User talk:Cladeal832: Difference between revisions

Line 154: Line 154:

*{{tq| A total site ban requires a notice board and review and a period of warning and response}} that is a community ban, which is not what happened. There are no “rights”. Any uninvolved administrator may block any editor indefinitely. You are ”’not”’ helping your case here Cladeal832. Please stop bludgeoning and wikilawyering. You will wear out the community’s patience which makes it less likely you will be unblocked. [[User:Star Mississippi|Star]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|Mississippi]] 17:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

:I honestly don’t understand. What would help my case [[User:Star Mississippi]]? This much bad will over a day edit war over “Ella MacCay” seems unusual, least to me. I thought a block was a block. Unsure on community block or whatever. [[User:Cladeal832|Cladeal832]] ([[User talk:Cladeal832#top|talk]]) 18:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

::I’m not understanding why you’re referring to the plagiarism concern. I was concerned it was the case, I had found the Planet of Films page when trying to locate any other place saying the comparisons you were adding. The way it was written at Planet of Films made me ”think” that it might be a case of moving their point over to Wikipedia. Once you pointed out this page was made ”after” your edit, I went to corroborate that, and found that this was indeed the case. I retracted my plagiarism concerns and apologized for the accusation. So I’m not sure why’s it referenced here, it wasn’t to fuel a sense of bad faith towards, it’s just when trying to verify these remarks about this film being similar to X, Y, Z and seeing only one other spot saying this in print, it became a concern. But it was a wrong concern, at the least in the direction being pointed. Because with your OR assertion, ”other websites” are now parroting that. Now, more recently you pointed to cast interviews, which really should’ve been brought forth when all this was first happening, but I don’t think it was wrong to be concerned we were putting out content that (at the time) it seemed no one involved in the film had made. And I resent the assertion I went “whining” to admin boards. You were fighting with multiple people, and at first just not discussing the edit at all on your talk when I first messaged you in September. That’s just not in the spirit of Wikipedia. [[User:Rusted AutoParts|Rusted AutoParts]] 18:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Maison Hauer-King has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 14 § Maison Hauer-King until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 17:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee’s roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
{unblock|reason=I figured at worst it would 24-hour or block from this article. Also it was non-admin accounts who kept writing you’ll get block which I figured was them threats to get there way in conflict. No, I don’t think a total and indefinite block is fair. The section was in dispute, I was reverting it back to the original state which is more helpful to other contributors since they can see what the lines in dispute actually are. The guidelines are violation of consensus is 24-hour block Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

FWIW, there is documentation that Amity Island is located off the Massachusetts coast per Talk:Jaws (film)#New York or New England?. That said, I won’t object to not specifying exactly where it’s located either, though I can’t speak for other editors. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Law & Order season 12, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Blake.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Canada. Dept. of National Defence has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 9 § Canada. Dept. of National Defence until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you deliberately ignored the request to not readd this information. I know it’s a premise, that’s what I said in my summary. It’s not important to know the state the character is governor of if it’s at present not stated, and especially not important saying it’s comparable to Mr. Smith or All the King’s Men, ESPECIALLY when that part is unsourced. Revert your edits. Rusted AutoParts 03:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse, the source used for the “unnamed state” claim, says nothing of the sort. Rusted AutoParts 03:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

” The source shows the state motto which isn’t a real one and unnamed”. It’s WP:SYNTHESIS to imply this means the film is set in an unnmaed state. Could easily be still set in Rhode Island just not using the real seal. We don’t know, there’s no sources saying the state will not be named or a made up one. Rusted AutoParts 18:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The “unnamed state” blurb is in the damn paragraph already, you’re just readding duplicate content now for no reason. The sentence “similar to The Simpsons, the animated sitcom co-developed by Brooks, as well classic political movies like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or All the King’s Men.” is still unsourced and just trivia ultimately. Stop edit warring to keep it your preferred way, especially when said way includes unsourced content that currently is not supported by any existing sources. Rusted AutoParts 06:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the paragraph damned gives up any fig leaf that User:Rusted AutoParts is just removing over being personal preferences rather than a question of citations requirements. I get it’s not something you’d write otherwise you’d have written it. Unsourced to what? Movie plots don’t require an outside source. That’s not just me, but the guidelines.

