User talk:SaulGoodman6969

Hello, SaulGoodman6969, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 03:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

November 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Halloween Ends, you may be blocked from editing. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not adding original research. It's literally all proven through the 244 reviews I read from Rotten Tomatoes and all of the metacritic reviews. Stop assuming it's "original research" because it's not. I looked into this stuff more than y'all think I have. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello, I'm 1AmNobody24. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, CoryxKenshin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nobody (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I provided evidence from his channel. It's enough evidence, and I seriously doubt you even looked at the citations. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Hello, I'm Raladic. I noticed that you recently removed content from 2023 Target Pride Month merchandise backlash without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Wikipedia doesn’t allow original research - you should not remove sourced content and make inferences that are not actually backed by reliable sources Raladic (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I explained why already. How did you not see that? SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 2023 Target Pride Month merchandise backlash, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 07:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not original research, as I gave a source for the claim, and y'all just simply have a overly uptight and biased moderation team. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

A policy on Wikipedia is that it is not a crystal ball and we do not place unverified claims or rumors in articles and in no place has law enforcement made any clear statements, other than that no suspicias things were found, which is already in the article. Raladic (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It was confirmed through multiple news sources that it was all a hoax from overseas by a lgbt activist. How do you not get that? lol SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No, there was some claims reported by some outlets, but I have not seen any confirmation, especially not from law enforcement.

Wikipedia is not a WP:NEWSPAPER, so we do not report on claims or speculation. If you believe you have a report by a reliable secondary source (you can refer to WP:RS for a list), you can add a discussion on the talk page, but as it stands, we report on the fact that hoax threats were made, which is factually reported by reputable sources, but none make a confirmed statement from authorities on the origin. Raladic (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It just sounds like you haven't really looked into it all that much. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Click (2006 film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

How the hell did I post original research when I actually researched the film's reviews on every review website? Plus, you literally let other people do their own original research, yet, not my research that I actually researched. That's complete bullshit. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the dial of destiny

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by censoring cited information based upon your personal analysis of an article, as you have a history of doing.

Given the debacle over “The Flash”, which also flopped fairly quickly as well, and the recent trend of franchise fatigue, and the simple fact that Indy 5 is one of the most inexpensive movies ever made at 300 mil(not including the equally high marketing costs), it is not too soon to call this a flop based on its trajectory and how it’s tracking. It’s a nobrainer in fact. And the failure of The Flash likely made it easier for the press to call this, given that it’s part of a larger trend. I noticed in reviewing your editing history you have a habit as acting as an unofficial spin doctor over the years for major corporate movies. Let’s not? We go with the citations and reflect the press consensus. And they aren’t conflicted about this movie’s disastrous debut.

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

A lot of film bomb out of the starting gate: John Carter, The Flash, The Beach, the most recent Terminator film. In this case, it has to do with being one of the most expensive movies ever made.

Wikipedia tries to archive the ‘press-consensus’ in real time. Our personal feelings and arbitrary criteria are not allowed.

I listed several citations calling the movie a massive bomb. Until the press says otherwise, we respect the etiquette of WP:Citation and do not engage in WP:Censor

Vandalizing the article as you are doing may result in a block on your account.2601:282:8100:32A0:D970:24B5:5F91:67D4 (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

But the movie's only been out for a week, and the international box office hasn't been fully revealed, yet. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Not only that, but it seemed to line-up similarly with movies like Mission Impossible: Fallout and Fast x, and those movies ended up getting $700 million dollars. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

So, I wouldn't call the shots, yet. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

(I meant box office-wise.) SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

So, this is completely unfair to claim to the movie is a box office failure when it hasn't revealed its full international box office in like 6 days, because I'm sure it grossed more internationally. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, articles tend to exaggerate these claims in advance for extra viewership. Blocking me for this is dumb as shit and just seems petty. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

We should be neutral about this information, because the movie's most likely going to be out for several months and will most likely earn more. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@SaulGoodman6969Again, what does that have to do with the documented fact that the many reliable sources in the press are reporting on this overly-expensive film being a box office bomb?

Again- Our job as wikipedia editors is to reflect that aforementioned consensus in the press whether we like it or not, and hence we report on it. Nothing more! You are not calling for “neutrality”, but rather you are calling for a fallacious false balance. See WP:false balance.

Again, our journalistic mission on Wikipedia is to REPORT on the consensus of the press, not interpret it or offer our own personal analysis as you are doing which is why WP:OR is a violation.

