User talk:JeanCastì

January 2023

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Superman III, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Superman curse, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here.

Apart from the issue of cited sources, even if Cain were considered for that role, that does not mean he became a household name for that reason, as the passage reads. Such a bit of information, if supported by a citation, would more properly go in Cain's own Wikipedia article, as it has nothing to do with the topic of the Superman curse article.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Batman Forever, you may be blocked from editing. Mike Allen 19:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Superman III. Mike Allen 19:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk: MikeAllen, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Mike Allen 19:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one who started the personal attacks was you with your threats. So I am going to ask you the immense favor: LEAVE ME ALONE.--JeanCastì (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing because of your persistent unsourced editing, because of the fact that instead of accepting advice and information from more experienced editors and learning from it, you respond with belligerent defiance, incivility and childish attacks, and refuse to comply with Wikipedia policies. Please think about the reasons for the block, and take care not to make the same mistakes again after the block is over, so as to avoid having to be blocked from editing again.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

This block is arbitrary and an outrage. I did accept advice from good-hearted people and I put the corresponding references. But other users are reverting my contributions and threaten me with blocks. Do you think it is fair and good what these people are doing to me? A simple mistake is no reason to block me. If I had insulted with worst words or threatened another user that would be unacceptable. And just when I am about to create my first article is when you block me. So I ask you to please unblock me. I'm new here in Wikipedia and I put sources in almost every contribution.

Decline reason:

First, you're blocked for 48 hours; maybe it would be more productive to take a break and reflect on your actions. Because you seem to have a hot temper and a battleground mentality. Your ALL CAPS combative edit summaries are not making it a pleasant experience for others to work with you. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2023 (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.

JeanCastì (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few pieces of advice which, if you follow them, may make it more likely that an administrator will accept your unblock request. It is, of course, entirely up to you whether you take the advice, but it is offered because I believe that if you do take it, then it may help you.

Did you take the advice to read the guide to appealling blocks before posting your unblock request? If not, then I strongly recommend doing so now, and editing your request to take advantage of the advice provided in that guide.
You are absolutely right in saying that a simple mistake is no reason to block you, but that you weren't blocked for a simple mistake. You were blocked because of a combination of a number of unacceptable actions. An unblock request which refers to the actual reasons for the block is more likely to succeed.
You are more likely to persuade an administrator to unblock you if you attempt to address the issues which have been raised by your edits. For example, if an administrator reviewing your request sees this edit, it will not encourage them to lift the block, so in order to have a reasonable chance of being unblocked you should consider commenting on what you now think of that message, having had time to reconsider it. JBW (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading the guide to appealling blocks. I'm modifying my appeal. That guy Mike Allen finds my references and sources poorly and insufficient, and to make matters worse, the other guy NJZombie makes my life impossible by reversing what I did claiming he has no sources. You must look at NJZombie's edits; he reverses what I did whether or not they are sourced. I accept that I did wrong, but NJZombie is doing worse, and Mike more so by threatening to block me. It makes me angry that people are meddling in issues they don't know about. Another question is; why Mike don't delete my edit in his discussion page? I tried to avoid this situation but it's ridiculous how this whole thing turned out. But for what it's worth: I'm sorry if I offended Mike. I reiterate: I never meant for it to end like this.--JeanCastì (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

”NJZombie makes my life impossible by reversing what I did claiming he has no sources. You must look at NJZombie's edits; he reverses what I did whether or not they are sourced.”