Wikipedia:Source your plot summaries

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources

I:f you truly believed it was lack of proper sourcing issue, then put a tag for citation needed. You are removing it because you dislike the content, but that isn’t the same as using lack of sourcing as illegitimate excuse to remove stuff you find damned. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You literally reverted me when I added citation needed tags the last time. I am frustrated at this because first off, you reincluded the sentence about the unnamed state. This is already in the synopsis, so why is it being repeated again in the same section? Secondly, you aren’t publishing a synopsis/premise/plot, you are including details about things behind the scenes/trivia. You are making assertions that it bears similarities to other films. This requires sourcing, because presently this is not a claim any of the filmmakers or sources reporting on the film have made. This seems to solely trace back to this source. Outside of Planet of Films, nowhere else is making comparisons to Mr. Smith or King’s Men. Particularly not in the same way as described, so now I have a plagiarism concern. Even if it was coming from a reliable source or was a core piece of the official synopsis, comparisons to other films are just trivia and inappropriate to include. Rusted AutoParts 07:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s probably time to report this editor. It’s been going on since September and THREE editors have reverted them. Mike Allen 21:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or you engage in discussion… Cladeal832 (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re frustrated. Boo-woo. Take a break Wikipedia:Wikibreak and don’t edit is simplest solution rather making up citation requirements that aren’t required for movies. Before if it’s relevant, you never cite what’s inaccurate. The movie is set in unnamed state which is sited. That “The Simpsons”, (probably the most famous property set in an unnamed state) “All The King’s Men” and “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” are set in unnamed? The Simpsons and Ella McCay is made by the same man. The most famous examples. I’m adding that some random crew or cast member connection, it’s the Ella McCay writer and director and The Simpsons developer and executive producer. “All the King’s Men” and “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” are major political movies set in unnamed states which isn’t just random trivia and you not find it interesting isn’t enough to keep removing it.

This article is barely 3 sentences longs so don’t think it’s taken up too much room. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boo-hoo. Not “boo-woo”. You’re clearly not interested in actually discussing anyway. You know what the issue I had with the content was. Original research, trivia, synthesis. Now plagiarism. This is not a 1v1 problem, two other editors have reverted too. Onus is on you to convince us the content merits retaining. You’re choosing to instead edit war and be rude. So discussion is pointless. You’re in the wrong, don’t restore it or you’re getting reported. Rusted AutoParts 22:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s regional. It’s boo-woo here. Learn about the world You want to complain and not act civilly because you are frustrated, what else do you want to deal with your feelings about one sentence on a movie. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m made points and after points. You called it “damn” paragraph so unsure you can say who is and isn’t interested in civil discourse.

“I don’t like” isn’t enough especially losing on the made-up citation requirement stuff. ~

You removed it. I can’t edit war and you are removing content that was there for prolonged time. You are the only insisting on removal.Cladeal832 (talk) Cladeal832 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeAllen: and @Bovineboy2008: also disagreed with the content. Rusted AutoParts 22:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are making a process case about your edit warring (what can’t edit war with yourself), not the content article and you don’t just remove maternal because you don’t like it after losing on the unsourced claim.

Mike Allen cited get the point, but forgotten to note that you remove this content citing unsourced except you didn’t know who movie plots are cited. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What revisionist history is this? Bovineboy removed the first time. You reverted them. I reverted after Bovineboy, you reverted me. Now MikeAllen is also removing the content and you reverted them. YOU are the one edit warring, and clearly taking a very ownership approach to the fact your edits are being removed. And clinging dearly on the irritant of yours that I raised the fact it’s unsourced. It’s one of multiple problems with your inclusions. WP:TRIVIA, because comparisons to other films is just that. It adds nothing to what the film is about. WP:SYNTHESIS, because your source about the unnamed state does not say it’s set in an unnamed state. It was noticed the seal in set pictures doesn’t belong to any particular location. That says about it being in an unnamed state. I dropped that issue because it wasn’t as onerous so I moved it into the synopsis more. Your insistent reinclusion is obnoxious because it’s literally already noted in the premise, you’re just repeating the point for no reason. And now the biggest issue is you stole the comparison blurb from another location and continuously refused to include the source that says that exact blurb. That isn’t right to do. Even then, it’s superflouous. You’ve been on this website since 2007, you should know the dos and don’ts. Rusted AutoParts 22:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You suck, I suck. You’re dumb, I’m dumb. Now that we got the insult phase done with, can you get back to just ONE sentence on an unreleased movie you don’t like.

