User talk:Thefearmakers

Welcome!

Hello, Thefearmakers, 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MPS1992 (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello, Thefearmakers. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Lee Purcell, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. By far your best move is to get consensus on the article's talk page before making a mass removal of cited information.

I have reverted your edits. Your assertion that the changes you made "are from Lee Purcell herself" makes these changes totally inappropriate under the conflict-of-interest policy. To see why, think of a politician you dislike. Now imagine that Wikipedia allowed that politician to dictate what is and isn't in his/her Wikipedia page. Please, please, please: if you want changes made on the article, seek consensus. Purse things on the noticeboard, which you're obviously aware of, and on the article's Talk page. If you don't do this, I or someone else will revert your changes and/or block you and/or protect the page.

The information you're removing is sourced. The sources seem reliable. The information itself doesn't look defamatory. The burden of proof is on you to explain why it should be removed. "Lee Purcell doesn't want it there" is not a valid reason, even if we could verify it, which we can't. Wikipedia is a place that reports what others have said about the subject, not what the subject says about herself.

The difference between me and you is I know her. You just write things on your wiki page that should NOT be there. The Steve McQueen quote should be on the page for that movie Of all her movies, one movie no one cares about seems to be her pivotal, game-changing role. Also, the line on top, listing a string of 70's movies as if Lee is only known for them, this hurts her and her agent. You guys are cinema writers who want to be part of cinema. I just happen to know the people who were part of it instead of attempting to rewrite it, hiding behind desks. And I will continue to fight the good fight so Lee's page is about Lee, not indie projects she did that no one remembers, or info about her family that means nothing, or a list of 70's movies that are supposed to define her existence.

JUST PLEASE, PLEASE, I am, and she is, and her agent is BEGGING you people to just do something about that first sentence that says:

appeared in films of the 1970s and early 1980s including Mr. Majestyk, Big Wednesday, Stir Crazy, and Valley Girl.

GUYS, if you worked your entire career just to be put in a nostalgic shell like this, it wouldn't be a good thing. She's always acted. She wants the rest of the line after her name and birthdate to just say she's an American actress. That's it. Also, if you need to list movies, why STIR CRAZY? She was in that for 4 minutes, or less! You can mention Big Wednesday and then her TV show that she won the Emmy for, but... Just say she's an actress. Just do that for us. Please.

First: Did you read what I wrote? It's a Wikipedia standard that "The difference between you and me is I know her" is the worst possible argument you could make. Please, please, I beg you: read the conflict-of-interest policy. If there is material that is defamatory, you should by all means seek to have it removed. If there is material that doesn't fit with Lee Purcell's image or PR or self-assessment, that's a shame, but facts are facts.

Second: This isn't "Lee's page" and it's not about "defining her existence." It's not "my wiki page", either. It's not anyone's wiki page. It's an encyclopedia with no single owner that's intended to collect and present as much reliably-sourced information as possible. It is the nature and purpose of an encyclopedia to be encyclopedic: i.e., to be inclusive.

"You guys are cinema writers who want to be part of cinema" is factually incorrect. We're encyclopedia editors who are trying to compile complete, accurate, publicly-available, non-libelous information. Period.

Third: The best places to bring this up are on the article's talk page or on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I'm happy to believe that the article could be improved. Add more citations. Introduce new (cited) facts. Gain consensus to rearrange information or change emphasis. There are ways to do this. You're not doing them. Deleting more than a third of the article in order to make it read more like a press release is not the way to go.

I'm not trying to tell you not to edit. I'm not telling you that the article can't be improved. However, you should take into account what Wikipedia is and is not. Doing so will make your changes more likely to stick.

NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello, I'm Canterbury Tail. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 14:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sorcerer (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yo-Yo Ma, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 18:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for sourcing

Please stop adding unsourced material and your own analysis/original research to Wikipedia articles. Information that is pertinent/notable can be added if supported by reliable sources, but trivia should not be added as you have been doing. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

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 Valleys of Neptune, you may be blocked from editing. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Do you mean the fact that I added the fact that Night Bird Flying was reworked from Ships Passing in the Night. I wonder where I got that idea:

"Hendrix used elements of the song's rhythm pattern in jams at TTG Studios in Los Angeles in October 1968. In early 1969, he started to develop it as "Ships Passing in the Night"

Re: re-adding personal commentary – If you want, we could take this up at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. WP policies are quite clear about original research, verifiability, and reliable sources. With your editing history though, you may receive a restriction or block. Meanwhile, problematic edits will continue to be reverted. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ojorojo (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are consistently violating two core content policies. They are No original research and Verifiability. These policies are mandatory and complying is non-negotiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Thefearmakers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #24806 was submitted on Apr 20, 2019 19:44:21. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On detailed investigation it turns out that the UTRS appeal was submitted by an abusive troll without your knowledge. Therefore the blocking admin has reverted your block to the original period. Just Chilling (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]