User talk:Stillwater1103

July 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to The Happening (2008 film) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: The Happening (2008 film) was changed by Stillwater1103 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.946182 on 2020-07-17T22:48:43+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Happening (2008 film), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You boldly made a significant change to an article. I reverted you. At this point, if you disagree, it is time to discuss the issue, per WP:BRD. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bold - Revert - Discuss Cycle

Editors frequently disagree on Wikipedia. One editor makes a change. A second editor disagrees and reverts the change, the first editor restores their change, the second editor reverts again... Soon we have what has become known as an "edit war".

To limit the number of edit wars that develop, discussion is usually the key. While edit summaries are a good start, they seldom get very far. So, we have the Bold - Revert - Discuss Cycle.

If you boldly make a change (as you did) and another editor reverts you (as I did), the next step should be to discuss the issue on the article's talk page to find a consensus. While that discussion continues, the status quo version remains. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion vs. what the sources say

I have completely rewritten the section you added to M. Night Shyamalan on racism.

While the first source does touch on racism, there was substantial additional material I feel you excluded with little reason. The source discusses several possible reasons Shyamalan may be facing such harsh criticism. Racism, hubris and style that conflicts with current pop-culture's current trends were discussed. I included the racism discussion along with coverage of his rather strong statements of self-certainly and the pop-culture/style conflict.

Please be careful with presenting source's opinions as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Words like "noted" and "observed" imply a fact, rather than the opinions that followed. Please see WP:SAID.

The second source had additional material that your presentation significantly altered. While it does discuss racism, your amplification is neither necessary nor appropriate. The source doe not call the sketch "extremely racist" or say that it did anything "cruelly". Those are your feelings and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Your statement that he had become "a racial stereotype in a white majority country for being a brown skinned Indian immigrant" is completely your addition to what the source said. Whether or not the statements are true or not (and I do substantially agree with them) is immaterial. The source does not discuss any of that. You cannot combine material from two sources to say something that neither source says directly.

Please review my take] on the material, make tweaks, discuss substantial issues, etc. Also note that once the material stabilizes a bit, I would like to combine it with and existing, as discussed on the talk page. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to change the heading of the section to pop culture and racism since it describes it better. Stillwater1103 (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more quotes from previous two articles and also derived from a new article in The Washington Post from 2019. Stillwater1103 (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given my discussion of merging sections (see the article talk page), I'm not too concerned about the section heading at the moment.

Re your edits, I changed "self-regarding claims" to "egotistical statements" as it is summarizing "hubris", "self-regarding", "self-aggrandizing" and "(not) marked by humility". Of the four, "self-regarding" is relatively soft, relative to "hubris" and "self-aggrandizing". I felt "statements" was a bit lighter than "claims" while "egotistical" fairly encompasses the range of statements.

I haven't been able to review the Washington Post material so far as my library access isn't working for some reason and tech support is backed up. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Praying with Anger page

Hello Stillwater1103, I would like to inform you that you are currently engaged in an edit war with me on the Praying with Anger page. As you may know, edit warring is not permitted on Wikipedia. I reverted your original edit, at which point the proper protocol that you should have followed was to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, not to revert again, especially without providing an edit summary. I encourage you to bring up the issue on the talk page and discuss it there. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hi Stillwater1103! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Old (film) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Greyjoy^talk 01:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]