User talk:Editor2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Editor2008, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Alientraveller (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Raiders of the Lost Ark
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
That amateur remake was very notable and has become a prime example of Indy fandom. Alientraveller (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- All major movies have fandom, most have amateur remakes, and it is not notable. Editor2008 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it is if that crew appeared worldwide on major news and even received praised from Spielberg himself. Take it to the talk page or you may get blocked for starting a revert war. Alientraveller (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't threaten me when YOU have started a revert war. The paragraph I removed is irrelevant advertising for an amateur remake trying to sell videos. If the remake itself is noteworthy (it is not), they should have their own page.Editor2008 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it is if that crew appeared worldwide on major news and even received praised from Spielberg himself. Take it to the talk page or you may get blocked for starting a revert war. Alientraveller (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- All major movies have fandom, most have amateur remakes, and it is not notable. Editor2008 (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Alientraveller (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're wrong, and I'll leave WP:CONSENSUS to eventually restore cited, notable information. Please discuss controversial edits anyway: I will not violate 3RR just because you are a vandal with a very jaded viewpoint. Alientraveller (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how the edit is controversial. We have a POV disagreement over the importance of a low budget amateur remake. The existence of this remake was added to the ROTLA article years after the remake was shot. It is not remotely newsworthy, and the fact that they have a form letter from Steven Spielberg saying "great job" does not make it so. Has this remake sold more than 10 copies? Has anyone other than the users and their friends, a few people on Youtube maybe, seen it? No. It is not a well-known remake. You are free to disagree. Please do so without auto-reverting every 3 seconds. And please do so without idle threats of vandalism/banning/etc. when in fact this is a simple POV disagreement. If you had been nicer, this would have all been much easier.
- Whatever, you're wrong, I'm right. Alientraveller (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how the edit is controversial. We have a POV disagreement over the importance of a low budget amateur remake. The existence of this remake was added to the ROTLA article years after the remake was shot. It is not remotely newsworthy, and the fact that they have a form letter from Steven Spielberg saying "great job" does not make it so. Has this remake sold more than 10 copies? Has anyone other than the users and their friends, a few people on Youtube maybe, seen it? No. It is not a well-known remake. You are free to disagree. Please do so without auto-reverting every 3 seconds. And please do so without idle threats of vandalism/banning/etc. when in fact this is a simple POV disagreement. If you had been nicer, this would have all been much easier.
OK, let me calm down. Can you name any other amateur remake? Of course not? Is any other amateur remakers getting a biopic? No. Now revert your misinformed edit and discuss on the talk page. Clearly, no other amateur remake ever made it into Empire, AICN and the BBC now did they? Anyway, I believe WP:CONSENSUS can sort this out and you will revert your deletion when you listen to the facts. Good day to you accidental vandal. Alientraveller (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here are some reliable sources:
Now, be satisfied. Alientraveller (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you not ready to admit your mistake now?
Alientraveller (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Civility
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Alientraveller (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Alientraveller (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you post on someone else's talk page, especially if your post is heated, and s/he deletes your post, I recommend you don't revert - this only inflames the situation. Addhoc (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, but somebody needs to call this guy out on his rudeness, etc.Editor2008 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you post on someone else's talk page, especially if your post is heated, and s/he deletes your post, I recommend you don't revert - this only inflames the situation. Addhoc (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for disengaging, it really helps, shame not everyone would have the sense to know when to stop. Please think carefully in future. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Spebi 22:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dragonball
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Dragonball (film), is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Truce
Over the past two days you've been reverting whatever edits I've made without even a care for the benefit they give to an article. Now I'm sorry if I was brusque to your mistake in editing Raiders of the Lost Ark, but this isn't going to do anything but waste time we both have to improving the encyclopedia. I'm sorry if I offended you first time round. But frankly, going on a revert rampage and repeatedly post WP:CIVIL violations is not going to change anything. OK? Alientraveller (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I haven't violated anything, and please stop saying that I have. I am happy to have a truce if you (1) treat people with respect, not insult their edits, and not auto-revert edits you don't agree with and call it vandalism and (2) don't revert any of my edits without discussing them first on talk page. In exchange I will severely limit my reverts/edits of your changes. But I will continue to assert a few changes I feel appropriate, like the ET-Spielberg edit -- why is it relevant to the ET article what Spielberg spent the money on? I think you could say something like he made X amount of money and it propelled him to superstar director status, but line items of what he spent his cash on? Editor2008 (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Glad for some civility, and I've saved the E.T. cite for potential use in another article. Your edits are sometimes controversial though, as in the Raiders case, and obviously your notion was disproved. Anyway, good good. Alientraveller (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't violated anything, and please stop saying that I have. I am happy to have a truce if you (1) treat people with respect, not insult their edits, and not auto-revert edits you don't agree with and call it vandalism and (2) don't revert any of my edits without discussing them first on talk page. In exchange I will severely limit my reverts/edits of your changes. But I will continue to assert a few changes I feel appropriate, like the ET-Spielberg edit -- why is it relevant to the ET article what Spielberg spent the money on? I think you could say something like he made X amount of money and it propelled him to superstar director status, but line items of what he spent his cash on? Editor2008 (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
