User talk:Chigurgh

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gangster?

You deleted the designation 'Gangster film' from NCFOM. Chigurh is not the only character operating outside the law in the movie. There does seem to be an organized group operating in Texas. Although they don't self consciously name their enterprise, they know each other, they work for and against each other. I'm not sure the distinction is there to be made. What's your rationale? Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gangster films are primarly concerned about the gangsters being the main characters or theme of the movie. NCFOM wasm't anthing like The Godfather or Goodfellas. Crime thriller is enough for NCFOM, I'm a big fan of the movie. Chigurgh (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is not very strong so far. The criminals in NCFOM are organized. Chigurh himself is a professional criminal, known as such. Some feel that he's the main character of the film, and at least he's the most unusual and memorable. There are other criteria to keep in mind. For example, "Crime and Gangster Films are developed around the sinister actions of criminals or gangsters, particularly bankrobbers, underworld figures, or ruthless hoodlums who operate outside the law, stealing and violently murdering their way through life." http://www.filmsite.org/crimefilms.html That looks like a pretty good description of NCFOM. Naturally there are contrasting characters that we may empathize with, but that's also part of gangster films. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heat genre classification

Greetings. Your classification edit on Heat (1995 film) has been reverted. There has been a long history associated with the proper classification of the film, along with plenty of edit warring. After repeated, lengthy discussions on the issue a consensus was reached and a genre was chosen, which should not be altered. Please see the discussions on the talk page prior to further edits. If you feel the classification is wrong, please feel free to re-open the issue on the talk page without conducting edits to the article. If necessary - the discussion will be hashed out once again, and consensus will be followed once again. Thanks Srobak (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I noticed you have again mis-categorized Heat (1995 film), this time to an entirely different category than last, and it was reverted by another editor. As I stated above and in the revision to your first edit - there has been a lengthy discussion as to its genre on talk:Heat (1995 film) and a consensus has been reached. You are encouraged to re-engage in the discussion if you disagree with this consensus, but not to make any further changes regarding genre unless a new consensus has been reached. Further such edits on your behalf WILL be considered vandalism and will be acted upon as such which may include account sanctions. Srobak (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Heat (1995 film). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. You were advised to stop mis-categorizing the article without participating in the talk page discussion which has already reached a consensus, and that future such edits would be considered vandalism. I urge you to cease this track immediately as if it continues account sanctions will be sought. Srobak (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Heat (1995 film). Your edits appear to constitutevandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use thesandbox. Thank you. this edit. Simply citing a source in a consensus based determination does not override that consensus. Srobak (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Heat (1995 film), you may be blocked from editing. [1] Srobak (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan

If you can find a source, go for it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at White Latin AmericanTalk Page. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Wikipedia is not WP:Forum for an opinion or question that clearly have no interest in improving the article i.e you are just Trolling the forum...Please Stop you appear to be having problems with many other editors...The question about who is white has already been raised countless times you are free to read through archives to your hearts content but no more random questions about who is white will be tolerated with out some sort of backing source.--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I heard your mother does too--Wikiscribe (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Wikiscribe - This retaliation is not an appropriate response to this comment left on your talk page. You have been issued a warning regarding incivility, and your contributions are now being reviewed and monitored. Srobak (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack Warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Wikiscribe. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Srobak (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the apology for your vandalism? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had sex witrh your mother. 16:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT ATTACK other editors, as you did in this edit.. Despite it being your own talk page, personal attacks are still prohibited by policy. If you continue, an ANI will be opened and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see WP:CIVIL for more information and conduct yourself accordingly. Srobak (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li. 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The length of your block has been increased due to block evasion and harassing of other editors. I strongly recommend giving up the practice of attacking or harassing editors who have done things you don't like, or you are likely eventually to be indefinitely blocked. Also please do not edit until your block expires. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent block evasion, harassment, and edit-warring. 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 7 October 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).

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

Request reason:

Give me a chance, I have contributed useful things to wikipedia, like the Action TV series category

Decline reason:

You are a sock puppet of Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs). Nice try attempting to fly under radar and come back when few noticed; you still got blocked anyways for your disruption. –MuZemike 17:30, 7 October 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.