User talk:JAliceB

David Russell movie

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! The reference you recently added to the page says nothing about the film. Please do not do this again. Make sure any ref you provide, contains the pertinent info. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference I added says clearly that Canterbury Productions is producing the movie. It's correct.

Also for future reference IMDB is considered unreliable according to Wikipedia. Please don't mention this site or use it as a reference. Even if the information is correct and/or relevant it will be removed by other editors. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

IMDB PRO is a reliable reference as what I added are the notes of the Producer himself.

IMDB PRO is not considered reliable by Wikipedia. You can personally disagree but there's a lot of policy on refs on here. You'll learn it all eventually and just like anything else in life work within the parameters. But honestly, this isn't a good start for you. I'm going to provide you a couple of links. I recommend you read them. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference you provided for Canterbury Glass does not clearly state that. It states "untitled DOR." References have to be clearer. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The Reference from SAG says clearly that Canterbury Glass is one of the production companies of the movie, this movie we're talking about. The movie called untitled DOR.

ImDb PRO is filled by verified accounts. Directly from the producers of the movie.

Also, you're cancelling the link of collider that reported the working title.

I understand your point about IMDB. You seem confused. I'm not in charge of that policy or Wikipedia. You don't have to convince me of anything. I used to use it as a ref too which is how I learned it's not allowed on Wikipedia. Even PRO. If you cite them editors will remove it no matter what you or I for that matter think. Wikipedia is not a free for all. Now regardless, me and two other editors have told you the working title is irrelevant. It provides absolutely no insight into the film or the production. It does not belong on the page. We do not include every piece of information. Our goal is to inform the public about the subject of the page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Collider is a reliable source. As is the one I used for the synopsis which also states the working title is Amsterdam. That is not the issue. The issue on the working title is that it is irrelevant. Three experienced editors have told you so. But you still continue to edit war. Please read the link I provided you on that. However, I'm also letting you know about IMDB for future reference. Even if the info is relevant you will not be able to cite IMDB as a ref. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm providing you with additional links I recommend you read. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope you read these and I've been able to help you to some degree. But I have been watching the page and unfortunately I can see it hasn't sunk in yet. You'll probably get blocked. If you do, use it as a chance to reflect and familiarize yourself with these policies. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The working title is relevant as we DON'T have an official title right now.

Also, Imdb is a more relevant source than Wikipedia.

Expecially IMdb Pro. This is not a metter of policies, it's a matter that you want to decide what is relevant and what is not about this movie. Plus, Wikipedia links IMDb in the external links. If Imdb is not reliable why Wikipedia links it?

I find it strange that it gets put as an external link as well but again it's not MY policy. It is a WIKIPEDIA POLICY. I can't be any more clear on that. My opinion on IMDB is irrelevant to citing it on Wikipedia. And as far as Wikipedia being relevant, I certainly wouldn't personally cite it in any professional publication although others on here might disagree with me. However, what you need to understand is that you are editing on Wikipedia and need to abide by Wikipedia policies. It's not my policy, so again, if you're still confused read the link I provided on here about Wikipedia policy on citing IMDB. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

As far as the relevancy of the working title, no one else agrees with you but you need to discuss that on the film's talk page where everyone can participate. I've already brought it up on there. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If wikipedia links directly to Imdb in the external links then I don't get why I can't link Imdb too. It's absurd. If Imdb is not reliable Wikipedia souldn't link every movie to Imdb. I don't think that there is a rule that doesn't allow to report the Working title of a movie when the official title is not known yet. Yesterday on this page someone wrote that the Title of this movie is Canterbury Glass. No one edited it. And it was a fake info. As Canterbury Glass is just the production Company. But people read it and went on Twitter spreading this fake news. Now, I'm correcting this fake news but you want to edit me. Good job. No one else who? The police of Wikipedia? Because people who are interested in the film of David O'Russell want to know the working title as they don't know how to call it. I don't know where the film's talk page is.

When you go to the page for the film, click talk on the top. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Your anger towards me is misguided. The fake working title was also removed. Also please do not go back and edit previous comments. Instead write a new comment. It's misleading, confusing, unethical, and misrepresents this conversation. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no anger towards you. Why should I? I'm just explaining you what I'm doing and why. No, you're wrong. There was not a fake working title. There was a fake OFFCIAL title. And I removed it because I was asked to remove it from the Producer himself. I'm just trying to give right info to the people who want to know more about this movie. Listen, I'm not coming here to edit the whole Wikipedia. I'm just editing some info about this movie. I'm not interested in becoming an user, an editor of Wikipedia.