This is one sentence so I get Wikipedia can be frustrating and I’m not above it either,, but my sympathies go only so far and I’m going to just remove true sentence because you don’t like it because somebody else might make an implication about it. I don’t believe the newest knock on me that I’m acting like I’m owning the article is fair and based on it. I’ve tried to accommodate your concerns. I added the sourcing to the unnamed state after you “gave up” the last time. It’s called context Wikipedia:AUDIENCE of unnamed states in terms of this filmmaker and his most famous other property and also the context with dramas on American politics and nameless states which is rare for movies in general. That doesn’t offer any opinions or making a connection that it means X or Y.

If you dislike it, pretend it’s not there. Unsure why when you first track of removing unsourced didn’t work, why keep going since it’s just a Seems simpler to just ignore it. It’s not Cladeal832 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have…straight listed out the issues with the sentence, and you’re STILL acting like the problem is “you just don’t like it”. Like, I’ve said at this point you plagiarized the blurb, and not once have you responded to that. You’re just railing about this phantom “me no likey” thing when that is patently NOT the problem. Rusted AutoParts 23:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the emphasis on your personal frustration and using damn were about you and not a substantive effort at collaboration. I contested your claims isn’t the same as being obtuse or unwilling to engage. It’s the opposite. Contest isn’t the same as not getting what you’re writing, but you were wrong on the initial reasoning on how to source movie plots. I’m contesting the newest one as unrelated to the sentence in question. No, it’s not unrelated. A movie about a governor and the state doesn’t matter is a position that doesn’t make any sense nor in compliance with previous similar articles like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or All the King’s Men. The context of where a movie is set is very relevant. The state for a movie about state politics is relevant. It would be among the first questions a reader has. It was mine. Your issues don’t relate directly to anything in the sentence. our point is moot. since this is an unreleased movie so unsure where all these massive amounts of sources to synthesize. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made one remark about being frustrated and it’s now the centerpiece of your stance against me. It’s clear you don’t mean to meaningfully engage about this, nothing in what you said squares the synthesis, trivia or plagiarism issues I raised, so I’ll be moving on from this issue, barring of course you seeing fit to again restore the content. Rusted AutoParts 00:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To quote you, “I am frustrated”. If dismissing every else over actually reading what you wrote isn’t going well.

I get your claim, but I have been engaging while you haven’t even acknowledged your original reason for this removal was inaccurate on sourcing for movie plots yet it’s not plaguerized, it’s not outside of the majority of sourcing (the few sourcing on this article is me adding that the setting is an unnamed state). Cladeal832 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the Mr. Smith and King’s Men blurb. Not the baseline premise. Your additions added the “unnamed state” part and that blurb, not the premise that is sourced on the page. That blurb about Mr. Smith and King’s Men is almost verbatim the way Planet of Films wrote it. Given your restorations of it without a source, it rings as plagiarism. Rusted AutoParts 01:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You think I plagiarized as well classic political movies like “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” or ‘All the King’s Men”? Really? More than half the word in that are just from titles. You are removing this now because you think “classical political movies” is such a unique wording? You do see this as a reach, right?

All I wrote is MSGTW and ATKM are classic dramas about American political which are both set in unnamed states. I honestly know that because I’ve watched the movies and also it’s in the Wikipedia articles on both movies. That’s not original research to a Wikipedia to watch a movie and write out what happen in the movie nor is “classical political movies” isn’t something else can copyright. The setting of movie is part of the plot of the movies which Wikipedia doesn’t require outside sourcing It’s the most basic way of stating that. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only place on the entire internet currently making any comparisons to The Simpsons, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or All the King’s Men is Planet of Films, as I pointed out above. Nowhere else is. You are including text about Ella McCay baring similarities to these three titles because of their unnamed state approach. It is deducible you saw this article and included said comparisons. But the persistence in not citing Planet of Films’, since this insight is clearly coming from them, it makes it that Wikipedia is plagiarizing it because you won’t source it. Since it not a common place observation about the film being made by the filmmakers or critics, just Planet of Films, they have to be sourced. Even then, since it’s superfluous trivia, it didn’t and doesn’t need restoring. Rusted AutoParts 02:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of Film link was written after I wrote the line. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It never occurred to you that Planet of Film might be copying the Wikipedia article?

This isn’t some well established topic. It’s an article a movie that hasn’t even been released so yeah, it’s going to have tons written on the internet on the content.

