about the characters, not where they discuss the cast and casting. Deleting information and references is not constructive editing, and will be reverted. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 13:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Rio de Janiero God. You have new messages at Xeworlebi's talk page.
Message added 18:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wraning regarding editing conduct[edit]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This is based on your continued editing practices on X-Men: First Class (film) and The Avengers film project.

You have been given more than adequate warning about removing sourced information, altering text to disagree with sources, providing unsourced information, and edit warring to keep you changes in lieu of discussion.

Additionally, this edit show the start of hounding another editor just to undo their edits. Unexplained or unreasonable reverting in this vein will also get you blocked.

- J Greb (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of American superhero films. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.-5- (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Christopher Nolan, you may be blocked from editing.

I have reverted you again at Deaths in January 2007. We usually do not keep redlinked articles on the Deaths lists, because essentially having an article is the benchmark for notability for lists. Please do not reinstate your change. You can create articles on those two personages if you can establish notability, though. Once they are no longer redlinked, we'd be happy to include them on the deaths list. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User:Bovineboy2008, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. BOVINEBOY2008 16:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an editor who has only been around for a couple weeks decide they need to remove sockpuppet notices from accounts completely unrelated to them? --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's evident he is not returning, so i "retired" his account for him. Rio de Janiero God (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bluntly: you don't get to do that. And worse, it can raise suspicions you are either the sockpuppeter in question or someone with an ax to grind. - J Greb (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i apologize, i'm not a sockpuppet, i just thought, since he's no longer on Wikipedia, i'd retire his account. It won't happen again. Rio de Janiero God (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for disruptive editing. Your editing patter shows that, inspite of warnings, you are still inserting unsourced information without explination, continuing to edit war with reverts to get your way, and remove sourced information. Additionally there still seems to be a mild case of you hounding an editor, editing against consensus, and attacking other editors talk pages. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. J Greb (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2010 (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).

Rio de Janiero God (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What disruptive edits? I merely added useful information, so that's disruptive editing these days?

Decline reason:

While waiting for this short block to expire, please take the opportunity to review and consider the warnings which you have received on this page over the last few days regarding your edits.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:00, 14 September 2010 (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.

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tdi7457 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. BOVINEBOY2008 22:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come ON, i've moved on to other things, i haven't removed her entry for 3 MONTHS. Can't people move on and let me maintain at least ONE account to have? Give me a chance to prove i'm not a vandal, becuase i'm not a vadal anymore and want to share my knowledge with Wikipedia. I ask mercy be made Rio de Janiero God (talk) 18:27 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems the SPI is based on more than just one article. Actually it looks like it's based on a continuing editing pattern across multiple articles. If you had "moved on" you would have let those go as well. You also would not have tried to sanitize your initial account. And then there is the abuse of AN/V, abuse of warning and block templates to intimidate, and targeting other editor's user pages when they correct or remove your disruptive edits.

- J Greb (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this and this. All three of you were confirmed by CheckUser on top of that. –MuZemike 23:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but this looks quite suspicious since you have done this before and have had conflict with this user. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Wikipedia is run on false accusations made by some prick named Bovineboy2008 because i edited a few of his precious pages

I'd say that considering the checkuser investigation came back positive then the accusations weren't false. Syrthiss (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the VERY first time, every time i made an edit, Bovineboy would revert it, useful or not, i was frustrated so i did the same back, and he had me blocked. It wasn't fair.

In the future I'd recommend looking at solutions to dispute resolution that don't involve reciprocity that only makes you at least as disruptive as your alleged persecutor. Doniago (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this user is a confirmed sockpuppet and the account indef blocked, I would sincerely hope that there will not be an "in the future". --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me a chance to show i'm not here to vandalize Wikipedia. I have really good contributions i'd like to add. I propose a compromise.

Given all of the accounts you've socked as have shown the same type of disruptive behaviour. And that you didn't take the warnings issued to this one as a cue to change them. It's unlikely that "another chance" is going to end any better.

And if your "really good contributions" are of the same type a the material you've been been pushing up to now, please, don't. The expectations won't change and you've burned a lot of good will at this point. And it goes beyond socking to continue to do what got you initially blocked. Looking at the confirmed accounts, you've gone out of your way to try and create fake or partial user identities to hide behind.

- J Greb (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for those accounts, i got upset of the fact i was being shut out of something i enjoy doing, Not vandalizing, but contributing to the community of Wikipedia. Please, i promise, no more messing around i just want to put this behind us and move forward anew. I did not go out of my way to damage pages at all, i edited them to the best of my knowledge on the topic, and people came and reverted it. If it's useful information, it should be kept, instead of being blanked and I'M the one who gets blamed for the edit war. It's border-line nepotism. I want a chance to prove i'm done with the fake accounts, done with the edit warring, done with messing around with user's pages. Please, i just want to forget all this and we can all put this sockpuppeting behind. Just give me a chance and i will prove to you. Tdi7457 (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that's it. You're just going to ignore me in my cry for Mercy. I want so badly to not be reflected as a sock puppet, but as a contributor, a fair-user, but it appears as though it doesn't matter what you contributed that was useful before the incident occured. Captain Compass was a page i made, researched and devoted a long time into making it. I've already distributed an apology several times to you, what more do you want? If you unblock me for 24 hours, and i make USEFUL edits, could you considered that my path in Wikipedia has changed and see how eager i am to being able to contribute to Wikipedia. Please, just consider this idea. I'm intend on good faith Tdi7457 (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you expecting to accomplish by sounding wounded when you haven't even given admins 24 hours to consider your words? I have no stake in this given I'm not an admin, and I'm trying to keep an open-mind as I pay some attention to the situation, but I think you've said everything you can that's likely to be productive, and your best course of action would be to wait and listen rather than speak further. Sounding petulant isn't going to improve your case. Doniago (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, i'll wait. Tdi7457 (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposal I will wait 2 more months for OFFER, appeal with a willing admin, receive a 2-week ban and be tauht to experiment with SANDBOX. I think this is a fair compromise. Tdi7457 (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'd have to say that has a snowball's chance.

