User talk:Curleylandry02

February 2016
Your addition to The Final Project has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on The Final Project
Please stop misrepresenting how Rotten Tomatoes works on The Final Project. Rotten Tomatoes does not state that the film received "mixed reviews". This is your own interpretation, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, it is trivial to say that a given review was rated as "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. We simply quote the review itself, not whether it was described on Rotten Tomatoes as "fresh" or not. You also removed negative criticism from a review; please do not do this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop removing that Film Journal International called the film formulaic. I will add a direct quotation to the article to back this up.  Also, please stop adding audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes.  Per MOS:FILM, we do not report this: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could directly talk to you. You are misrepresenting the total view of the film and the reviews. This being done very in a very bias way and we can understand why you are doing this!!!??? --Curleylandry02 (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)curleylandry002

I saw what you just wrote. I can live with that. This is a better representation of the use of the word "formulaic." --Curleylandry02 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)curleylandry002
 * It is sometimes difficult to find the right balance. I am not trying to make the film sound like it received negative reviews, but when the reviews have criticism, it should be reported.  We are supposed to summarize the reviews, not cherry pick the most positive-sounding quotation from the review.  I'm sorry that you're having difficulty, and I probably should have explained all this stuff better.  It's partially my fault.  I'm getting frustrated, and I'm not explaining my edits well enough so that you understand them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that Wikipedia makes it very difficult to highlight the positive aspects of low budget films. We don't report audience ratings, so we can't report a high user rating on Rotten Tomatoes or the IMDB.  We can't interpret Rotten Tomatoes' data to say that the film received "mixed reviews" unless RT specifically says so on its page.  It's not really proper to highlight that a review was graded as "fresh" or "rotten" on Rotten Tomatoes, as that puts undue emphasis on how RT graded the review.  We also can't cite self-published blogs, which are often less critical toward low budget films than professional film critics.  This can make the article look as if it's biased, even though by Wikipedia's definition it isn't. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I definitely understand now. I appreciate your honesty and your efforts. Thank you. Curleylandry02 (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Curleylandry02