The setting of the movie isn’t trivia. The context (which is very much allowed [[WP:AUDIENCE}} and context isn’t trivia.

So the unsourced excuse flopped because it’s different for content of a movie. Now the plagerism excuse flopped since I didn’t time travel to write this one line. You find this Planet of Film link also negates your point since whoever wrote it thought it wasn’t irrelevant or uninteresting or unrelated to the movie. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why the quotation marks around you wrote. You’ve been there since I wrote it and been reverting nearly the nanosecond I did.

If the link was written after “you wrote” the line, then I withdraw my plagiarism concern and apologize for the accusation. That still means you invented this parallel between the three titles based on nothing because these parallels were at no point drawn by anyone associated with the film or publishing articles about the film. It is a observation on your end. Original research isn’t allowed. Rusted AutoParts 03:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We’ve been throwing around insults, but I accept your agrology and I also appreciate you making it. That if you had gotten your way back then then that Planet of Film wouldn’t have the line is the last I’ll mention it.

The sole reason for this article isn’t to simply regurgitate publicity releases and soundbite from press junkets. I’m not offering, anything like “I think it’s a good movie” or “I think it’s a bad movie.” The people involved in the movie aren’t the source for it being set in an unnamed state and that’s been without issue. Again, you dislike the sentence and it’s not unsourced, it’s not plagiarized, it’s not original research, it’s not irrelevant since you found another person who published on the another website the exact same information.

I didn’t invent this movie is set in an unnamed state. I didn’t invent that James L. Brooks made this movie and also made “The Simpsons” and I didn’t invent both are set in unnamed states. I didn’t invent that Ella McCay is an American political movie set in an unnamed state and the major examples of the genre “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and “All’s the King’s Men” are both set in unnamed states.

The standard is to copy and paste what the publicity team and I don’t find that line positive or negative to me. Not as if I’m pointing out that Ella McCay has the same number of letters in the letter as another movie. Unnamed state set movies are kind of rare and the point that same genre and also made by the same person who also made probably the most famous example of piece of entertainment set in unnamed state. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“The standard is to copy and paste what the publicity team and I don’t find that line positive or negative to me. Huh? Since when and where? Anyway you are name dropping a TV show in the premise section with no reliable backing. Just because you want to. Read WP:UNDUE. Mike Allen 00:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing an explanatory essay. These are explicitly made clear not rules. Also movies, particularly still to be released movies, have a different guidelines including context which this squarely falls under. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was already addressed. This isn’t point of view or lack of neutrality issue. I’d gone into ridiculous amount of detail on this. It’s not my opinion where movies are set and the filmmakers other works. The press material has made these compressions. Why keep making up rule violations for something you just don’t like. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s standard to use publicity material, but required for it lack to publicity material grounds for removal. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was straight up no agreement for that content’s restoration. Rusted AutoParts 23:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You and the other editor keep writing “you don’t make a case” or “won’t engage in contrustive conversion” when there so much of this from me. You makes these statements which aren’t backed up. I made the case you citing an (it’s at the top of the page) and those exoplanar essays aren’t rules to be followed. This overly broad or unrelated to this movie. More likely after the movie is released, a bunch of material . I watched the trailer and thought, “What state is that suppose to be” and wasn’t the only one. Please see context guidelines which allows it. I wish you’d be straight forward and say you don’t like. That’s also not an excuse for removal, but this content removal as if the rules require it hasn’t worked. It’s not unsourced as the guidelines for movie. It’s not plagiarism and it you read the whole Film article most of the article would be cited plagiarism and not just this one line. There is no requirement that there must be a citation movie publicity team and you were already inaccurate on movie citations. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get how you’re still harping about “not needing a source for a plot”. You’re not adding a premise/plot, you are adding in SYNTHESIS about the unnamed state (and just…again you’re adding in this despite it being the one thing I left in of the blurb, it looks ridiculous the section is stating twice that it’s set in an unnamed state) and comparisons to other films YOU YOURSELF made, which is original research. Rusted AutoParts 02:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ORNOT the section on movie being primary sources and the contextualization on kind of what I’m been trying get across.

