User talk:Johnc69

June 2010

Your recent edit to the page Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. SCΛRECROW 08:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Han Solo has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Jusdafax 06:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Could you please rememeber to leave edit summaries to help other users see what you have changed. Thanks. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predator (film)

Regarding your recent edits to Predator (film), several of the sources you have added are not acceptable by encyclopedic standards. Wikipedia relies on "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I have explained the specific problems with the sources in my edit summaries, which you can read by viewing the article's history. To reiterate:

This gives no context, explanation, or authorship. It's merely a list of titles with cartoonish graphics. It does not appear to be a reliable source and does not support the claim that "over the years, the film's critical praise has grown considerably."
This is a Listmania list on Amazon.com. We do not cite retailers, and lists on Amazon.com are user-made; they can be made by any anonymous Amazon user and are based entirely on that user's own personal opinions...this one is made by someone who calls himself "Bubby". Certainly not a "reliable, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It would be like me creating a list on my Wikipedia userpage of "IllaZilla's favorite movies of all time" and then going to the articles about those films and citing my list as proof that they are great. Amazon.com users are not sources of professional critical opinion.
IMDb lists have much the same problem: They are based on user ratings, not critical opinions, and are subject to votestacking and other POV issues. We only consider professional critics' ratings such as those from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, which are already cited in the article.

Finally, there is no need to start a second paragraph on the positive criticim of the film in years hence; there is already a paragraph dedicated to that, and it is only a few sentences long, so new content on the later critical praise can simply be appended to that paragraph.

For more information on sourcing and reliability, I recommend you read the following pages:

--IllaZilla (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Johnc69, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --IllaZilla (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful

John, [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jaws_2&curid=352795&diff=381062347&oldid=380286145 this} comment was unhelpful. I suspect you were trying to inject some humour -- unfortunately Wikipedia tries to keep a professional, neutral tone. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Edward Norton, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Nymf _hideliho! 19:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Camping

Your edit on the Harold Camping article appeared to be original research and is also illogical. Camping never said anything would happen to computers and web pages, just a limited number of people. Please refrain from just making up arguments off the top of your head.Beelzebubbles101 (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries (again)

Hi Johnc69. As previously mentioned, could you please rememeber to leave edit summaries to help other users see what you have changed. Thanks. Murray Langton (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Conservapedia is very biased. Jasper Deng (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Jaws 2. When removing content, 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 content 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. Betty Logan (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dilbert-show.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Dilbert-show.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2011 (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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]