Okay. But you are an editor. You have a user account. The official title was clearly wrong and me and many other people on here would've removed it as soon as we saw it. If you're involved with the film, you might not want to edit the page. There could be a conflict of interest. It's best if objective editors work on it. Perhaps that's why you're so wrapped up in it. There are a lot of good editors on here who will edit the page correctly. For reference look at Silver Linings Playbook. Because anyone can edit Wikipedia, incorrect info and vandal edits are frequent. But they're also frequently removed and when needed pages are locked. The producers of the film don't get to decide if the working title is relevant to the page. Wikipedia editors do. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is the Wikipedia policy on conflict of interest. Please read this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

But you haven't removed it. It remained there for a long time and all the whole twitter, facebook and Instagram started to say that the Official Title was that. Based on what? Based on Wikipedia! Their source was WIKIPEDIA, and if Wikipedia says that. well, it must be true. I just corrected the fake info that YOU the editors didn't correct. And I added just one more info that is important about the Production Companies involved. Something that NO ONE of you the editors added. But the info was there, on the net, on the SAF AFTRA site, on the IMDb page... on same important websites except wikipedia. But you, the editors, right now are continuously deleting my correct reference for the Working title. Why? Because you think it's not important? It is. It is relevant every time a film DOESN'T have an official title. People who are following the movie since it was announced want to know this kinda info.

I have no conflict interest with anyone. I'm just adding a right info to Wikipedia. :I was asked and I added.

I know every single detail of this production, but I'm not coming here to spolier them, I just added a right and public info. That's it.

I didn't know that Wikipedia was a place where some radical editors can get mad for a working title. Still more ridicolous.

The editors of Wikipedia, clearly doesn't understand what it's important and what it's not regarding a movie. Respectfully.

I looked tha page of SLP, well, if full of mistakes. If that is a good editor, I don't wanna know what a bad editor is.

As I'm not a vandal neither a troll, you're losing your time deleting my correct info. And that's more absurd.

According to you, you are editing on the behalf of the producer of this film. This is a clear COI according to Wikipedia. I understand from this conversation that you seem to think you make the rules. That's just not true. If you're representing the producer you are doing so in a very unprofessional manner and editing with a conflict of interest. Read the links. If you still don't understand there's nothing I can do. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not representing the producer, there is not a legal conflict of interest. And, btw, this is not important. The important thing is that you think that I can't add a working title to a movie that has no official title yet. Give me please, the Wikipedia written rules saying this.

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not engaging anyhting. I'm just trying to explain to someone why I'm linking some references. I'm not involved in a war, I'm just explaining. Someone thinks that a working title of a movie that has not an official title yet is not relevant or that the name of the production company is not relevant. Someone was editing my correct references repeatedly, again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAliceB (talk • contribs)

As an administrator on this site I'm letting you know that you very much are edit warring. Did you read any of the information included in my message above? If so, it should be clear to you that continually reverting to restore disputed content to an article will very likely lead to a block of your account. You are expected to go to the article talk page and get consensus for your changes as opposed to restoring them.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• While you review the information above, please also note that per long-standing consensus, IMDb does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. You can read more about the reasons for this here, here and here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

About IMDb I deleted the link, link that I had directly from the Producer of this movie who asked me to edit this Wikipedia page. But still I think it's absurd as Wikipedia links directly to Imdb in the external links. Why I can't link Imdb when Wikipedia links Imdb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAliceB (talk • contribs)

There is an enormous difference between including a link in the external links section and attempting to use a link as a reliable source. If you're editing on behalf of the producer of the movie, you have a conflict of interest and should be requesting changes using the article talk page only.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And you're wrong as I'm just trying to explaining something. No war here. This not a war, this is just a normal convo. But you, the editors, are continuously deleting my correct reference for the Working title. Is there a rule that doesn't allow to insert a correct working title reference of a movie thas hasn't the official title yet? Because if there is a rule for this, well, this is ridiculous. I have no conflict of interest: I just added one right info that was missing. And I added it not only because I was asked to. I replaced the fake info about the Official Title of this movie that was there in the production notes and no one removed it. I removed it and i replaced it with the correct info. I removed it as no one of you the editors and administrators deleted it. But you think that my correct info about the working title must be cancelled. And that's absurd.

Imdb Pro is a reliable source. Come on. Btw, does this mean I can link Imdb into the external links box?

