User talk:Venom-smasher

The Phantom Menace

Please stop reverting and making changes to the Reaction section of The Phantom Menace article. Your changes are obviously POV and original research. You have violated the three-revert rule and are making changes that are not only uncited but go against everything that the users before you cited. In addition to all of this, your formatting of the page is clunky. If you wish to appeal that the references to Mystery Science Theater 3000 and the Razzies are irrelevant, please do so in the talk page of the article. Thank you. The Filmaker 01:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already refers to the film as a success, but not a well-received. Where does it say that fans disliked the film? That cannot be stated within the article without the proper reference. There is none. All we can do is present the critical reaction which is cited. You however have removing these citations to create a bias POV section towards a positive reaction among fans. We have provided citations for the information in the article. You, however, have not. The Filmaker 03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom Menace

Please stop unilaterally changing content that has been deemed a featured article and has been stable for weeks, being read by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of readers and editors. — Deckill e r 03:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove large chunks of unsourced text, especially not before discussing your viewpoints in a professional manner on the talkpage. Thank you. — Deckill e r 03:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom Menace

The fact that this article is being read by "perhaps" thousands is what scares me. There is a lot of good information there, but the REACTION section was mostly POV until I edited it. The "Razzies" are a joke, they hold no real value in the entertainment industry and certainly should not be mentioned in a Star Wars article that was supposedly neutral. Mystery Science Theater 3000's gimmick is making fun of movies for entertainment value only, and aren't offering an unbiased critique, anymore than "Joe Bob Briggs" or "Homer Simpson."

Saying the movie didn't live up to expectations is CLEARLY POV, I don't care how you slice it. The Box Office numbers alone prove the film was a success. What other expectations could Lucasfilm have had?

Now, it's common knowledge that an unconfirmed number of fans didn't like the film for various reasons, but this alone cannot define the movies success or popularity and I am not going to sit here and let you guys type this crap about "Not living up to expectations, many people blieve this or that, blah blah blah." This is not for you to decide and it's clearly not neutral..

Just because you are one of the minority that didn't like the movie, doesn't give you the right to try to sway other readers opinions.

In closing, the article would really be even better if the entire "Reaction" section was removed, as it serves no real purpose other than to talk about the films popularity, which can't provide neutral judgement. If you want to end this whole thing now and agree to remove that section, I'm fine with that. Otherwise, I am going to take this as far as it will go.

Neutral means that both sides are presented, meaning both positive and negative criticism. — Deckill e r 03:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that a section is POV, means to say that the section is written to reflect the editor's opinion and his alone. This is not the case with the article, the different opinions on the film have been cited. You, on the other hand, have done the former. You have rewritten the section to biased towards your own POV and provided no citations whatsoever. While the Razzies are taken by the industry in a light-hearted way, they are not a mock (fake) award show. They do actually hold some weight within the industry. The MST3 reference is notable because of the show's history and it's creator's notable opinion on this film. The statement that film did not live up to expectations is cited along with the rest of the section. As I stated above, the article refers the film as a success (when talking about the box office) but not as well-received.

"Now, it's common knowledge that an unconfirmed number of fans didn't like the film for various reasons, but this alone cannot define the movies success or popularity and I am not going to sit here and let you guys type this crap about "Not living up to expectations, many people blieve this or that, blah blah blah." This is not for you to decide and it's clearly not neutral.."

And it's yours? I can understand your want for the article to be neutral, but the article is far more biased with your edits then ours.

"Just because you are one of the minority that didn't like the movie, doesn't give you the right to try to sway other readers opinions."

First, please see WP:AGF and learn to assume good faith among editors. We are not trying sway other readers opinions. Far from it. And for the record, I did like The Phantom Menace. But for the an open and admittedly personal POV record, I don't believe the people didn't like the film are not the minority.

"In closing, the article would really be even better if the entire "Reaction" section was removed, as it serves no real purpose other than to talk about the films popularity, which can't provide neutral judgement. If you want to end this whole thing now and agree to remove that section, I'm fine with that. Otherwise, I am going to take this as far as it will go."

Not in a million years. The Filmaker 04:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in light of the ongoing revert war, I've protected Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Please discuss issues on the the talk page. — TKD::Talk 04:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on feedback , I'm unprotecting the article, but your reverts and edit summary style make it seem that you're the same person as User:24.148.141.103. Logging out to avoid the ramifications of the three-revert rule isn't allowed. Note that the rule isn't an entitlement to three reverts, so blocks may be issued sooner if revert warring continues. — TKD::Talk 20:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. — Deckill e r 16:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOO TIRED!

I'm too tired to keep arguing this, Merry Christmas!!!

3RR

Actually, since you made the changes four times, you are guilty of the 3RR. This is your last warning. The second we see another instnace, you are blocked. — Deckill e r 14:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block on Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

To User:Venom-smasher and User:The Filmaker.

I have blocked both of you for 24 hours for breaking the three revert rule on the above page. Let me remind you first of all that breaking the three revert rule means making four 'reverts' - edits that remove the content of antoher editor - four or more times within 24 hours; see WP:3RR for the full details of the rule.

I could have protected the page in question instead, but I don't see why others should suffer for your repeated reversions. In blocking you, I want to hammer home that repeated reverting is not acceptable on Wikipedia. There are other ways of dealing with disputes or editors that you disagree with. Reverting only harms your own 'cause'.

When your ban ends, I encourage you both to work together and avoid reverts. Failure to do so will result in page protection and further bans. To create a better enyclopedia, we need to be collaborative. --Robdurbar 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, User:The Filmaker just refuses to let go. He has so far reverted every single contribution I have made.

Venom-smasher 04:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reported both of you to WP:AN3 because the reversions were getting out of hand. The blocks have absolutely nothing to do with who's right or wrong in this dispute. You may want to consider, however, that other users, too, have been reverting you and disagreeing with your changes on the talk page. The way that Wikipedia consensus is intended to work is that controversial matters are worked out thoroughly on talk pages rather than through edit summaries of reverts. — TKD::Talk 04:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Regarding this: It is not acceptable to call other editors "fanboys", especially by linking to someone's user or user talk page next to the comment; it's an example of a personal attack, which is against our policy. — TKD::Talk 04:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Batman (1989 film)

Yes, Joker does call it "Smilex" in the film, just once. It's during the TV commerical, where he's rambling, so it's easy to miss. Vicki Vale also calls it "smilex gas" in the third act. Just thought I'd confirm it for you, as I pretty much know the film inside out. Party on and be excellent to each other! -Switch ^t 08:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars prequels

So I guess you've returned to push the same POV you were unable to rationalize six months ago. Fine, but if you really want to avoid having your edits reverted by me or others (and there will be others), I suggest you start discussing the changes in the talk page. Thank you. The Filmaker 01:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are coming dangerously close to a 3RR violation, which will result in your block from editing for a time and will be enforced to all parties involved. Please stop this edit war and use the talk page with a civil discussion to solve the problem rather than uncivil edit summaries and edit warring. Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

For a history of revert warring against consensus and uncivil edit summaries, this is your last warning. The next revert you make on any of the prequel pages, or the next uncivil edit summary you make, will result in a 48 hour block. Note that a strict interpretation of WP:3RR is not needed for a block if the reverting is widespread, against consensus, uncivil, and/or presistant or has a long history: this is called disruptive editing. — Deckill er 11:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Venom-smasher for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. The Filmaker 12:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]