Name a single edit I reverted for no source in which you actually provided one. As a new user, it’s common to have your edits reverted as you learn the proper way to edit. The goal is to learn and get better at editing and to not get angry and make personal attacks against those who correct your errors. Many of us, including myself, made the same mistakes when we started. NJZombie (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: Your own editing history gives you away. You are just proving me right. You are just justifying the unjustifiable. I am not going to argue with you any further. JeanCastì (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no argument to begin with. I just asked for an example of a sourced edit of yours that I reverted. None were provided. Other than that, I offered some simple advice. Good luck! NJZombie (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Barry Wom (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what is it difficult for you to correct what I do instead of reverting? The edition war can be avoided if there are good deals between users. It is better that we come to good terms.--JeanCastì (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the job of other editors to correct your poor wording. See WP:COMPETENCE. Barry Wom (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poor wording? What a way to treat other editors. You were not taught to treat others as you would like to be treated.JeanCastì (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's becoming quite obvious this person is WP:NOTHERE. Mike Allen 16:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody, absolutely nobody called you here to intervene. I came here in good faith to contribute, but you and that other guy had to come to bother me. You mainly started all of this. I strongly ask you: leave me alone. What have I done to you? Have I messed with you? What's your problem? JeanCastì (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jairo Pinilla

The article Jairo Pinilla has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Only ref goes to a dead site that when retrieved does cite the person's nickname "Colombian Ed Wood". Only know for a few films in the 70s and 80s with only one being verifiable. On the Spanish Wiki the refs are YouTube, IMDb and interview.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mike Allen 16:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be improved and there are plenty of sources for this great Colombian film director. So JA!JeanCastì (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard post moved

I have moved your post from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which is where it belongs. Also please note that if you make a report about an editor on an administrators' noticeboard you must inform that editor on their talk page. JBW (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing problems

I have posted a message in response to your posts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I expect you will see it there, but to avoid any doubt, I am also posting the substance of my message here.

In a post on that notice board, timed at 17:33, 15 January 2023, you wrote "And my hostility I put aside to avoid more trouble." You may like to read through your posts since then, and consider whether or not any of them may look hostile to other readers. In the same post you claimed that I had called you a liar (although I hadn't) and you went on to say "There is nothing more offensive than a person being called a liar." Subsequently, at 18:26, 18 January 2023, you wrote "NJZombie stop lying". Thus you were saying something to another editor which in your own opinion was as offensive as anything could be. If you don't drop your habit of attacking other editors with whom you disagree now then don't be surprised if you are indefinitely blocked from editing without further notice. JBW (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

In January, 2023, you were blocked for two days for disruptive editing, after insulting other editors in your earliest edits. You barely edited for the next four months, and in June, 2023, you returned to your previous disruptive editing and insults. You are now blocked for two weeks. This is a collaborative project. If you cannot get along with your fellow editors, then Wikipedia may not be the volunteer project for you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Cullen328: I have not insulted anyone. My edits are not disruptive and I have given sources to everything. Now this guy NJZombie, another one who has caused me problems, now says that the sources must be in Spanish and there are sources that are not. This is already bordering on xenophobia towards languages, as if English is the only one that exists, and you are doing the same by limiting me and preventing me from learning English. After my blocking; others have been reversing what I have been doing. There you see who are the ones doing disruptive edits. As I said on that page where I went from victim to victimizer; when you work as a team you never trip someone else up. You don't sabotage or hinder them. I didn't do that; I'm not the one who reverses on the grounds of misspelling. In Batman Begins there was the phrase: It's not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us. See the last few articles I modified and you'll see that those facts speak more for themselves. You judge me without knowing me and you also commit a vile injustice to me, just like those editors you don't know me and spurred on by them you threaten to block me forever. I accept my block with resignation but one thing is true; you take any claim as something personal and that is called lack of ethics. And all your words and the ones I have seen from those editors are a real offence against me. And finally, Christians are right in this phrase; do not judge because with the same yardstick you will be judged.--JeanCastì (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I have not insulted anyone." Sure you haven't. Not unless you count the edit summaries in which you said... "You IGNORANT." "You don't know anything about this." "You don't know anything about Bond films." "You don't know absolutely nothing about TV, specially colombian TV." "...AND PLEASE KISS MY 4SS." NJZombie (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, someone tell you "please comment bother and sabotage JeanCastì"? Leave me alone. JeanCastì (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) (Random person who wandered in, not a talk page stalker) Nobody is trying to hound you or bother you, merely trying to prevent disruptive or insulting edits. There are people who patrol Recent Changes (recent edits to Wikipedia). This may be why it seems like random people are wandering in to revert your edits. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 13:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edward-Woodrow. Do you find it disruptive or insulting to post certain information with its sources? Does the fact that it is people who patrol recent changes give them the right to reverse and dismiss one's hard work just because it is "poorly worded"? What does it cost these people to make the appropriate correction instead of reversing? Suppose you make an edition with your sources but poorly drafted, these people who patrol recent changes come along and revert to you, do you think it is fair to revert instead of correcting which is more constructive than reverting? It should be reversed only if the editing is vandalistic or without sources but as a matter of principle and good faith the wording should be corrected. But well, I'm not going to argue any more, in order to avoid problems here, and I'm going to step aside from the whole DC Comics issue also for that purpose, and dedicate myself to other articles. At least I appreciate your good faith. Regards. JeanCastì (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that it is people who patrol recent changes give them the right to reverse and dismiss one's hard work just because it is "poorly worded"?

