User talk:Alfredapitchcock

Welcome!

Hello, Alfredapitchcock, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pineapple Express (film), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please refrain from adding weed-related jokes in articles. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Super High Me. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Vandal warning for persistent introduction of trivial material derived from unreliable sources. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, look Drmies. You said that the edits weren't constructive, primarily because I wasn't citing proper sources. However, what i was writing was a reference to a particular written opinion about the subject. Since what was referenced was a form of criticism, the threshold for it being a "proper source" should be lower, if not nonexistent, since all opinions hold equal weight and have a unique perspective to add. Insofar as you allow other critics to be referenced (such as Roger Ebert), there is no reason why this one can't be referenced as well. On top of this, this particular reference has a unique benefit because it offers a perspective on the subject from the point of view that would have benefit to a group of people, i.e. people who smoke marijuana. Deleting this edit is saying that the opinions of some people are more valued than others when discussing the reception of a movie. So, can we just keep it? Alfredapitchcock (talk) 00:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Alfredapitchcock[reply]

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, there is a basic error here: not all opinions have equal value, and, indeed, some are valued more than others, at least in this encyclopedia. How much fun a given movie when one has been smoking weed is hardly encyclopedic material. Besides, why should the threshold for a form or criticism be any lower? If anything it should be higher. But to take another perspective: the weed site is for laughs, and Wikipedia is serious and boring. Perhaps, though, you could start Weedipedia? It would be a lot more fun than Conservapedia... Drmies (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the value of the encyclopedic material offered by these criticisms is less along the lines of reviewing the movie for the reader of the page, as it is a statement regarding the popularity of the movie in certain circles. I'm not saying that the material is valuable because the reader of the article will know that such a movie is good high; rather, I think it's valuable because someone who doesn't smoke pot, or even a person a while from now, will have a certain understanding of how one of the main audiences this movie was targeted to reacted to the movie. Granted, that information can also be given through statistics of people who see the movie high and such and such, but this offers reasons why those who smoke pot think that these things are either good or bad. So, I guess to take another perspective: this information isn't encyclopedic material because it tells you to smoke pot and watch the movie, but rather because it speaks to the reception these weed-related movies garnered in the weed-smoking movie-watching circles, and how some of those whom this movie was targeted to enjoyed the film. Alfredapitchcock (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problems remain, though. Such kinds of reviews, included for the reasons you mention, will divvy an audience up into any number of groups, and Wikipedia (and encyclopedias in general) don't do that. It should be easy to find reliable numbers on for instance male vs. female audiences, old vs. young, etc. But you are talking about reviews written for a specific purpose, and besides the problems with all the variables (how high? on what drugs? how long before the movie started? did they make it all the way through?) there remains the lack of reliability with the website, which will never be accepted as a reliable source in Wikipedia. Regards, Drmies (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]