You can deny that you are edit warring (which you are) and deny that you have a conflict of interest (which you do) and disagree with our policies and guidelines regarding sourcing, but you must abide by them if you want to edit here. Take the discussion to the corresponding article talk page and get consensus for the changes you want to make. That's the way Wikipedia works, regardless of how you wish it worked. Any further denials from you are simply noise unless it's part of an article talk page discussion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, no! I'm not doing edit warring, but you are. And you're doing reverting to my edits, according to Wikipedia Policy. The last time I write it: I have NO conflict of interest. I accept the rules, I read your links, give me the link where it's written that I can't add a correct working title to a movie without an official title. Tell me where is written that I have to ask, as an editor, your conseuns to add a simple working title to a movie linking a correct source like Collider. And tell me, above all, where is written that a working title is not an useful info. Because what it's happening here, is that ONE editor among thousands decided that a simple little info like a working title is useless and that I can't add it. Based on what? On NOTHING. Because American, Italian, Germany, French, Spanish Wikipedias are full of Working Titles into the pages of the movies. Also, long time after that the movie has been released with an Official Title. Sometimes the working title of a movie remains forever on Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is full of mistakes, fake news, and yes, WORKING TITLES, but you, you are here edit warring me and reverting my edits because I added a correct information to repair to WIKIPEDIA fake news. To repair YOUR mistakes. And clearly, what you don't get is that adding a simple working title to a movie, linked to a source like Collider, is not a conflict of interest, it's correct information. And you, you are doing misinformation. And that's quite funny as you're saying me that Imdb is a not reliable source. Wikipedia is what? Reliable? Giving fake info to the audience? Well, if mine is noise, your is much ado for nothing, I would say... But please, continue, because I think Wikipedia needs a bigger spotlight out there. I'm happy to help you with that.

IMDB is only acceptable as an external link. IMDBPro is a subscription so no one without one can see the information you're adding. And even then working titles the vast majority of the time are unimportant unless they're a massive project like a Marvel movie. Rusted AutoParts 23:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So, this means that I can add my Imdb links to the external box, right? This is the time that a working title is important because there is NO official title yet. And it's more important right now, as Wikipedia helped to spread fake news about the Official Title of this movie making the people think it was correct.

According to Wikipedia policy you most definitely have a conflict of interest. You really need to read these links for context before responding. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any conflict of interest. I'm a lawyer, I know what a conflict interest is. I'm still waitng for someone writing where to find the rule saying that Wikipedia doesn't allow the working title as an info.

Read the Wikipedia policy on COI. This isn't a court room. Do you litigate? If so, do you frequently tell judges they don't understand anything and you're the ultimate authority? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The policies you need to read on including the working title for this page I've already given you. They are on consensus, relevance, and Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. I linked them all to you on our discussion on this talk page. Everyone disagrees with you. Read them. Your objections are not sustained. You do not understand Wikipedia policy. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And to be honest I'm not entirely sure you even understand the legal definition of conflict of interest. If you were to represent a client or prosecute a defendant who you had a personal relationship with, that would be considered a conflict of interest and if you're ethical in your legal practice you would have to recuse yourself. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a court room but you're assuming that I have a conflict of interest when it's not true. I'm not representing anyone. You, don't understand what a conflict of interest is. Legally speaking. Give me, please, the exact link of Wikipedia where is clearly written that I can't add a correct working title to a movie. Everyone who? 3 editors of wikipedia??? Come on. Your objections are not sustained: where is the rules that forbids the adding of a correct working title when the official title is missing? And where is the rule that allows to an editor to decide that a working title is not a relevant info?

You are editing on behalf of the film producer per your own admission. Regardless of your personal understanding as to what constitutes a conflict of interest, such edits represents a conflict of interest on Wikipedia, the website that you are editing. The policy that you are looking for is consensus, which, again, is how we determine what information is included or excluded from any given article. It doesn't matter how many times you express that you personally don't understand or agree with these policies and guidelines, you must abide by them now that they have been explained to you if you want to edit here. You could very well find consensus to include the material, but it needs to be done through dispute resolution on the article talk page. Absolutely nothing will be decided here, on this page, especially if you don't take the time to read through the links that have been provided. All the information you need to edit effectively has been linked in the conversation above; as such, there is no benefit in continuing to reply to you here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest there, I'm not legally representing anyone. Please, link me the rule where it's writtent that I can't add a working title to a movie. I added the working title to repair a mistake made by Wikipedia. Thanks to the fake news about the Official Title that Wikipedia editors didn't remove, people is spreading the fake news everywhere.

Social media is a jungle. Don't believe everything you read. Don't worry about what you can't control. Thank you for removing the false information. That's not the issue here. It's been removed. If added again, it will be removed again. It's a non issue right now and a strawman argument. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This means that people shouldn't believe everything written on Wikipedia, as the source of the fake news was WIKIPEDIA.