Regardless of what started this you're 6 socks, 7 with the confirmed IP address and 9 with the two likely IPs, in and you were still editing across multiple articles in an unacceptable manner. And when called on it you've in effect whined that it isn't fair that you are held accountable for your bad behaviour. Continued bad behaviour that is.

Given your past performance, and you inability to learn from the warnings you got with this account, it is hard to see you accepting restricted editing privileges with a mentor. No, you wouldn't get "2 weeks" and then be cut free. The mentor and other editors would decided if and when you would get to edit unfettered. That may be 2 weeks, 2 months, or never.

But that's academic at this point. It's unlikely that an admin is going to lift any of the blocks right now, in 2 month, or in 3 months, the time frame you originally suggested. And if you look at Wikipedia:Standard offer realize that:

It is an essay, not a guideline or policy. It may be requested but that isn't a guarantee that it will be reviewed or acted on.
If it were more than an essay, the benchmark it uses is 6 months. The variations it mentions are for editors that can point to positive editing histories on other Wikimedia Foundation wiki. You don't get to barter it down with promises to "be good".
Part of waiting in regard to it would be not wheedling on one of your talk pages to get a deal. Wait quietly, do good work else where you can pint t later. Badgering at this point can result in you losing the ability to edit this page as well.
Even if an editor or admin reviews your situation based on "Offer" there is no automatic reinstatement. The block evasion, the attempts to disguise your sock's user pages, your edit warring, your insistence on adding information without sources, your habit of altering text to no longer agree with cited sources, your screwing around with "Deaths in year" lists, your abuse of templates to try and intimidate other editors, even you attempt to hide the fact you original account was blocked by "retiring" it with this one would be taken into account
And even then it wouldn't create a clean slate, per se. If you get unblocked based on "Offer" you can still be blocked for miss behaviour. And repeating or returning to the editing pattern that got you initially blocked would result in blocks. Likely not on the first recurrence, and likely not indefinite off the bat, but you history would be there for others to evaluate.

- J Greb (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had time to reflect on my edits, and i regret each and every one of them. I was a fool who was learning what Wikipedia was like. I was a noob. Thinking that Wikipedia was something i could use to put my inputs in on. But until the original incident, i began to learn why Wikipedia was here, not for vandalism, but to allow people access information about people or topics they are researching. I taught myself to begin respecting this site and take stride in what it had to offer. The original reason for my actions is because i wasn't used to having my edits reverting so many times. I felt i was being secluded and everyone was siding with Bovineboy2008. I didn't persist on because i didn't want her there, i wanted revenge. Then i took things WAY too far by making several accounts. The IP addresses weren't sockpuppets, thet were my IP when not logged in. I really want to be apart of this establishment so much. I've asked for forgivness and cooked up compromises. I want to prove to you that i want to change and i want to actually contribute useful information to the pages. I even shown i am don't hide behind the accounts i made. so, before you decide i want to say i'll respect your decision.

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).

Rio de Janiero God (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To prove that i am what i promise to be

Decline reason:

You are everything that Wikipedia is not: dishonest, sneaky, contra-community, etc. Stop making sockpuppet accounts: you, the person, are blocked from editing Wikipedia in any way shape or form - whether with an account, or anonymously. Go away literally for at least 6 months. Come back on your main account - ask then to be given some tasks to prove you actually know how to follow the rules. There's no gurantee, but it's the best you'll do. If you even THINK about editing during that 6 months, you will receive a full-out community WP:BAN. Get it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:17, 17 September 2010 (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.

Not logging in to make this last appeal doesn't help you in the least. And yes, editing from an IP when you have been blocked is sockpuppetry and block evasion. And it will get the IP blocked. - J Greb (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't communicate on my original, for i was blocked from talking on my own talk page, could someone lift that block so i can communicate?. Tdi7457 (talk), also, i little un-called for, Bwilkins. See you in February.

Two things:

You should still be able to e-mail someone in early April 2011 to make the request.
Pushing it right now in this way is putting you on the fast track to losing access to editing the talk pages of any of your socks that still have it. And getting a note added to your original account that you have consistently abused the ability to edit your talk page(s) after an account is blocked as a sock. The up shot being that not only will you future sockpuppets be blocked on discovery, but you will be locked out from appealing on those talk pages along with the block.

Clear enough?

- J Greb (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal, i'll be back in April to send an e-mail, until then, i bid you a fond adeu. Also, J Greb, i'm a recovering vandal, not the scum of the Earth. Tdi7457 (Tdi7457)

Proposed deletion of Michael Gottlieb (director)[edit]

The article Michael Gottlieb (director) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

lacks sources, references, just about anything. Unless more referenced, i support a delete

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusted AutoParts 19:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Gottlieb (director) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Gottlieb (director) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gottlieb (director) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rusted AutoParts 18:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)