P.S. That you have a history of doing this, with one warning after another from others, is the reason you should be blocked. I will be filing an WP:ANI later in the day given your willful desire to be an WP:nothere, your incessant vulgar profanity, and your WP:pointy agenda—- all of which is resulting in LTA all over the Wikipedia webscape. 2601:282:8100:32A0:BD51:DEEB:62E6:80DD (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

that's a lot of "again" SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, it's only been out for a week; Mfs out here thinking it's been out for a month. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Afton (July 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Afton and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find too many news articles about him. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, SaulGoodman6969! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sleeper hit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sound of Freedom. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to The Equalizer 3. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Mike Allen 19:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

My source is rotten tomatoes. I did not make-up any "original research", Mike. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't go by one review aggregator and stick it in the lead. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't review films. Therefore you can not say Rotten Tomatoes praised anything, Saul. Mike Allen 23:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you seriously think RT is a reviewer? I don't know if it's your wording or not, but there's something a bit off with your reply.

Also, I don't know if you realize this, but it's a general consensus from what the reviewers on there thought of the movie, Mike.

This makes it sound like you didn't even click the link. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to List of biggest box-office bombs, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

What exactly was classified as original info? Everything I added there was accurate information that is generally well known according to research. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You are adding proper sources that say it has a $200M budget and a take of $258m so far. There is no way that can be a bomb. The source you are saying that it might have lost money was back in June, but since then, its box-office take has far exceeded the budget, so there's no way it can be a bomb. Masem (t) 01:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

1. It's $268 mil

2. It's been reported by multiple different websites that the movie literally lost $200 million.

Where the hell have you been since the movie came out? lol SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Matter of fact, did you even read the wiki for the flash movie? It literally states in the wiki that it lost $200 million. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Our article on the movie says it was projected to lose up to $200 M based solely on its opening weekend run, not this far out since release. It clearly has far far surpassed that, and per Box Office Mojo, has made $268M , and thus no way can be a bomb. Masem (t) 12:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Your source does not confirm the film lost $200 million, so it does not corroborate the claim. Furthermore, there is a consensus to not add The Flash until there is a reliable confirmation of how much it lost: Talk:List_of_biggest_box-office_bombs#The_Flash. If you think the situation has changed then please make your case on the talk page rather than attempting to edit war the information into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of biggest box-office bombs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What damn edit war? Some dummy keeps changing my edit that's literally been proven by thousands of websites, yet it seems he didn't even research it himself. I'm trying to list the flash as one of the biggest box office bombs of all time because it factually is, but this guy legit believes it was a box office success. It's not an edit war; It's just someone who can't accept the actual truth. Lmao SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You should take a moment...

... and read the various policies & guidelines being cited for you (repeatedly in some cases). For example, I see that multiple editors have advised you of the original research policy. You really need to stop your disriptive editing, clink on the link for the the original research policy, then read it, learn it and apply it. You can't just add stuff and say "I resarched it!". When you make changes to content, they need to supported by reliable sources (yes, click on that one and learn it as well), and you also need to properly cite your edits (yep, click, read & learn that one as well).

In fact, you should probably take a lengthy pause from any further editing, go through every message you've received and click on the link to every policy, guideline, essay, project guidance and advice on site-wide accepted practices, and read, learn and apply them as needed. Otherwise, you're just gonna end up getting blocked. Start with the "welcome" template I just added to the top of this page, it contains a great deal of useful advice and guidance for new users. If you have any questions, feel free to contact the help desk. - wolf 04:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Five Nights at Freddy's (film)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Stop changing it. It was literally approved by wikipedia moderators. What you're doing is borderline censorship. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have moderators per se, but they do have administrators like Materialscientist who left a comment above. No such approval has been determined by discussion, which we call consensus, and there is an active discussion you can participate in at Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's (film)#Audience reception. Please take your concerns there instead of back-and-forth editing in the article, which can be interpreted as edit warring, especially once you have been notified that a talk page discussion exists. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop making unconstructive edits that appear to be disruptive, as you did in this edit at Five Nights at Freddy's (film). You are well aware that there's an active talk page discussion, where the claim you keep adding has been contested. Please resume discussion and seek consensus there. Continued disruptive editing may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Damn right I'm well aware, and there's so much proof, but y'all keep disregarding it when it's right in front of y'all as if a bunch of blind people are inspecting it. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

THe movie has an 8 out 10 on the total user score on metacritic from over 1,000 user reviews, the audience score on RT is 87% and the all-audience score is 90%, the cinemascore for it is an A-, and the google user rating is a 94%. It should be pretty obvious that audiences generally like it, and there's literally no way whatsoever that it can be contested when there's full-on proof that y'all keep denying. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are aware of the difference between a scientific poll and an unscientific one. When the sample of participants is randomly selected (adjusting for demographics), that is a scientific poll. When any person can participate by signing in and voting, that is an unscientific poll. Unscientific poll results are considered unreliable, as their results can be skewed in multiple directions for multiple reasons.

