User talk:GamerOfChaos

November 2015
Hello, I'm Liance. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Liancetalk/contribs 19:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't Threaten Me
I saw your little message on my talk page and am not at all scared by your threat. If you have an issue with an edit on the Godzilla 2014 article, then take it to the talk page, don't just go to my talk page and tell me to stop or you'll ban me. DON'T BE CHILDISH!!! I know my way around wiki's rules and guidelines and right now, you have absolutely no case to convince admins to ban me. I have done nothing wrong. I provided a source that literally states and support that the reactions to Godzilla 2014 were mixed to positive but you on the other-hand simply reverted my edit to an old edit without even explaining your edit or even citing sources that support your claims, which I guarantee the admins won't look kindly upon and it will look bad on you. If you're planning to revert my edit again, then you should provide a source that supports your claims (like I have, these are the sources I've provided that support the mixed to positive reaction claim, here, here, and here) or take your argument to the talk page first so we can discuss this civilly and come to an agreement but if you don't, then I will take action this time because this "reaction" issue is slowly turning into an edit war. Armegon (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Summary statements in film articles
Hello, GamerOfChaos. With this edit, you stated, "The movie has received praised at Rottentomatoes, but that doesn't speak for the rest of the world. Leave it as it 'has recieved positive reviews' and leave it at that." And with this edit, you stated, "When it comes to Wikipedia, we use rottentomatoes as the source, and the majority of the reviews were positive. I'm leaving it at generally positive reviews." Those are contradictory comments, and, for summary statements in our film articles, you are wrong that we only or primarily go by what Rotten Tomatoes has relayed. Read Manual of Style/Film. We also go by what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources have stated about a film. You recently removed "overwhelmingly" from "positive reviews" at the The Force Awakens article when "overwhelmingly positive" is indirectly supported by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and directly supported by the sources right beside that sentence. We have been using "overwhelmingly positive" as a compromise for "critical acclaim" at that article. "Overwhelmingly positive" is also more accurate than just "positive" since the film received some negative reviews as well. You need to stop WP:Edit warring over matters like these, including with Armegon, and abide by what the sources state. You also need to keep WP:Consensus in mind, and should not mark edits like these as WP:Minor. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)