User talk:Indierewired

yup

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Red State (2011 film), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Red State (2011 film) was changed by Indierewired (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.95536 on 2011-01-24T07:26:32+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

You are removing links to positive reviews of the film that I have added; that is unnecessary and biased to the article. I should note that I have not removed any negative reviews/remarks or backlash regarding the film, simply added the other side. Considering the site that bears your screen name features a negative review of the film, I find it hard to take you seriously. I have alerted admins of your activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandroguitar67 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

I have no interest in discussing the merits of the film or any article about it. I am simply about neutrality. Keep your film opinions for your website. This website is for fact-based information, not opinion. And I have done nothing to your section about distribution this time, I simply removed YOUR weasel words regarding the 'failure' of a film that hasn't really even been released officially yet. And the film has not 'failed' to find a distributor; regardless of Smith's self-biases, the facts of the event are clear that he did not auction his movie as he said he would. Therefor, nobody bid on it, thus there was never any opportunity for anyone to pass on the film. The distribs. were in the room, so clearly SOMEONE was interested in purchasing the film, but none were given the chance to make an offer. How is that a failure? That's like saying I failed a class I never signed up for, to use a similar analogy 138.86.164.126 (talk) 04:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

Well look man, I'm all for civil discussion if you are. I cannot and will not argue with your viewpoint as I was not there and you were; but my only question with your story is that if it was not his initial plan, then it doesn't explain how he booked a country-wide tour on such short notice if the decision to self-distribute was truly made last minute. However, as I said, I am merely an observer, probably with much less insight than you as you were present there, and ultimately the distribution and wording of the article doesn't concern me so much - it was primarily the lack of positive reviews when I've been reading both positive and negative reviews since yesterday. But I thank you for your civility and I will behave the same so long as the article is unbiased towards the actual content of the film. 138.86.164.126 (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]