User talk:MANOSandTORGO

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Manos: The Hands of Fate. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. NJZombie (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Manos: The Hands of Fate with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Manos: The Hands of Fate shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. NJZombie (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In response...
In response to your inquiry left on my talk page, try reading WP:SOAPBOX. First, if you are truly who you claim to be, which I have no problem believing, you are not an independent, third party source, which you are required to be. Speaking about a commercial product is a huge difference than promoting the product when you are a beneficiary of the product. Your connection to the subject serves as a detriment in this case and you do not receive special treatment as such. Additionally, you are making the entry from a first person point of view which is incorrect no matter who you are. Your additions are improper and that is why three different editors, myself included, have corrected them. One single editor cannot make three reverts in a 24 hour period, regardless of who's right. This is why you are in danger of receiving a block. NJZombie (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please limit the discussion to your talk page instead of going back and forth between here and mine. It doesn't matter what I think concerning who's a better source. These are the rules. I didn't make them but we all need to follow them. That being said, I think it's better that you don't state who you are and make unbiased entries or corrections. It means nothing here and as I stated, it's seen as more of a detriment here as it's seen as self promoting. Pointing out who you are and writing from a first person point of view is only creating trouble for yourself here. Continuing to revert and writing in the actual entry who you are are surefire ways to get yourself blocked and banned in the end. I can't address your provided situation about someone adding their e-mail address to an article because I don't see any examples of such. Where do you see where Ben Solovey himself made an entry on to the page speaking in the first person and providing his e-mail address? I see no such instance of anybody besides you doing anything like that. All I see is where a third party source reported an item concerning Ben Solovey's ownership of the original 16 mm Ektachrome camera workprint and properly provided inline citations for his sources. If you need a lesson on how to provided inline citations, read up on it at WP:CITE. Simply stating who you are though and using that as a reference is not acceptable. NJZombie (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)