User talk:AutoMamet

July 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Raging Bull, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, repost edit with citation added. AutoMamet (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

What does one do when one has reason to believe that an erroneous or falsified report has been made regarding an account and would like to have it corrected. What is the proper procedure. AutoMamet (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically are you referring to? The procedure would depend upon what type of "report" you're talking about. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Departed film (2006) has, by general agreement, received a major reappraisal of its sources following the capture of the leading crime character portrayed in the film. Following his capture in 2011 general agreement in the U.S., following the daily PBS News Hour reports of his trial and his capture, has gone to the view that the film is based centrally on the biography of the captured Whitey Bulger. Prior to 2011, from 2006, virtually all of the literature was acknowledging The Departed as originating from a Hong Kong film trilogy called Infernal Affairs. After 2011 and the Bulger capture this view of the overwhelming Bulger orientation of the film, even to the exclusion of mentioning the film trilogy at all, has taken place. The 4 cites were given together in the New Edit as evidence of this reversal of general agreement and opinion from 2011 onward.

This situation is comparable to the film Citizen Kane in film theory (also an academy award winner) where the film was originally presented as being based on a fictional story developed by Orson Welles but only later recognized to be the biography of Randolph Hearst, the newspaper magnate. Today, general agreement throughout the United States acknowledges the biographical aspect of the film as preferred. The manner of how the wikipage which deals with Randolph Hearst on the Citizen Kane page provides a model which would be much more informative for the benefit of wiki readers, rather than deleting this Bulger edit completely or reducing it to a sentence fragment. (See the effective manner that the Citizen Kane page deals with this type of issue. See "Hearst as story model" sic "Bulger as story model.")

The GoogleBooks preview pages for the 4 books referenced in the New Section are limited to small excerpts which are not representative of the books as a whole. If you read the preview only then you have not read the books. They are only previews and of limited value. Realistically, there seems little chance that anyone else would devote the 21-22 hrs needed to read these 4 books, and the option of watching the widely available twenty minute DVD doc of The Departed mentioned in the previous post above would be more realistic and constructive to this discussion. AutoMamet (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom edits

There were some problems with your recent edits on the Bloom page. Your edit had this quote (below) on the page twice (once under "criticism" and once under "writing career"):

:"Bloom has been called "probably the most celebrated literary critic in the United States"[32] and "America's best-known man of letters"[12].

I moved it from the "criticism" and left it in the "writing career" section.

This quote was from a 1994 article, not 2013:

"A 2013 New York Times article noted that many younger critics understand the 83-year-old Bloom as "as an outdated oddity."[34]"

"WP:NPOV requires both sides of the criticism to be shown. You are cutting all positive cites for Bloom against WP:NPOV."

Re, Your comments above: The negative quotes are in the "criticism" section. The rest of the article has many positive cites.Macroscope7 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Departed may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

for ''The Wrap'', Sep 18, 2011.</ref> asked Scorsese to respond to the growing number of books)<ref>Matthew Connolly (2011). ''Don't Embarrass the Family''.</ref><ref>Johnny Mortorano (2013). ''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Raging Bull, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Please do not "edit-war" with other users. This may result in curtailment of your editing privileges. Shirt58 (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Your recent editing history at The Departed shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Several editors have expressed concerns in regards to your edits at this article. Please do not keep restoring disputed material to the article without gaining a consensus first. If you persist I will place a request to have you blocked from editing. Betty Logan (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop implying that I gave you some sort of permission to add that. I most certainly did not. I see that I'm going to have to put that page onto my watchlist; I will block you if you don't stop edit warring. Get consensus to make the addition. That's how Wikipedia works--we are a collaborative project. Simply being sourced does not guarantee that something can be in an article. You can, of course, pursue dispute resolution if you still really think you're correct and others still disagree, but you have to do that, not just edit war. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, seriously. Take your concerns such as this to the talk page. Don't keep trying over and over to insert some point which is disputed. Get consensus on the talk page or let it alone. You may be blocked for slow but long-term edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is proceeding by the book. Your edit history looks rather odd Binks. AutoMamet (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for sock puppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AutoMamet). 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments on my talk page, I'm replying there and here, but please only reply here, as you cannot use an IP to evade your block and edit on my talk page, even if you think the block is not justified:

Ah, now I see it. Okay. You are blocked for sockpuppetry. And the block was absolutely, completely legitimate--you used more than a dozen IP addresses to edit Wikipedia while also maintaining a named account, and you never explicitly stated that those accounts were all owned by you. At this point, you are blocked, and should not be editing anywhere on Wikipedia, including here. If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to request an unblock on your named account as explained by the block message. Finally, please note that ToJ didn't file that SPI (Sockpuppet investigation); that was done by User:Binksternet. I'm going to copy this to your talk page--do not reply anymore here; every time you reply here you are evading your block, and decreasing your chances of being unblocked. If you want to continue the conversation, you will need to do so on your talk page while logged in (you can still edit your talk even though blocked). You will need to focus any such conversation on the actual reasons for the block--that is, are you really going to attempt to argue that those IP addresses don't belong to you? If not--if you're going to actually admit to the sockpuppetry, which I think you should, you'll need to start to explain why that happened, and how you plan to behave differently in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've just blocked you indefinitely per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AutoMamet. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]