User talk:Pricer1980

Speedy deletion nomination of Odyssey Entertainment

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Gobbleswoggler (talk) 11:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

1. Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to The Social Network. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
2. Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to The Social Network. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
3. This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
   The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did with The Social Network, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 22:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

1. Please do not use Wikipedia to promote businesses, such as you did in the article The Company Men. Wikipedia is not the "Yellow Pages". If you want to list a company for potential customers to find, please consider alternative outlets, such as Wikia's Yellowikis. Thank you. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 19:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
2. This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to The Social Network, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
3. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to L'Âge des ténèbres, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.   — Jeff G.  ツ 17:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
4. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Descent. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Geoff B (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Miral. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.   — Jeff G.  ツ 23:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
6. This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Miral. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.   — Jeff G.  ツ 00:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
7. This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to The Company Men, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 16:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Improperly sourced cinematic information

Hi! Where did you find the info you added to Melancholia? Some of it is very relevant if it's true, like the US and UK distributors, but it needs to be sourced with for example a newspaper article. Other things, such as that the film is a thriller and that it will be in French, is contradictory to the info in sources currently used. It's great that you want to expand the article, it would just be even better if you could provide sources for the information. Smetanahue (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is true, I'd love for sources as well, for the films The Social Network and The Company Men. So far, I can't find anything relevant via Google. (IMDb does not count as a proper source; neither do alternative sites like RopeOfSilicon, as they tend to get most of their info from IMDb.) Pricer1980, please try to actually locate articles to verify this information, because it only seems as if you are either cluttering up the infobox for fun or have good intentions but are getting your info solely from what IMDb lists, which is not always accurate and up-to-speed. (Ex. They still don't list Matt Long as a cast member in Mad Men. They rely on a lot of premium user input, hence the lack of substantiation.) Leave a message at my talk page (click the '86'), thanks!--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 23:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but I should add that as is the case with release dates, there is no true value in listing distribution companies and such other than the primary one of the country that produced the film. You can instead mention this information, IF SOURCED, in a Marketing section of the article, rather than lengthening the infobox to the point of excess.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Pricer, if the information you are adding to film articles is correct, then it is a great contribution to the site. But I can't stress enough how important it is that you attribute the information to a source in order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. Please start to include the sources for your additions so that your edits won't have to be reverted. Smetanahue (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Descent edit conflict

In case you are wondering why your edits at The Descent are considered vandalism, your information on the film is invalid because the film is a British production. Though it was written to be at least a partially American story, and was released in the United States, it is not an American film. I hope there wasn't a misunderstanding. Spinoff 10:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Same thing you are doing to Miral. Not an American film. Why do you endlessly edit it incorrectly?Donmike10 (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Vampires Suck, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that you are aware of your talk page, so I'm going to leave another message now. You are still making edits to film articles which add nationalities to the films description to which the film does not belong. Again, countries of release do not mean that the film is a production of that country. If you have found a film that is legitimately multi-national in origin, please cite a verifiable source. If you are unaware of how to cite information on Wikipedia, please peruse Wikipedia:Citing sources. Spinoff 00:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Illusionist (2010 film)

Hi, I reverted your edits at The Illusionist (2010 film): at random reproducing part of the credits does not seem constructive. Superp (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 (2)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Bel Ami (2011 film). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is False company information to film articles. Thank you. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please can you provide sources (see WP:RS) for your recent additions; this way we can be sure the information is factual :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Bel Ami (2011 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistently adding unsourced and sometimes false information. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. I have invited other editors to survey your contributions and advise whether you should be given a third chance or whether the block should be made permanent. There is a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#False company information to film articles. If you have anything to say in your defence, you can say it below here. JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked

Your block has been made indefinite because you have been evading it by editing while logged out. Doing that will only mean that the IP addresses you use will be blocked too. "Indefinite" need not mean "infinite", but the only way you will be allowed to edit again is by means of an unblock request on this account, which will need to convince administrators that you understand the reasons for your block and will not continue making false edits if unblocked. JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Timeless Films moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Timeless Films, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)