Bellatrixpotter98

This and this make it pretty clear you're Bellatrix2017, who is Dcasey98. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, when you claimed that "We removed Harry Potter from the list because it was deemed to mature" as if you were part of some consensus formed in 2015 -- you either come across as totally wrong or dishonest. Talk:List_of_children's_films features no such discussion until 2016, and during that time you fail to gain consensus and instead create sockpuppets like some troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Block request removal

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).

Bellatrixpotter98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've been a running participant in the debacle surrounding the "children's film list" for a while now. When I first joined in 2015, the Harry Potter films were not on the list, because there were clear stipulations made at the time for the disclusion of all films rated PG-13 or higher, or were marketed to teens and up...which the Potter films were deemed to have been marketed to. Now, the real issue comes into play. I totally acknowledge, back in early 2016, that I was irresponsible and block-worthy for creating multiple accounts after another, but ever since then, I've tried to come back and start over with a new account, with a username along the lines of "bellatrix98" or "dcasey2017," and attempt to participate in editing the page like a normal human being. I've always participated heavily in talk pages, I've always tried to reason and compromise, I never got heated, I always more than proved my point, and what the irresponsible edits that got me blacked this time around was, wait for it, adding Star Wars films to the children's film list, which fit all their criteria for inclusion in the list by far. I promise to further attempt to reason with the editors of the list, but they're gatekeeping right now, and it's not okay. They're using the list as a tool of patronization, they're selectively adding sources to Potter that aren't valid at all in attempt to lock it in, they have no other PG-13 films on the list...all I can promise to do better is to continue, as I've already done, to talk with the contributors before I make my edits.Bellatrixpotter98 (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The ability to clean start with a new account is only open to users in good standing and who are not blocked. If you are blocked, creating new accounts is not permitted, and you must appeal the block using your original account. So what you need to do is go back to your original account and make a request from there, covering the issues detailed by Ian.thomson, below - though I suspect he's right in that you are unlikely to be offered anything better than the WP:Standard Offer, with a minimum of six months without socking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

At this point, you need to:

• Stop creating sockpuppets
• Do edit the site for six months (you can still read)
• After six months, go back to your original account and request an unblock there, where you explain:

-What you did wrong (without trying to blame anyone else)

-How you will avoid making those mistakes again

-Give us reasons to trust that you will not cause problems again (such as avoiding the issues that lead to your block)

That is your only chance of being unblocked.

Promising to continue is only digging the hole you're in even deeper. Promising to continue is the opposite of what you should be doing. Promising to continue makes you look like another disruptive editor who needs to be blocked on sight. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait, excuse me? I did nothing wrong but rationally make additions to a list page and you're calling that "disruptive editing". Ian, you and Betty are gatekeeping. You violently lash out at users who try to rationalize, and you don't have any sort of set system of rules for the page I'm editing.

The Harry Potter films are the only PG-13 films on that list. Let's address the issue here, please tell me how that makes sense to you. Bellatrixpotter98 (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You repeated the same dismissed arguments, ignored the core of other's arguments, edit warred, and then spent the next year and a half creating multiple sockpuppet accounts to continue edit warring -- that's disruptive, selfish, and rude no matter how much you pretend you want compromise. If you can't accept that, you do not belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh, the arguments were never dismissed. I more than proved just by demonstrating that they were the only PG-13 rated films on the list that they were an inappropriate choice for the list. No one gave me an argument back, demonstrated other PG-13 films on the list, gave any sort of rationale other than "but you don't know what *could be considered a kids film" and just went away. There's a whole page of me and Betty debating on her talk page, I give her all the points I have: ") Half-Blood Prince was rated PG-13 in ancillary release and therefore does not belong on this list. That's 3 out of the eight films on this list. 3) Considering which films were edited down, only 2 of the films in the U.S. actually were given solid PG ratings, the first two, and films 3-8 are rated 12A, 12, or 15 in the UK...all child unfriendly ratings. Also, just because a film is rated PG does not mean it is marketed to children. Marketing for the Harry Potter franchise (including movie promo materials, merchandise, book editions, etc,) targets teens as a median audience, and adults as a secondary one, and has done so since at least the year 1999. Saying they're marketed to children so exclusively is factually incorrect. That would require us to lie about the film ratings. 2) Criteria established earlier on this page states that no film that is: a) marketed to adolescents or adults, b) rated PG-13 or above, c) given an unsuitable rating by a variety of other international film classification boards, or d) defined as 'coming-of-age' or as 'young adult' in nature (meaning adapted from teen-oriented source material, marketed as a 'teen film' rather than four-quadrant,) shall be listed as a children's film.

