User talk:Marcelrios

Welcome

Hello, Marcelrios, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content is from what reliably published sources say, not what the subject says

The articles in Wikipedia are the Wikipedia articles about the subject. The subject of the article has no say in what appears in the Wikipedia article and have no authority to authorize any content or any changes.

The content and focus of the article are determined by Wikipedia editors based upon what has been published about the subject by reliable third party sources and presented in a neutral point of view.

If there are issues of concern in the article as noted by the subject of the article, they will need to present them directly through the WP:OTRS system, and not through you. The process is laid out here WP:AUTOPROB-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT

The user/admin/editor "TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom" misbehaved with you on his talk page . I believe that you should take part in the discussion i have started here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#This_is_a_serious_concern_._Please_look_into_this_matter_.

Please take part and help me to prove my point . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.23.61 (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Such rude behavior according to me is unacceptable. Someone definitely needs to take action against him. I have added my argument to the discussion. Marcelrios (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome . You are invited to take part here . Please join in and help me - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Serious_Concern._Please_look_into_this_matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.20.19 (talk) 23:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiu Celibidache

Welcome back "Marcel". I would like to hear an explanation for these two edits [1] [2] - particularly with regards to your edit summaries "possible vandalism by SFK2" and "Reverting unconstructive editing by SFK2". Thank you. -SFK2 (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice that I reverted the changes back again. I do not need to explain, please see the notes on the changes. Thanks. I saw you made some reverts to my edits on French Roast to avenge for my edits. Or is that not true. I did the same with your edits. Its a friendly fire exchange so don't be disappointed Marcelrios (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

It is not WP:VANDALISM to follow our procedures for pages that do not meet the notability guidelines WP:GNG and redirect them to a parent article.

It IS however WP:VANDALISM to ignore policies like WP:BURDEN and restoring content to articles without providing appropriate sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your message [3] I do not need to provide a source that says the film is not notable. Unless there are sources, the notability is in question. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

The entire plot has been rewrote. If you think you can do better do it. Do not order me like a boss. Wikipedia is all about trying to work in a good atmosphere. Don't start an edit war or try to vandalize the article. You might be blocked if you continue to make changes Marcelrios (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any blocking is liable to include you. I suggest that rather than edit-warring over existing content, you spend your time finding the necessary in-depth coverage in third-party sources that are needed to establish notability - otherwise, there may be nothing to edit-war over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite shocked that after two years a bunch of editors decide to delete this well referenced article. Why was it not deleted when it was created. I think there is a biased view. It meets the general notability criteria. We need an expert from the Canadian Film task force and not editors that are only good at placing delete templates. Marcelrios (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just because something sat around for a while hidden in the 4300000 articles before it was noticed that it did not actually meet the notability criteria for a stand alone article is not surprising at all. And you have added a lot of citations, but none that actually meet the criteria for having a stand alone article significant converge from sources that are independent of the subject

And yes, I CAN order you to stop inserting copyright materials. And you can choose to not listen to me and be blocked for violating the copyright policies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oooh I am scared. I am sure you will get blocked one of these days if you continue to violate wikipedia guidelines. Marcelrios (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing copyright materials is not violating wikipedia guidelines, inserting it is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]