User talk:Carl Waxman

Welcome
Hello Carl Waxman and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page Chris Evans (actor), do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! 05:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Critical acclaim
Hi there. I noticed you've been editing film articles. They often need a bit of help. However, I noticed that you're using what we call "puffery" or "peacock wording". This includes phrases like "widespread critical acclaim", "universal acclaim", etc. It's non-neutral wording and does not add to the reader's understanding beyond what the review aggregators tell them. If a film has a 90% approval rate on Rotten Tomatoes, just say that. You shouldn't use over-the-top wording to emphasize the rating, and you definitely shouldn't interpret the results as "critical acclaim". When you see something described as having "positive reviews", that's good enough, and it generally doesn't need to be "upgraded" to something more hyperbolic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding peacock wording. I have explained to you above why this is problematic.  If you continue to do so, you can be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Carl, as NinjaRobotPirate notes above, we don't need editorials in our articles. "Universal acclaim" is hyperbolic fluff and doesn't belong in our articles, nor does similar wording like "nearly universal acclaim". The concept is not achievable. So long as there is one reliable critic in the entire universe who says something negative about the film, there will never be "universal acclaim", not even with 100% at RT and 100/100 at Metacritic. Same goes for language like "Universally panned" We also don't need the sharp POV language like "critically panned", "box office bomb", etc. The WikiProject Film community also shuns language like "mixed to positive" and "mixed-to-negative", the latter being something you added here. This phrasing constitutes synthesis, since you appear to be combining both the Rotten Tomatoes score with the Metacritic score, and then making a statement about the information that neither source says explicitly. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of summarizing the critical response at all so long as we have aggregator data, which are already summaries of critical response. Why summarize a summary? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of The Revenant past Plot length limit
You are invited to look at the Talk page discussion on The Revenant (2015 film) regarding the Plot length size limit. You have been expanding it past the limit twice. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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:. Katietalk 00:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Removing the various warnings you received for edit-warring doesn't help your case either. The sockpuppet investigation is a formality in a WP:DUCK case of sockpuppetry, as this is.  OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Epilogue You would have had a better chance of being unblocked if you would've just admitted to sockpuppetry in the first place and convinced us that you weren't going to do it again rather than making up an elaborate fable, as if we haven't heard it before. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)