I'll simply repeat what I said to you in January of this year. "It is not the job of other editors to correct your poor wording. See WP:COMPETENCE."

I have again just had to revert one of your edits for being poorly worded. I'd recommend you stick to the claim that you're "not going to argue any more" and avoid disputing this reversion. Barry Wom (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you have no shame. You don't abide by that rule and you want others to abide by it? with that "It is not the job of other editors to correct your poor wording" you are just showing arrogance and 0 humility. If Wikipedia is for mutual collaboration, you and others are not doing it. You are despicable. Leave Jean Casti alone. 152.200.176.25 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United Artists. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wcquidditch you're very funny. I ask for sources about the United Artists' defunction and you tell my edits are disruptive and unconstructive? Ask for the editor put sources is disruptive? LEAVE ME ALONE.--JeanCastì (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen328 (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I hereby politely and cordially request my release. This block imposed on me is an outrage, an injustice and an arbitrariness; the person who denounced me does not have the slightest proof, not even the most implausible, that I used that IP which I thank for having defended me from the bullying that guys like Barry Wom or NJZombie do to me for that already worn out argument of "Poorly worded". If you see my edits, especially improvement of several articles even created, you will see how I have contributed even with the respective sources and that my attempts to contribute to other articles have been thwarted by several users, especially Barry Wom and NJZombie. The first one neither does nor lets do, and that IP is right when he says that he has no humility; he is like Doña Florinda in the Mexican series El Chavo; for him to do favours is to be someone else's servant. NJZombie is not even capable of going through the regular channels of reporting me on the Bulletin Board and complains to someone else as if we were still in elementary school. Procedures are being done wrong here. Besides, to be constructive is not to hinder the other; or as they say in other latitudes; not to put the stick in the wheel of the bicycle, or not to step on each other's hoses. I am sorry if what I did was not constructive; besides there is no news or evidence of the dissolution of the United Artists, writing without sources is not constructive either. How do you expect me to build an encyclopedia if there are people who do not set an example? I am willing to change my attitude and improve my writing and whatever else you want, the question is whether others are willing to give in. That is why I am requesting my unblocking. Greetings. JeanCastì (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed block evasion of prior blocks via IP addresses. As per policy, no comment on the IP addresses involved. Your doubling down on personal attacks in this unblock request makes it very clear the indefinite block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2023 (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.

Don't tell me. Now telling the truth is making personal attacks. I am not evading any block and this block was put on me by you after that IP had also sung the truths to you on my discussion page.Yamla is the epitome of what happens in several countries, especially Colombia; criminals and politicians cover themselves, even with the same blanket. I had the best attitude to change but it is clear that here in Wikipedia the administrators and users are overwhelmed by arrogance, those users who took it upon themselves to make my life impossible here.--JeanCastì (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since your edits since the block was imposed have shown that you have every intention of continuing in the same ways that led to the block, including childish personal attacks on editors, allowing you talk page access is going to achieve nothing useful, and may result in wasting other editors' time. I have therefore removed your talk page access. JBW (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]