You should also read Wikipedia's guideline about this at WP:USERGENERATED. It states, "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not." Please take future comments about this to the article's talk page if you would like to discuss further. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's scientific, then why did y'all let the admins keep something similar in the sound of freedom wiki? It's not a scientific thing; It's just a commonsense thing. It should be pretty obvious that fans loved the movie and it was obviously made for in fans in mind. So, audiences loved it while critics didn't. It should be pretty self-explanatory. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Even then, I gave even more examples besides RT and metacritic, and I can give you plenty more. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please provide sources at that talk page discussion. That's where the rest of this conversation needs to take place. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I did, but y'all got rid of it within a week. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

On the talk page? I'm not seeing that in the page history. Here are your edits: link. You mentioned RT and MC (unreliable) and CinemaScore (reliable and already cited in the article). Please add additional sources there if you want to continue discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Go woke, go broke, you may be blocked from editing. Newsweek is not generally reliable per WP:RS. Please refrain from using poorly sourced content. Raladic (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi SaulGoodman6969! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Five Nights at Freddy's (film). Materialscientist (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.NegativeMP1 18:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Afton (November 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:William Afton and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't look at me. I didn't write this. lol SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Then why did you submit it? You made zero modifications to it and submitted it anyways. The character was ruled out only recently to not be notable per this discussion, which was less than a month ago. Nothing has changed about him or the article. You submitted the draft, so you hold the responsibility for being told the issues about the draft. NegativeMP1 03:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I looked through it all and it looked completely fine. Don't act like I messed something up. You do realize this article was up completely fine not too long ago, right? SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And you do realize that if there were no problems with the article, it wouldn't have been taken to AfD, right?

Video game characters typically aren't ruled out as independently notable unless there are articles covering it and providing actual opinions; in short, passing WP:GNG. A lot of characters are notable, and even ones that wouldn't be on surface level happened to be so, but William Afton was one that several editors, myself included, searched for and found nothing on, hence the discussion that took place. Reception is typically what makes or breaks an article for video game characters or most things in general, with some rare exceptions. Only one source in Afton's reception was usable, or "completely fine", and the rest are either unreliable or not usable for reception per content farming concerns.

While I'm here, you attempted to use We Got This Covered in an edit at Five Nights at Freddy's (film) recently, and same with Know Your Meme in a recent edit to Free Birds. Both of these are sources considered unreliable, and WGTC was also in use in Afton's article. I advise looking over at WP:VG/S and WP:RSP in order to determine what is a reliable source, sources usable with some limitations, or sources that aren't usable at all. NegativeMP1 04:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

They seem pretty reliable to me and countless others. Just seems very biased of y'all. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What "countless others" are you talking about here? And how is it "biased" when it's a community consensus? You do realize that this is an encyclopedia right? Please familiarize yourself with basic guidelines and read why they are considered unreliable. If you truly disagree, you are free to open up your own discussions at [[WT:VG/S], though for Know Your Meme in particular, that one can't be reliable at all per WP:USERG. NegativeMP1 06:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Major WP:COMPENTENCE concerns with this editor. Mike Allen 13:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

What the hell did I do? Lmao

All I did was proper research, but y'all are so strung-up on what y'all think is right and just limit to what sources y'all trust based on y'alls extremely biased point of views and silence others like me. It's not a wikipedia thing y'all uphold for; It's a cherry-picking biased thing y'all implemented into wikipedia. I'm sorry that I do actual research and listen to what actual human beings have to say and use them as actual pieces of research instead of cherry-picking random critics' thoughts to police a certain idea like y'all do. Exuuuuuuuuse me!!! SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Even then, it's apparently obvious who the fnaf movie was made for. It should be obvious fans and audiences were generally positive towards the movie and thus should have its one section similar to that of sound of freedom, but y'all are being extremely stubborn about it by limiting """""unreliable""""" sources when it's extremely reliable. How the hell else do you think the movie was so financially successful? SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And yet, y'all sit before me and essentially censor what I say without even looking at my sources. SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

That is total bullshit. Y'all never even gave me a warning. What the hell kind of bullshit is that? SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

When am I getting unblocked? SaulGoodman6969 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)