This criteria disqualifies about every Harry Potter film from the children's criteria. Germany's film rating system rates the entire series FSK-12, a child unfriendly rating. Japan rates the franchise predominantly PG-12, the UK rates the films mainly 12 (Deathly Hallows Part 1 received a 15 and should NOT be on this list whatsoever,) Australia rates them M bar the first two, as does New Zealand, and Brazil rates all the films alongside movies like "The Departed" and "Django Unchained," etc.... The books are defined as YA fantasy works, and they've been primarily marketed to an adolescent, and increasingly adult, audience. Children have evolved to be, and have always been, a fringe audience of the Harry Potter series. They do not meet the pre-established criteria for being on this list. If we were to go by your rules, we would have to merge have the teen films list to this one. We would have to include all the Lord of the Rings films, The Hunger Games films and most other YA franchises similar to Harry Potter, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, Eragon, and the entire Star Wars series, among many others, on the children's film list. Harry Potter is no more a children's film series than The Hunger Games of Star Wars (it's actually less so than the latter.)"

Her last and only response was: "And PG-13 is a broader category than you make it out to be. You are the one who keeps deferring to ratings, but as I pointed out above, rating systems rate content, they do not determine the audience, and those vary from country to country. In Family Films in Global Cinema written by Noel Brown (PhD and presently researching the history of British children's cinema} and Bruce Babington (Professor of Film at Newcastle University) say "Many major Hollywood family films, including several of the Harry Potter movies, are now released in the US with a PG-13 rating, previously not considered a family-freindly classification." You still haven't provided a valide reason as to why we should defer to your opinion rather than that of a"

My last was: "This source just decides that Harry Potter is a family series without any knowledge of the criteria that makes a franchise family oriented?

They aren't "now released in the U.S. with a PG-13," they've all pretty much been released as PG-13, and the equivalent of that rating in almost every other country with a significant film rating system, if not higher!

Most of the films (therefore the franchise in general) are rated too highly and are marketed to too mature an audience to be classified as a children's film series. The Harry Potter films appear to be very lazily, arbitrarily, and inaccurately classified as family films in this article. There is no indication as to what his criteria for a family film is.

Family films can be anything from G to R, but the few times you actually hear about Harry Potter being called a 'family' film franchise, it's in reference to its wide-reaching, four-quadrant nature, not to its true median audience of teens or even its secondary audience of adults. That's what we have to consider when classifying films as children's films. PG-13 is much more defined than U, as it encompasses most modern films and is assigned an age components. A U rated film in France does not have any sort of age component, and is left to encompass films ranging from Zootopia to The Dark Knight and Deathly Hallows Part 2.

You've failed to offer me a single reliable source so far. Dcasey98 (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)"

So please, no one ever rationalized anything. There was a person who really wanted to pull the "patronization card" on the Harry Potter fan base and that's what they did.

Why. Are. They. The. Only. PG-13. Films. On. The. List.

All the marketing from the brand is adult retail. There's no kids toys, cartoons, clothing, none whatsoever.

Just answer the question. You have no reason to include them and lock them into the list other than "I just wanna patronize Harry Potter and call it a kids film series".

Bellatrixpotter98 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

This page is not for continuing your content argument. In fact, this page is not for anything at all, as it is the talk page of a sockpuppet account, so I have revoked your ability to edit it. If you want to be unblocked go and make a request from your original account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)