The issue is that you're not allowing me to add a correct info on this movie, saying that the working title is not useful.

Based on what? Where is written I can't add a correct info to a movie? It's the 5th time I'm asking you where is this rule. Give me a link saying this.

The policy of Wikipedia says that you can't do reverting. Well, it's was you're just doing with my edit. Continuing reverting.

You're removing arbitrarily something that I can edit.

I certainly wouldn't believe everything I read on Wikipedia. I'd make sure it's neutral, not coming from a place of vandalism or conflict of interest and then I'd most definitely look at the source cited. If there is none, it's vague, unclear, or doesn't contain the info stated I wouldn't believe it. I'm sure not every editor agrees with me but Wikipedia is not an entirely reliable source and it most definitely depends on the page. Look for a Good Article tag. These pages are more credible. And ideally look for a Very Good Article tag. As far as your question, it's been answered every time. There isn't a black and white rule on that. It's nuanced and has been answered in a such a manner. It's not arbitrary.Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a vandal, there is no conflict of interest in my adding a correct source, but you still forbidding me to add it. No, you didn't answer at all: where is the link saying I can't add a simple working title to a movie without an official title, and where is written that the working title is a USELESS info. And that I have to ask a public consensus to a bunch of 3 editors to add a simple working title. And tell me where is written thar you can do reverting on me cancelling my correct editing. Your behavior is fully arbitrary. What is not written is NOT a rule. Legally speaking. You're abusing the rules here.

This is in response to your last comment which you placed way above for some reason. You are wrong. The "mistake" was not made by any editor in this conversation. It was not our mistake. The editors discussing this with you are not responsible for other editors edits or anonymous edits. Next, you are wrong about correcting it. It was corrected when it was deleted. Adding the working title is an entirely different topic. You were reverted by not one, but three seperate editors with varying experience on Wikipedia who all disagreed with you about its relevance. You didn't need consensus to add it but once removed the burden was on you to gain consensus to add it. Not only did you not attempt to do this, you initially ignored the talk page discussion. Also, not only did you not gain consensus but consensus seems to be to not include it. You most definitely engaged in edit warring. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You're wrong: I deleted it, not you. I deleted it twice as it was posted again after i cancelled it the first time. You did nothing to cancel the fake news. It remained ther for a long time. But you think it's correct not to cancel the prev fake news but my correct info about the working title. This is an abuse. Well, 3 editors doesn't mean anything. They, you're wrong. The working title is relevant. And I haven't to ask you to add it. This is what the Wikipedia rules say. I'm free to add correct info. And you can't cancel them if they are correct. I haven't to gain consensus if you cancelled it wrongly. And you cancelled it because you didn't read it. Just because. I didn't ignore anything, I didn't find the talk page discussion, plus, no one answered there after I replied to you. So it's me and you. You engaged the warring edit for some reason I don't get, but they are silly reasons, you're a obstructing me and my edit. You started this edit warring, that actually I didn't consider a war, I just consider it like and editor who is abusing Wikipedia rules. You've abused the rules since you deleted the correct working title I added. FOR NO REASON. I've read the Wikipedia rules, and you're abusing this: Wikipedia has no firm rules Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles.

You're also abusing the points 3.2 and 3.2 of the Universal Code of Conduct.

No one said you're a vandal. No one is abusing the rules. And you're wrong about everything else. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no, you're abusing the rules. You had no reason to cancel my editing. You' should reald the Universal Code of Conduct better.

You keep clinging on to the fact that three editors disagree with you. Here's another number. Five editors have participated in this. Three who feel the info is irrelevant. One of whom has over 80,000 edits and has been editing on here for a decade and a half. The one who isn't one of the three is an administrator, and has told you, you do not understand Wikipedia policy and to seek consensus. And one more (you), the only editor advocating for the inclusion of this info. Yes. Just one who seems to think that. One who doesn't care about long standing Wikipedia policy determined by consensus among dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedia editors. One brand new editor who thinks her opinion is more important then that policy or the three who disagree with her, or the admin. One who self admittedly represents the producers of the film and not what's in the best interest of Wikipedia. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, what 3 or 5 editors think about the working title is not relevant at all. The working title is an info, a relevant info when a movie doesn't have an official title. And you had no right to remove it. You're abusing the rules. I understand very well the Wikipedia policy, probalby the admin didn't get that I don't need a consensus when I add a correct info to a page. On the contrary you have no rights to cancel a correct info added by another editor, above all if you arbitrarily think it's not useful. It's not just my opinion, the policy says clearly that you can't cancel my edit. And that I haven't to ask you consensus if I add a correct info: I'm enriching the page, you're impoverish it. Wikipedia policy say that enrichment of the page is important and deserved. I didn't admitted I represent the producers. This is defamation. You're continuing to spread fake news. I don't represent anyone and you're insisting on this after I said it clearly many times. You're harrassing me and you're abusing of your power. What I added is in full interest of Wikipedia. I cancelled fake news and mistakes in Wikipedia, and this is in fully interest of Wikipedia too. And I replaced them with correct info. This is in full interest of wikipedia. And sadly you're not doing the interest of Wikipedia, but just yours. You're quite obsessed with the working title. Wikipedia movie pages are full of Woking titles and I can't add it to this one? You're acting like this Wikipedia page is yours. It's not. Wikipedia is free, but you want to restrict it to your personal will. You're abusing the spirit of Wikipedia. If I want to add some correct info I can do it and You haven't the power or the right to cancel my editing. You can edit my info again and again, you can block me, but be sure I will bring this thing to the specific legal branch. 3 hours ago this was just a normal convo, right now you exaggerated.

