User talk:Owlfarm88

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Escape from Tomorrow. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Escape from Tomorrow?[edit]

I'm not sure I understand your issue regarding Mr. Goldmark and the Escape from Tomorrow review; he is not a simple "Disney fanboy" as you so put it. The fact that Goldmark ALSO routinely films at both parks (among others) without permission, has an extensive knowledge of the parks and it's attractions, and is also a well-known figure in comedy (having several songs on rotation on the Dr. Demento show) makes him uniquely qualified to do a comedic review of the film. Not to mention the review was made for a site which is, in itself, notable enough to have a large Wikipedia entry.

I want us to come to an understanding and try to work out a way to include the information on the page. - TMobias (talk) 02:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Escape from Tomorrow?[edit]

If I may interject...I am Tony Goldmark, and my review of Escape From Tomorrow is the one under discussion.

I'd like to quote something Mr. Owlfarm88 said about me:

"Goldmark is not an esteemed journalist or a film critic. He doesn't have the notoriety or the social cache of the other established critics. His self-aggrandizing "review" comes three years after the fact and (with less YouTube subscribers than most teenage girls) is thus irrelevant."

First of all...what do you have against teenage girls? I'm sure some of those teenage girls have thoughtful, meaningful opinions more deserving of attention than mine. I realize that youth comes with inexperience, but it's odd that you said "teenage girls" in particular, and not just "teenagers" - does being female make one inherently undeserving of YouTube subscribers in your eyes? I don't think so. In fact, that's one of the reasons I don't constantly beg for subscriptions at the end of my videos like so many YouTubers do - I don't want to take views away from deserving teenage girls. Because as we all know, "number of YouTube subscribers" is the one and only barometer of human worth and lord knows teenage girls have a hard enough time already, what with them all being unworthy of YouTube subscribers in your eyes and all.

But I digress. I'm sorry it took me three years (two after the film's theatrical/VOD release, when I could actually SEE it) to finish my review, partly because I had other topics I wanted to devote episodes to first, but largely because my videos require a lot more effort than just typing. In fairness, the section IS called "Reception," not "IMMEDIATE Reception," but what do I know? Perhaps you should edit the Wikipedia page for Citizen Kane - there's a whole "Re-evaluation" section full of posers who weren't even BORN yet in 1941! Opinions are first-come first-served, so I say delete 'em all and let God sort 'em out.

I realize that these entries have to be selective - if you included the opinion of EVERY random yahoo on the internet the pages would never end, and if you think the line should be drawn at me, fine. I'll live. The only defense I can offer is, people really REALLY seem to like my review. Of the hundreds of comments it has received, literally not ONE is defending the film or arguing that I'm wrong for hating it. Multiple commenters called my review "deep." One commenter said, "you delivered an amazing, in-depth review of something trying desperately - and failing - to be art, and in doing so, you've made art yourself." Another commenter said, "After watch this, I feel like a better person." Yet another said I "revealed part of [my] soul." You can read them all here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB3qNq89yEw

But, perhaps the opinions of mere living breathing people who lack the "notoriety" and "social cache" of a Wikipedia editor mean nothing to you. And if that's the case, I'm sorry to have wasted your precious owl-farming time.

My thoughts[edit]

As not only the admin who warned you, but the editor who created the Escape from Tomorrow article based on reports from Sundance two years ago (I still have not seen it, believe it or not) and then got it to GA status, I will weigh in and say that Wikipedia editorial policy unambiguously supports adding the review. Sorry to have waited but I was giving you a chance to start discussion here or on the article talk page.

We have an article about both Goldmark and the site he writes/reviews for. The former is the case for some of the reviews quoted; the latter is the case for all of them. He and his review are notable. Game, set, match.

Now, if you have some good reason to suggest otherwise, please share it. If not, please cease and desist from continually reverting the article. I will not block you myself because I feel, purely by making this post to your talk page, sufficiently involved. But I don't think any admin reviewing a report about your behavior will feel disinclined to block. And since you appear to be a single-purpose account, that block could well be indefinite. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game, set, match?[edit]

I stand by what I wrote earlier: Goldmark is not an esteemed journalist or a film critic. He doesn't have the notoriety or the social cache of the other established critics. His self-aggrandizing "review" comes three years after the fact and (with less YouTube subscribers than most teenage girls) is thus irrelevant. But go ahead, throw him in with Indiewire, the New York Post, the LA Times, etc. Because with less than 3000 YouTube subscribers and even fewer Twitter followers he's CLEARLY an important voice out there in the blogosphere. Daniel Case, I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I think you did a nice job creating the page. But by allowing this nonsense, you've just raped it. And in a strange way, you've raped yourself. Goldmark's jokes are as bad as his hair. He may not have as many subscribers as a teenage girl, but he sure whines like one. Game, set, match. Owlfarm88 (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your block says it all, but you are truly a sorry excuse for a human being—no, a sorry excuse for a subhuman being—to use the word "rape" the way you just did. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Owlfarm88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'd like to sincerely apologize for posting an actual review by Tony Goldmark on the Jurassic World wiki page and then being swiftly blocked. I guess he's not as notable as I was led to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlfarm88 (talk • contribs)

Decline reason:

Trolling. This edit is not an earnest academic contribution ~~and the dubious discussion above, which is alleged to be between you and Goldmark reeks of self-amusement.~~ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I found this edit made by an IP, likely used by this editor, so odious a violation of WP:BLP that I had to oversight it on sight, something I don't usually do. Again, I am recusing myself from taking any further action, but if you keep up like this you will lose talk page access as well. Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]