I don’t get why you are citing you not knowing something as if it’s an issue of concern for your removal since, whatever else, it isn’t grounds for removing this sentence. Part of why you don’t get it is perhaps you don’t read my replies where I explained it multiple times now while lamenting I’m not engaging in this conversation. You removed it earlier because you wrote it was unsourced. The content of things like TV episodes and movies are primary sources (that’s the Wikipedia term) and putting in stuff such as the setting doesn’t need an outside source as per the guidelines. This is well established that if an editor watches a TV episode and movie, they don’t need an outside citation. If I’m a mystery to you then it’s reciprocal since you eventually just gave up in a huff last time and yet keep at it despite not being accurate in your critiques.

How many different excuses are you planning on using. “I say so” isn’t the test for original research which is barred to avoid analysis and conclusion. It is not analysis and/or conclusive to just restate facts in a contextual manner. It is without any dissection of how you can make this claim isn’t just bad-faith. Context isn’t not original research. It’s not original research to set what happens in a movie such as the setting. It’s not original research that James L. Brooks made both “The Simpsons” and now this movie. I’m not saying”this is why the movie is set in an unnamed” and went out of my way to use the most neutral language. It’s still pretty rare for movies or TV shows to be set in a fake state.

This isn’t an article about some well established topic. This is an unreleased movie. It will change a lot. After the movie is released, there will be far more information to deal with such as more detailed synopsis and citable information from press tour, box office data and then again it/when it has DVD and Blu-ray release with behind the scenes extra. But that isn’t now. The article is barely 3 sentences long. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is “just restate facts in a contextual manner” when you are the originating source of these three comparisons? This is literally causing other websites to state as fact when it originated here. Not through the filmmakers, not through a press release, you. You invented these comparisons, and that is original research, what is being missed here? You rather say quite alot to say almost nothing at all, except a very wild amount of missing or ignoring the point. Rusted AutoParts 03:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Context and comparison are not interchangeable. Context is allowed for articles. I’m not comparing the movies. Similarities to the filmmakers previous works or movies in the same genre about a very specific and rare setting is not a comparison. I’m using rare now on my own Talk Page, but I didn’t use rare or another qualifier beyond the what in the first lines of the other movies Wikipedia article. I made no analysis, made no examining and offer no opinion or speculation let alone a conclusive reason.

If it’s original research. That nobody else ever work it (especially for an unreleased movie which isn’t going much written about it at all at this point) isn’t the standard of original research. I watched the trailer and noticed how despite It’s a movie with a major emphasis on state politics, it wasn’t clear at what state it was suppose to take place in. Tons of social media postings brought “Ella McCay” was like the whole what state is Springfield in and I’m not citing them, but it wasn’t to hard. I added because I believed it was interesting and helpful and then with the most neutrally worded context since you immediately started reverting it. Maybe uninteresting or irreverent to you, but clearly whoever copied the Wikipedia article onto that website article did. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one person applying those parallels, if these are in an article they have to be stemming from a reliable source. I can look at The Rocketeer, and find myself drawing similarities towards Captain America: The First Avenger, but I can’t apply it to their pages without an article to support it. Putting it in league with it being part of the synopsis doesn’t make it immune to needing a source or not, it’s not describing the story of the film. Rusted AutoParts 05:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am the one who edited the article, but that isn’t just either making stuff up or passing along my opinion. That isn’t the same thing as claiming I invited this information. I am giving context to the movie’s setting. Also one of the reasons for removal is too broad. Writing “The Rocketeer” and “Captain America: The First Avenger” is similar might fit under that broad. That’s why I’m not writing it. The example doesn’t apply in this very specific of unnamed states which is rare and uncommon and very specific to the filmmaker’s other famous project and the most famous examples in the genre. Those aren’t comparisons on the quality and the language specifically avoids making a conclusion why the movie is set in an unnamed state. Maybe you’re just too smart so you don’t need or want context, but context helps readers. Cladeal832 (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rusted AutoParts 04:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverting of @Ravenswing: makes four editors now. This is despicable. Rusted AutoParts 16:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and the fact the admins said there was no discussion on the article talk page is why it was closed. I guess this long ass discussion here didn’t mean a thing. Mike Allen 19:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve restored your changes (via reverts) against (at least) four different editors, now. You’re heading for a block. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s now five editors that you’ve reverted. Again, you’re heading for a block, if you keep up this behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve don’t actually edited on this article and now YOU are edit warring. Creating false consensus is against the rules including one editor soliciting his/her pals on this site to gang up to get what they want. Wikipedia:False consensus#Coordinated actions Cladeal832 (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve had to mention you at WP:AN. It’s time an administrator step in & evaluate your behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make that WP:ANI — GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the section is Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents#Cladeal832, II. Best, 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 23:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your disruptive editing which includes editing against consensus and slow motion edit warring, you have been indefinitely pageblocked from Ella McCay and Talk: Ella McCay. If this type of misconduct crops up on other articles, you are at risk of a sitewide block, so be cautious. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don’t think I engaged in a proper edit war, but still a total block is unfair an unreasonable. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m in doubt User:Star Mississippi has read the article’s Talk Page. There wasn’t a consensus. There was an ongoing discussion and I reverted a bunch of edits back to original position. Please actual read Talk Page for Ella MacCay. Even still a total indefinite block for this seems very excessive. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were bludgeoning the ANI disussion and had moved into personal attacks. Nothing that was going to help your case was going to come of further participation. Please be mindful of that if you are unblocked in the future. Star Mississippi 16:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can be unblocked in the future? You’ve block me from the entire site indefinately. The guidelines has that I make a case what got the block won’t happen again. I never experienced a low interest article suddenly flooded who only care about me. It was a lot. I don’t want to repeat it. If I ever go to Admin Notice Board, it will be too soon. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2025 (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).

