User talk:AnonUser10133

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
They are vandalism because you continue to make mindless edits. To use your "Top films" claim as an example: on Wikipedia there is no subjective content submitted by editors. Claiming that Interstellar is "one of the top films of 2014" is an incredibly generalized, widespread, and subjective claim. In the Critical Reception section countless editors have provided sources, which already state what you are trying to put forth (that is: Interstellar garnering positive reviews). Furthermore, It would be deceitful, and as I mentioned to you earlier, bias for you to compare Interstellar to 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is demonstrated in the Critical Reception section. You cannot try and emulate the 2001 page merely because you believe they are comparable. Your desire to emulate 2001 can be seen clearly from the discussions you have posted on the Interstellar talk page including a request to change the reception of the film from "generally favorable or positive", which is the correct and official Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic phrasing used by all modern film Wikipedia pages, to "polarizing", which is unsurprisingly the same phrasing used for that of 2001. Lastly, in terms of "interpretation" - this is obscenely superfluous. There is absolutely no need for an interpretation as the film is well understood thematically/figuratively/metaphorically and stated clearly in the Critical Reception. The only misunderstanding that is attributed with the film is its scientific jargon and content of which has an entire section dedicated to it. I recommend you cease making mindless edits or I will consider them vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.21.215 (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay now I got yeah. Thanks for the clarification! Although, for the part about 2001, I wasn't trying to emulate but I was trying to get the "feel" of how you should "talk" on the wiki. Thanks again! It was simply a misunderstanding. AnonUser10133 (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad we settled this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.21.215 (talk) 06:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)