User talk:DavisHawkens

Note: For those leaving comments: I am new to Wikipedia, and is trying to learn the skills. I am not a sockpuppet...

Jimmy Page
Thanks for helping with the Jimmy Page article. If there are any more problems, you should start a discussin on that article's TALK page, not on a user talk page :) Luminifer (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with the change you want to make completely - just trying to help out... I thought if we first made the citation actually true to the text, it would be easier to then remove it. Luminifer (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, wikipedia has a strange slant sometimes - it's hard to find sources for some things.... BTW, there's a rule that you can't revert a change more than 3 times in a 24 hour period (or something like that) -- called edit warring.. so be careful on that page. Luminifer (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you need me to be a 'character witness' - I know you're acting in good faith here. Luminifer (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 202.174.177.56 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 202.174.177.56 (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Copying reply from talk page
Yes you should stop. You will get blocked if you edit it again this weekend. It is ok to add referenced point/counter-point content as long as you are not attempting to push some sort of point. There is nothing controversial about the content. It simply says what an artist has claimed and it puts the statement directly into the mouth of the person who made the statement. And it comes from a verifiable source which passes WP:RS criteria. There is nothing wrong with that. There really isn't any need to even bother to point/counterpoint the statement because it will lead the article off topic. The better place to add detailed clarification over influence. For the Page article it could actually be verified further if one wanted to add that Johnny Ramone himself, in the Ramones-True Story documentary, says his down-stroke guitar style came from playing Communication Breakdown repeatedly in his earlier years prior to the Ramones. If someone adds that second reference to the Page article using a {cite video} citation template then you really don't have much more argument unless you can find 5 or 6 counter-statements against the text. And even then, as stated already, the counter-argument is out of place in the Page article and belongs in the article for Ramone himself. Hope that assists you. It is not an controversial piece of text with or without the citation. (The citation just adds to its validity) It is not a WP:BLP issue. Perhaps you could focus on improvements to an article that has more serious issues. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Adam Sandler
I'm sorry you can't understand the difference between including unfavorable commentary and criticism expressed by film critics from POV. However, it isn't my responsibility to teach you. The sentence is cited and sourced to a noted film critic, Roger Ebert. The link is present to his column where this was noted. The "wiki protocol" that covers this is reliable sources, citing sources, and, oddly enough WP:NPOV, which states: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." WP:YESPOV clarifies it even further: "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints." In other words, negative commentary and criticism should be included, otherwise, the negative criticism is being censored, which is, in fact, what you are doing. This isn't an unattributed statement and despite the fact that you can't see this, the actual statement isn't biased and slanted against Sandler.

"Some critics concluded that Sandler possessed considerably more acting ability that they believed had been previously wasted on poorly written scripts and characters with no development." This isn't POV bias. This is a noted film critic saying Sandler is a far better actor than his early films indicate and that some of his early films had bad scripts and shallow characters. If you can't understand this, I'm sorry. If you remove it again, I'll report you for trying to censor valid, cited criticism. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See, the statement is clear that it is critical commentary on his earlier films, and not on his acting ability. If wording like "Regardless of what critics said" is used, it starts to circle around the POV slant by diminishing the film critic opinion. The box office reflects the popular acceptance of films and that does partly balance it out. If you take the entire paragraph, it ends up saying that as his film roles matured, his acting ability became more apparent. Basically, what it is talking about was his transition from someone who makes comedy films and is a star to being a legitimate actor. That's actually praise. A little later, the article says "Sandler has layers of tenderness under layers of irony under layers of tenderness—plus a floating anger like Jupiter’s great red spot," wrote David Edelstein of New York magazine in a review of You Don't Mess with the Zohan. "Some performers become stars because we can read them instantly, others—like Sandler—because we never tire of trying to get a fix on them." That's fairly high praise, so it is balanced out. The whole thing follows his transition and is ultimately very well written. (And I didn't write those parts.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that anyone find specific critical commentary to counter any one critical opinion. The requirement is that the article be balanced toward all relevant views. I tried to explain this to you in my earlier post. The critic was saying that the scripts were weak, the characters weren't very well developed in his early films. There was nothing anywhere that said the earlier movies were silly, nor did it refute that they were successful. You can't take any one sentence or comment out of context and not consider what the whole of it is saying. There is no need for more critical commentary to balance out anything. The article moves in a progression from commentary on what the films required of Sandler's acting ability to bring it to films that actually do make use of his abilities. There's nothing negative in that, and in fact, it does not trash any films. That is how articles are written, this isn't People magazine that only praises films. I'm sorry you don't understand that, but that's the way it is. I'm not sure how old you are, but I get the impression you're young? Perhaps that influences what you're reading and how you interpret it. In any event, I've said all I know to say about this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it that many people have access to this IP? Brandon (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Luminifer (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)