User talk:Deriobamba

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Idont Havaname 16:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Atlas Shrugged: Part I
I reverted your deletion of a sentence from this article. As explained in the Change Summary, that paragraph starts out asserting that "conservative reviews" of the film were "mixed," after previous text showed that general reviews were negative. I think both of those are accurate statements. The comment from a reviewer on Fox is part of the mix. She might have been editorializing--as are the other reviewers cited--but the Wikipedia editor was not editorializing to include her in the mix. The assertion that the common viewer came to a different conclusion than the typical reviewer was often made, and was discussed at one point on the article's talk page. Spike-from-NH (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying, but Piazza is NOT a movie reviewer, she's a columnist COMMENTING on the movie's reviews. In addition Rotten Tomatoes' Atchity sums up pretty clearly in her article why there was that disparity. Especially with a politically charged movie like this, those user reviews are pretty meaningless. I imagine ballot-stuffing went on as well, because the box office numbers don't support good word of mouth.Deriobamba (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

She may be a columnist, but the quote from her further fleshes out the paragraph's thesis that conservatives were mixed about the movie. This is not a paragraph about the quality of the movie but about its niche constituency--to be demonstrated, for sure, if Part II is really half an hour longer than Part I was! Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But the quote you used contains a fallacy. Yes critics hated it, but so did most audiences. The quote makes it appear as if most people enjoyed it. (Again, with ANY politically charged movie--especially these days--there is a lot of ballot stuffing going on at RT) Her column should more accurately read "ALL critics may hate it but CONSERVATIVE/LIBERTARIAN audiences love it". Without the words in CAPS it means something different in this article.Deriobamba (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, at the end of the paragraph it's in, I don't think the quote gives that impression. Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

MLB highest paid list
Thanks for the tweak, looks good! Staxringold talkcontribs 13:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)