User talk:BigGameFish

Conflict of interest
Hello, BigGameFish. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. _________ I am not involved with the films production but a fan of the work. I was actually planning to put up a page myself but have yet to have a chance being that it is X-mas season. Your page has mostly wrong information and it is pretty obvious you are trying to slander them film and make it appear to have a far worse reception than reality. The response by the critics thus far has been exceedingly positive yet you picked the worst 2 reviews and showcased the films worst positive review. Being that it is obvious you did not view the film by your writing, it is apparent that you have bad intentions, which is a shame after all the hard work the production put into it.
 * I have to ask, but are you related to the film in any way? I ask because all of your edits to The Upper Footage can be seen as promotional in nature. Please be aware that while someone with a conflict of interest can edit, promotional editing is highly discouraged and can lead to you getting blocked. If you do have a conflict of interest (such as being anyone involved with the movie), you should be up front about this. Now the one thing I have to warn you about further is that Wikipedia is not a place to selectively edit the article so the film appears to be more positive than it is. I'll be honest since I do think that you are someone involved in the film's production. Selectively editing the movie article to make it more positive looking does not really do much to enhance the reputation of the movie or anyone involved with it. People have done this in the past and when the media found out, it ended up ruining their reputation and subjecting them to widespread ridicule. And in the end, the selective edits were removed and the article went back to how it formerly was. Nothing beneficial came out of it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

BigGameFish (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any bad intent and so far the reviews I found have been mixed at best. The thing about reviews is that we can't use just any review. It has to be through a place that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. Reviews from blogs might be more positive, but we can't count those towards notability. I'm sorry that you are assuming that I have ill intent towards the film, but I can assure you that I do not. I just saw a review on a website and thought it'd be neat to write about. That's all. Now if you did see the film, I would prefer that you write out a full synopsis on the movie rather than take the official synopsis near verbatim. The thing is, that's considered to be a copyright violation and we can't use that. Since you seem to have seen the full film, why not write out a full synopsis? A full synopsis is always preferable to a short blurb. The other thing to watch out for is that the synopsis you gave was fairly promotional in nature. You have to be very careful to avoid sounding as if you're editing to promote the film, which is why I suspected you of being someone involved with the movie. (WP:NPOV) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of editing with bad intent. I am not trying to discredit the film. It's just that we cannot take material that is a copyright violation, nor can we use material that comes across as overly promotional. Either write a full synopsis or write a short synopsis that is not taken almost verbatim from the official synopsis and does not come across as promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: 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.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

How can you say you do not have bad intent? You have written a factually inaccurate page in so many ways it is hard to count. The reviews currently are 13 positive to 3 negative. Explain how that is mixed? All from legitimate sites, 2 that were on the Rotten Tomatoes page you linked that it seems you missed but you were able to find the worst quote from the worst positive review and quotes from 2 pages who had a vendetta against the film and its production team, because they were fooled by the marketing and look silly now. As for the IMDB page the reviews from critics there are 8 positive and 2 negative. Again there is no mix anywhere to be found. Not to mention you say reception to the marketing was mixed when even the places who bashed the film, gave the marketing kudos. It is obvious where your intentions stand. You are probably part of one of these sites that slander the film trying to save face. It is sad someone like you is an administrator and uses such power to put down others creative works by stating things that are not factually true. Not to mention that that you have not seen the project and are completely unaware to its back-story. If you take pride in your work why don't you actually do it instead of shilling for those with an axe to grind and deleting everything that goes against your fraudulent narrative. Not to mention I just wrote a synopsis that was original that you deleted, the events in your synopsis do not take place in the film. Your intentions are clear as day my friend.

December 2013
Hello, I'm Ishdarian. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. For clarification, this is a warning for calling Tokyogirl a 'shill' in this edit summary.  Ish  dar  ian  07:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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) 07:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Upper
If you look at the text your are trying to restore and compare it to the IMDB page for the movie, half of the content you are trying to add is copied word-for-word. That's how it's a copyright violation.  Ish dar  ian  08:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/BigGameFish. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)