Talk:Generation Um...

Untitled
This article is just an ad and should be removed. This article is horrid, please remove 173.165.48.229 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This article on generation Um... has had a negative bias and tone, and has contained factually incorrect information since it's inception.

There are many good reviews of this film not listed on the first page of a Google search- which have recently and repeatedly been posted here, only to be deleted and replaced with negative ones. And the release/cast/crew and other relevant info has been updated over and over again, only to be deleted and repeatedly replaced with wrong info and negative comments about its reception and content. This extends to even the title of the film which is specifically "generation Um..." and not "Generation Um..."

Bovineboy2008 found a neutral middle ground which allowed the correct info about the film to stay, and also showed restraint in expressing either good or nasty bias about the film. But, Therealpirateblue and now Smalljim seem to need this page to reflect only negative bias again for some reason.

This has been going on for months. Please stop painting this film in a harshly negative light with incorrect info, credits, synopsis, reception, etc. It's wrong and insulting to keep imposing a single factually incorrect and negatively slanted opinion about what constitutes a truthful description of generation Um...

I'm unfamiliar to the subtleties of Wikipedia, but if anyone could instruct on how to lodge a formal complaint with the proper authorities if this behavior continues, please do.

The continual CYBER-BULLYING of this film by Wikipedia Editors of this page will not be tolerated any longer. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.243.113 (talk • contribs)
 * First off, please do not delete the rest of the talk page when posting. Secondly, sign your posts with four tildes (~). Thirdly, and more importantly, the Reception section, which is found on all articles on recent media (books, movies, songs, albums, TV shows, TV episodes, radio shows, video games, et cetera) on this wiki and many others, accurately reflects all cited reviews. If any positive reviews do exist, the burden of proof (of their existence, relevance, notability, and reliability) rests on you, and you alone. (And good luck: I got to this article in the first place because the film has a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, indicating no positive reviews.) Fourthly, it is the article you were writing that was biased, sounding suspiciously like ad copy. (If it was, then that makes you not only an NPOV-violating vandal, but guilty of copyvio. Bad, bad idea.) The one I, with the aid and support of Smalljim, Bovineboy2008, and Atama, restored was the original article, and was factual, accurate, and readable. (I could not make the slightest sense of your Plot section, nor of that "Reception". Fifthly, MediaWiki does not treat the first letter of a title as case-sensitive, so it will always be displayed as starting with a capital. Sixthly, if you think removing your apologistic bullshit qualifies as "cyber-bullying", you are in for a sad, sad life. Seventhly, how the hell does one "CYBER-BULLY" a film? it is an inanimate object. Eighthly, if you felt we were wrong and breaking NPOV, the first thing to do would have been to say so (civilly), here on the talk page. Ninthly, please, feel free to cry to every admin you can find. You'll end up on the business end of a sockpuppetry investigation, while I would run the risk of being commended for fighting your constant vandalism.Therealpirateblue (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

IP Sock
IP-Man is almost certainly sock-/meatpuppeting. Either that, or he's had upwards of three different ISPs (Verizon, AT&T, Time-Warner) in the past few weeks. However, seeing as he also seems to switch on no particular pattern, blocks would be an entirely symbolic gesture. I don't know what to do beyond maybe disabling account creation for all associated addresses.Therealpirateblue (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Therealpirateblue- It's been quite a surprise to discover how complex a procedure it is to learn how to properly edit a Wikipedia page if you've never done it before, and shocking how territorial you anonymous wiki-folk editor-types are about the pages you claim ownership of.

Concerning this specific page- you seem to have forgotten that the things that you post here have real impact on what people think about the film you are "defining" on the page-- which unfairly robs potential viewers of the film any opportunity to watch the film with an open mind and formulate their own opinions about it. By highlighting only negative comments about the film and using only negative language such as "universally panned" to frame your selectively chosen negatively-slanted critical comments, you are expressing bias and essentially "reviewing" the film under the guise of a neutral Wikipedia entry-- ***There do exist many, many positive reviews and comments about this film-- some of which have been included in the multiple updates to this page, and then deleted by you and your cohorts... ****

Initially, the slant of this page was so negative, demeaning and factually incorrect (wrong producers, incomplete cast list, spelling mistakes on names, wrong dates, incorrect synopsis, etc) that it seemed that you had a personal grudge against it. Now I just believe you have a personal grudge against anyone who disagrees with your opinions concerning what information best represents it. I'm going to guess you haven't even watched generation Um...

But this is the world we now live in, I suppose.

You can call people who disagree with you "Vandals" or "Puppets" all you like but when the editorial "blocks" are taken off this page, I will attempt to add back some of the positive reviews of the film once again.

It's an important little film that has been released across the globe, against all odds. And it has received a wide range of reviews, varying from the worst to the best- regardless of how you try to paint it, regardless of how you try to force your opinions of how it should be represented, regardless of how you try to Cyber-Bully people out of trying to create a balanced perception of generation Um... on its own supposedly neutral Wikipedia page. 108.184.179.57 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)