User talk:Drewsal16

October 2015
Your recent edit to College Park High School (Pleasant Hill, California) appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. ''Also, please do not write about yourself. If you are truly notable someone more neutral about the subject of you will write about you in due time.'' John from Idegon (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at College Park High School (Pleasant Hill, California), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 04:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

May 2016
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Something in the Water (Carrie Underwood song). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 00:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Foursome (Web Series), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm MPFitz1968. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kings (upcoming film)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kings (upcoming film) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have deleted the article; its sole content was "kings is a movie not out yet". (An article which is so short that it doesn't contain sufficient information to even identify its subject may be speedily deleted under the criterion WP:CSD.) For one, who is making the movie? What company, which director? Is there any information about its plot? Is it based on another work - book, TV series, etc.? Does it have an official website? I am sorry, but "Kings is a movie which is not out yet" doesn't make an encyclopedic article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good job on your second attempt at the article. (I see that another user has moved it to Kings (2017 film).) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Narutolovehinata5. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. 123.136.107.35 (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Neil N  talk to me 01:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Interlude65. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''I did NOT attack you on the Nine Track Mind article; I was just trying to making it very clear that that statement need not be added to the article. Sigh... if I HAD attacked you, I would've said something like "You suck eggs as an editor and you're completely stupid" or something, but I didn't; all I did was just sharpen my tone in order to make an important point to other contributing editors, and that is not, I repeat, NOT, a personal attack AT ALL (actually, in reality, YOU are the one that has made a personal attack, not me). Got it? '' Interlude 65  (Push to talk) 05:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally favorable vs critical acclaim
Figured I'd drop you a line about ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. Keep in mind that scores on RT only measure the number of positive reviews. So when you see a high rating, it just means that most reviews were positive. It does not necessarily mean that most reviews were "highly" positive, which is what the term "critical acclaim" is defined as. Take for example a film that receives a lot of 3 out of 5 star reviews. 3/5 is a positive rating, but it is not that positive. Yet, those scores help films on RT score high.Metacritic does a better job of weighing the amount of positive in each review, and their score is a more accurate depiction of how positive the reviews were. Finding Dory received a 77, which is short of the 81 required for the "universal acclaim" rating on their website. I reinstated "generally positive", but if you disagree or would like to further discuss, I suggest starting a discussion on the article's talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)