You're wrong about consensus and do you realize I'm not the first editor who removed the working title? I'm the second, so I had every right. You still don't understand the policy. What's more is because you claim to represent the producer, you can't add anything to the page yourself according to Wikipedia's COI policy. I'm sure you're just going to keep arguing but it's you who doesn't understand these policies. Because you are making edits on behalf of the film's producers you cannot make the edits yourself. It's really that simple at this point. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And we know you believe it's in the interest of Wikipedia. What you still fail to acknowledge is that no one else on Wikipedia has agreed with you. I fully understand you believe that. No one else has agreed with you. If anyone else feels as strongly as you do they'll say so on the talk page. I wouldn't count on it though. But we'll see. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And twice you claimed to make that edit on behalf of the producer of the movie. I'm not the one who initially said that. It was you. You are now literally arguing with yourself. So now, you said you made the edit on behalf of the producer and also that you didn't and you made it on behalf of Wikipedia. Read through your own comments if this confuses you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No. you're acting like this page is yours. Not Wikipedia's. Again, I'm not the first editor who removed it and your the only one who added it. You do not get to decide unilaterally what gets added to a Wikipedia page. Even if the producers want it. If something gets added and it doesn't get removed then that's consensus because no one has an issue with it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not wrong at all. You and just 2 other editors decided arbitrarily that my legit adding was not relevant. Not the whole wikipedia, but just you and 2 other persons. Doing this you broke several Wikipedia rules and the spirit of Wikipedia too. You deleted it for NO LEGIT REASON, then brought me to ask the consensus and some other 2 editors helped you to deny it to me. I got very well the policy, on the contrary you are using the policy at your exclusive will. Not allowing me to edit legitimately something. I didn't claim at all that I represent the producer. You're insisting and harrassing me with your free interpratation of what I said. I didn't broke the COI as I'm editing just as an editor, adding a very common and confirmed edit, not something else. I'm not making edits behalf anyone. I'm going to report you for this. No else agreed? You and just your 2 friends. You're not the Whole wikipedia. You're just making the page of this movie your personal playing field. Abusing the wikipedia rules. If my adding is legit and confirmed with references like I did, I can add it and you can't decide to remove it just because you and other 3 persond think it is not relevant.

You decided unilaterally. And this fact is confirmed because in some several editions of Wikipedia around the world no one removes the Working title or thinks it's not relevant. Plus, even here on the enWikipidia it's full of movies with the working title in the pages. You're arbitrarily making your personal rules breaking the spirit of Wiipedia. It's just you and 2 editors who have an issue with the working title. No one else.No one else in the Whole Wikipedia planet.

Said that, my team is discussing this with the legal team of the Wikipedia Foundation. And it seems that you're not only interpreting the rules at your will, but your breaking several rules of Wikipedia. Inclusing the harassing. It's time to end this kind of bullying. Wikipedia is free and you can't do your personal rules.

This is another Wikipedia policy I highly recommend you read. It concerns your threats of legal action.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_legal_threats Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, mine are not threats. I'm just saying I'm in contact with the legal team of Wikimedia Foundation. They searched me. And they are confirming me that you're abusing your power as an editor and breaking several rules of Wikipedia. I'm following the Wikipedia rules and discussing the case with with Wikimedia Foundation as they raccomand in the last link you added. You abused the rules arbitrarily, also you harassed me, and I'm not going to lose my time with someone who thinks Wikipedia is his private game field. It's my job to solve discussions in appropriate venues. Good luck. --JAliceB (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

JAliceB, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JAliceB! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)