User talk:Movieguruman

Potential deletion of Steinbeck's Point of View

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created, Steinbeck's Point of View, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. See WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this was vandalism. An explanation instead of an automated message would be fantastic.(Movieguruman (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see anybody saying it was vandalism. Just that it didn't meet the standards in policy. Eeekster (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism, but it's a film still in development, and IMDB says Denzel Washington's participation is "rumored". See WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly advice

Hello, Movieguruman. I've noticed a great many of your edits have been reverted. This is frustrating; we all know from experience. I just thought I would give you a heads up.

WP:Notability: I've noticed you've been quoting various film reviews. This is great. I'm a fan of film reviews myself; it's just, not every review of every film is notable. That is to say, if every review were quoted, we'd have a heck of a lot of space taken up. That's why "reception" sections in articles on films are usually limited to an overview of the general consensus of reviewers (such as the aggregation of Rotten Tomatoes). Now, with this, if you feel a review -- any review -- is notable, please continue to be bold and put it in the article.

WP:Verifiability: In any event, if you choose to quote a review it would be a wise move to source it. It is not a requirement, of course, to source an edit (except in the case of living people) but it may help in preventing future editors from reverting your edits if you take the step to source them yourself -- as opposed to another editor having to do so.

That's just some friendly advice, take it or leave it, because your zeal as an editor is appreciated. I hope I have been of some help. -- Chickenmonkey^X sign? 04:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And along similar lines, I want to apologize for coming off a little harsh. The first few of your links I stumbled onto I mistook as spam because of the notability issue. This is my bad for not assuming good faith. I've spent too much time on vandal patrol lately. In any case the other problem with the things you've posted (and I'm thinking of Rocky Balboa sequel rumors specifically here) is that you need to use inline citations instead of putting the links in your edit summaries. WP:CITE should be helpful for that. I'm a bit new to the referencing myself (I'm mostly a text dork) but the section on how to present citations is one I refer back to a lot, along with some other links provided in that same section. Millahnna (mouse)talk 16:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

First of all, I do not have a "history of deleting conservative polls". That article was the very first I did, and I reverted your edit once. Also, Fox News Channel is not a moderate news station, and is not reputable enough to be the sole source for the article. We seem to have fundamental political differences, and I would suggest that it be stated in the discussion page for further consideration. BalticPat22Patrick 18:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously picking apart my edit/discussion history? Do you know how ridiculous you sound right now? Also, I have every right to delete statements in my talk page, per WP:UP. Regardless, the wording was already changed, so you are arguing with me for no reason whatsoever.BalticPat22Patrick 04:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not referring to your talk page!!! I'm referring to you deleting sections of articles, such as MSNBC and Obama because they contain information that upsets you. It is disruptive.(Movieguruman (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Movieguruman. You have new messages at Liquidluck's talk page.
Message added 04:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

liquidluck✽talk 04:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on Selena's talk- please comment there. liquidluck✽talk 05:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thechroniclesofratman for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The³5₉ (Talk) 17:37, 24 April 2010 (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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]