User talk:45.50.189.120

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, 45.50.189.120, has made edits to Saturday Night Fever that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:

• Help contents – the main help page.
• Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Fame (1980 film), you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Fame (1980 film) have been undone because they 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 help desk. Materialscientist (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your conduct

Hi Barry, you're welcome to compare yourself to Phillip Roth all you want, but the fact of the matter is Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia and this is a community with rules that you must follow if you wish to take part in it, not flout whenever it suits you. You've broken several, even though we've tried to direct you to where the rules are discussed, you've continued to ignore them. Two of the biggest rules are about sourcing and neutrality. Additions have to be adequately and reliably sourced, instead, you've waxed poetic with your own personal analysis about what songs influenced what and who wanted to do what on film sets. Also, content has to be neutrally written, you seem to have several personal pet issues with regard to certain films and series, and now you've identified yourself as Barry Miller on my talk page, which, would obviously indicate a conflict of interest on your part related to articles you're mentioned in, don't you see how that might be undesired? There are thousands of Wikipedia editors with articles about them (Wikipedia:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia, for a few) that recognize this rule and don't edit their own articles, unless for very simple objective facts perhaps like a birthdate or the year something was published. Lastly, your Nazi allegations and comparisons are seriously uncool (not to mention, terribly forced and impuissant) and can lead to a permanent block on their own, irrespective of all your other disruptive behavior. Consider this a very stern warning. JesseRafe (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, Mr. Rafe, frankly, I'm so over it. Really, anyone so uniquely pompous and utterly insensitive to address me in such a condescending manner despite whatever rules I may have "broken" really isn't worth my time, but nevertheless your accusations against me at least deserve some sort of response due to the egregiousness of your statements. First of all, to even treat the artist whose work is being discussed on the page with such utter discourtesy and lack of respect only reaffirms my belief about the unsavory character of the Wiki-universe, of which you are obviously a quite self-satisfied and self-congratulatory part. I am not familiar with the rules and have difficulty understanding them; you might have been a little more kind in assisting me rather than just flinging your weight around. I never "flouted" anything other than the facts of my acclaim, which I have attempted to source to the best of my ability, even though I realize I went about it in the wrong way, since I don't understand much about how to use Wikipedia because I never tried and am rather self-admittedly untalented when it come to all things tech. ( A grave generational victim.) I did not "compare" myself to Mr.Roth in any context. I used him as an example of artists who have been very public about their misgivings in the way their work has been documented on Wikipedia, so no false equivalency was intended, other than my sympathy with his point of view in the wake of my outrageous and undeserved condemnation at your hands. Where you perceive "a conflict of interest" I find to be an absurd statement, as I am merely trying to document pertinent, factual information that is missing and should be added by anyone who has any additional knowledge, sourced in the text, and none of it poetic or waxy, other than what was written by the critics themselves, and therefore FIXES a thoroughly inaccurate and incomplete history of the film's critical history and reception. No "flouting" or self-interest was intended. CORRECTION was my intent, and adheres to the neutrality required in every sense of the word with the critic's name, publication, and date of the review. I admit I do not know how to source the references other than document them in the text. Maybe you could be a little more humane and help me out, since I am "impuissant" under your wrathful oversight. (Quite a gilded word, and certainly have never seen it used in anything I've ever read by any writer worth their salt, but you learn something everyday, even through I would never find any sort of use for it in any conversation I could possibly imagine without getting stared at as if I was some sort of pretentious dilettante.) And as an aside, what isn't "personal analysis"? isn't all of life "personal analysis"? All art, literature, philosophy, history? Is Wikipedia as ruthlessly objective as you claim? Are you being ruthlessly objective with me? Isn't your statement "waxing poetic" a personal analysis of what you believe to be my characterization of things, rather than a neutral and objective thought? Oh, and I never used the word "Nazi". True, I mentioned Orwell and Goebbels, which was my subjective perspective towards your attitude as representive of what I like to call the strange draconian hypocrisy of Wikipedia's expressed "anybody can use it freely" ideal, which I find evident in the way I've been treated by you specifically. I myself have learned a great deal from the marvel of Wikipedia, but I often find things missing or incorrect. So I tried to source, I tried to be neutral, and I have failed. But in the end, I was the one involved in the creation of what is being documented, and for all your inarguable fidelity to policy, you were not. And that is neither neutral, or right, or wrong or in violation of the rules. That's actual truth, of which you have no right to be so contemptuous towards. 45.50.189.120 (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

How to reference

Hi, you might find these instructions helpful: User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

---