Cladeal832 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What do you want to get an unblocked? ::What bludgeoning on personal attack? I’ve accused of so, so much of late it’s hard to keep track. One is that I committed plagiarism on an article written after I made the edits in question and didn’t whine about it to the admin notice board. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cladeal832#c-Rusted_AutoParts-20251027070700-Cladeal832-20251027065000 ::I moved on for the sake of collaboration. What personal attack and if so, I’m sorry. I try to explain myself is so much this isn’t sometime I wish not to continue or it was done from malice. ::Also not to be too technical about it, but re-reading Wikipedia:ASPERSIONS is not a rule, but an explanatory essay and also I didn’t try to discuss off-wiki activity or use off-wiki evidence. I pointed to the words written on the Talk Page. ::What is using “randos”? That the people didn’t care about “Ella MacCay” since the consensus page are about the article? “Rando” isn’t a personal attack. I’m a rando. I tried to stay away from that noticeboard and wish I had, but there was an on-going request for my total ban and I pushed back. Maybe I’m too snarky for my own good which I apology, but this was dispute over context around the setting of an unleased movie so I was trying to not be too self-serious and grave about it. I was “warned” I might get block by contributors who aren’t admins which isn’t the same as formal warning. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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.

Cladeal832 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reading the block procedure rules. My rights were violated. A total site ban requires a notice board and review and a period of warning and response. I have not intention of Ella MacCay (I’m block specifically from that page anyhow) and also no intention of going to the admin notice board ever again. Also the “violating consensus” is 24-hour block Cladeal832 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. DrKay (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A total site ban requires a notice board and review and a period of warning and response that is a community ban, which is not what happened. There are no “rights”. Any uninvolved administrator may block any editor indefinitely. You are not helping your case here Cladeal832. Please stop bludgeoning and wikilawyering. You will wear out the community’s patience which makes it less likely you will be unblocked. Star Mississippi 17:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don’t understand. What would help my case User:Star Mississippi? This much bad will over a day edit war over “Ella MacCay” seems unusual, least to me. I thought a block was a block. Unsure on community block or whatever. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not understanding why you’re referring to the plagiarism concern. I was concerned it was the case, I had found the Planet of Films page when trying to locate any other place saying the comparisons you were adding. The way it was written at Planet of Films made me think that it might be a case of moving their point over to Wikipedia. Once you pointed out this page was made after your edit, I went to corroborate that, and found that this was indeed the case. I retracted my plagiarism concerns and apologized for the accusation. So I’m not sure why’s it referenced here, it wasn’t to fuel a sense of bad faith towards, it’s just when trying to verify these remarks about this film being similar to X, Y, Z and seeing only one other spot saying this in print, it became a concern. But it was a wrong concern, at the least in the direction being pointed. Because with your OR assertion, other websites are now parroting that. Now, more recently you pointed to cast interviews, which really should’ve been brought forth when all this was first happening, but I don’t think it was wrong to be concerned we were putting out content that (at the time) it seemed no one involved in the film had made. And I resent the assertion I went “whining” to admin boards. You were fighting with multiple people, and at first just not discussing the edit at all on your talk when I first messaged you in September. That’s just not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Rusted AutoParts 18:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply