User talk:Stevowills1

You just created this account and started your career on Wiki with confrontation conflicting editing. In all your edits there are ZERO references to Wiki policy, only your own opinions on what is what. PLEASE, take it easy and do not engage in an edit war WP:EDITWAR. The WP:TALK outlines how you make radical changes to an article when you have been reverted. Discussions are had on the Talk page, agreed, and then edits to article done. --Inayity (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I created the account because you felt i was not worthy of editing without an account, and i am correcting the article and deleting links and wording which clearly show bias towards the content of the film rather than the integrity of the article. You refuse to accept that the links are not showing as you claim they are and keep reinstating them because it suits your opinion. The hard facts are more important than your emotional attachment to the page. I am not engaging in an edit war i have repeatedly explained why i have made my changes. The changes were in the best interests of the article

Who said they were in the best interest of the article? You are an edit war because I did not agree those changes and they should be left until the talk page resolves them. You then try to destroy my reputation by making silly accusations based on what? So all of this adds up to you being a brand new problem for wikipedia quality and communal editing. WP:EDITWARif you are unclear what an edit war is. And learn some respect for people who been editing for over 5 years.--Inayity (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Your time of editing has no relevance to whether i respect you, again i have been editing through ip for over 7 years but length of time editing has no relevance at all! stop trying to "out wikipedia" me! please try and have the same care about the quality of the article as you do about my use of policy. I discussed my changes and you reverted them with incorrect links and declared all was fixed (IT WAS NOT) so the apparent war was more your fault than mine Stevowills1 (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well it does mean something because I do have a familiarity with the policy. And Have edited far than my share of quality articles across the entire Wikipedia site. The issue is the source DID have his email, and you did not look at it properly. The Blink article also mentions Cohen, and you did not read far enough to see that. Just use talk page and get resolution mutually, but I spent time getting that Blink article, for you to just delete it/? --Inayity (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already stated that the blink article quoted the email but it obviously did not have a source, as per my last entry on the talk page you will see why i think the link it irrelevant especially in light of the email iamge. I DID read the full article i have ALREADY told you that. Yes you spent time but is that more important than the wiki article? What relevance does it have other than trying to link racism with the apparent non showing of the film. As i have said previously i tried to find proof that it was rejected by The Ritzy cinema in London too but could not. The links you provided as reference were to the product page on african holocaust, not the image of the email which you later linked. That was YOUR error not mine, the link should have been either to the image or the page the image was included in, it was not - can you dispute that? Stop going on about how much you have done for wikipedia i have told you i have done a lot of work on it too, albeit on some smaller articles but still my fair share too. However it is irrelevant on both parts You are NOT superior to me just because you want to imply so!Stevowills1 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

THe image is from the Holocaust page, I just grabbed the image to show you. RESPECT, means not deleting content. I did not or do not delete peoples work. And here is the critical part UNLESS I use the Talk page extensively. You decided to revert me even when I said I got the ref. So Both BLINK and Holocaust proved Cohen rejected the film. Ref directly speaks to this issue--Inayity (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

No, the image was from the same site, not the same PAGE. The link is supposed to link the page not the site, it isn't a small site no reader should have to trawlthe site to find the page you were meant to link. You "grabbed" the correct link after repeatedly posting the wrong link, have some humility and accept that, like i have in relation to the email once you actually linked it. I believe i gave you all respect you were due after your insulting my editing worthiness. Again i believe there is ulterior motive behind the use of the blink article to link channel 4 racism with the decision not to show the film but i have wasted enough time on this. I am as per earlier conversations going to delete the quote attributable to California Newsreel as imdb trivia pages are inappropriate use as per Wikipedia:Citing IMDb Stevowills1 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you delete stuff and back it up with Policy then you will not get into trouble with any experienced editor. --Inayity (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Like i said earlier you have more interest in my use of policy than actually making the article better, this has been shown when you seemed to be happy with the article as it was but then when somebody else edited it you came out of your box to revert it

Better is subjective, Policy Less so. Good policy use = Good articles (in theory) less disputes also.--Inayity (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But you only care about this when somebody dares to touch your pet page? The article as it was 3 days ago was inferior to how it is now, but left to you alone that would not be the case as you only showed care and interest in the article when somebody else did. Smacks more of your ego wanting to correct people than being bother about the quality of the article Stevowills1 (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a lot of "pet pages", as for quality I do not have to reply to you. you can quickly click on my contributions and try and back up your wild accusations. And that is the thing when you actually have a reputation which has actually years of editing to pull from. So much so I would not bother with this list--Inayity (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if you showed more care for your pet pages then they would be of better quality, rather than waiting until somebody else contributes then steaming in to make it how you want it. You do not have to reply to me no, but you still do. Like i said you had more interest in trying to be "right" than the article itselfStevowills1 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)