User talk:Fallacies4

Wrong dates for the Gold Raspberries

Please check your dates for the Golden Raspberries -- it appears that most of the dates in your edits are off by one year.GretDrabba (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dates are true. For Example the film with Santa Clause 3 with Tim Allen was released 2006 and the film was nominated for the Golden Raspberry one year later. Fallacies4 (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You list Tim Allen as part of the 2007 nominations, but the webpage of the Razzies lists the Tim Allen nomination as part of the 27th Annual Razzie Award Nominees of 2006. WP also lists it as part of 2006. Here’s the Razzie site: [[1]]

I understand your logic, but it may be that the Razzies want their award to be listed with the same date as the film. And if they call them 2006 and others do, then it would be confusing to give them a different date. I can’t see how I’m mistaken about this. So, please double check.

This appears true of others of your edits that I checked.GretDrabba (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. My edits followed the german sites of the Golden Raspberry Awards and this sites are a little bit different: Her you can see: [[2]]

The next time I will follow the original sites of the Razzies. So thank you for the advice. Fallacies4 (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Okay. I think it's good of you to be adding interesting information.GretDrabba (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Fallacies4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Coretheapple (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I notice that since you created your account a few weeks ago, every one of your contributions has consisted of adding the Golden Raspberry Award to filmographies and biographical articles of performers. The "Razzie" is a joke award, and it really doesn't belong in the award section of articles. Coretheapple (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're revert-warring on the subject, you may want to be mindful of the three-revert rule. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first thank you for the advices. I can understand your problem. It is right that the Razzie Award is a joke award, but it is also an award evaluates performances and it also real, materialistic award. I think it also important to show bad performances of people in the film business. But when it is important for you (and the other users), I will finish the editing of this award. I hope you see that I'm not the only user that makes this awards editings.

P.S.: Also I hope you can excuse my bad English (I'm from Germany). If you can not understand what I have written, you can ask me what it means. It is not an insult for me. Fallacies4 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. To be precise, this is a "parody" award. I don't think we should mix parodies with real awards. However, I've posted a note at the film project for further input into this. Coretheapple (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry Awards

Hello!

I see you're adding the Raspberry Awards people have been "honored" with to their biography articles. Please understand that per the Biographies of living persons policy, a citation to a reliable source is needed for most any edit, but ESPECIALLY for information that may be considered derogatory. You need to go back and fix the edits you've made. Thanks! Ashanda (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice. I will fix the edits. Fallacies4 (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a citation will not fix the problem. I strongly recommend that you revert all of the edits you made adding the "Razzie" to film biographies. I just confirmed at Wikiproject Film[3] that it has been consensus for years that this parody award is not to be included in biographies. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to add these awards without sources, even when reverted and pointed to the above discussion, as evidenced at Josh Brolin. Please do not edit-war. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for John Travolta. And you are edit warring. Please stop. Coretheapple (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you not delete the other Razzie Award Nominations from John Travolta? Fallacies4 (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't notice. I have now, and removed it. Can you please stop adding to BLPs without sourcing? Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But when I give them a source. Is it than okay? Fallacies4 (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, but in my opinion it would have to be from a source independent of the Razzies. We're basically holding people up to ridicule, for extremely bad work, and I think that for a BLP we need sourcing other than the anonymous people issuing these "awards." There's a discussion underway at Wikiproject Film, and you're welcome to participate. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Your recent editing history at John Travolta 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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to List of awards and nominations received by Marlon Brando, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Melanie Griffith 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. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likely block soon

You've ignored the ANI discussion and continued to add unsourced material. I can't think of a good reason not to block you, can you please give me one? Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't give you a good reason to not block me. It is true that I ignored the discussions and that I don't take every advice from the other editors. The reasons for that ignorance is on the one hand my English knowledge. Maybe you can see that I'm not a native English speaker, so that I could not understand every advice in detail. On the other hand I was a little angry because of the deleting of some my edits, without giving me any reason why they do that. Yes, not everybody did that, but some of them. You can block me. It is okay for me. I can just promise you, that I will try to avoid this mistakes again. I have no mre promisses that I can give you. Fallacies4 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've waited to see what you do and so long as you live up to what you've said here and at ANI you should be ok. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]