User talk:Thefilmlover

Disruptive edits
Judging from the content of your edits, it seems clear you are the same person as anon-IP 70.90.133.205. Multiple editors have been reverted your series of uncited claims, unexplained transpositions and, a big tipoff, added claims of "uncredited screenwriting" to infoboxes, where, as has been pointed out to you, to no avail, such information does not go. You need to please stop making disruptive edits, and if you genuinely intend to be a productive contributor to Wikipedia, then please read the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which explains the basic policies and guidelines. Please note that due to the disruptive nature of your edits and your refusal to engage in discussion on talk pages, several editors are watching your edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And as I'd previously suspected, your edit here shows that you are also the same disruptive anon-IP 98.246.92.242, who made the exact same, highly quirky edit here. Be aware that admins take a very dim view of sock-puppetry. You need to quit your disruptive edits under multiple identities, or an admin will be asked to block or ban your IPs and username from editing. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Annnnd you also appear to be a sock of GaGu13, judging from an identically odd edit of yours and his. --Tenebrae (talk)


 * I appreciate your agreeing to discussion. I do need to point out that calling another account that you have an "old account" though you were still using it days ago does seem like sock-puppetry. But I'll leave that to the admins to sort out. Second, it is not the most productive beginning when virtually the first thing you say to another Wikipedia editor is "First off, it says no firm rules." That's meant as an escape hatch when the rules don't cover something or, in the infinite variations of circumstances, a rule logically and practically doesn't fit. We absolutely are expected to follow policies, guidelines, manual of style and consensus unless there is some blatant and egregious extenuating circumstance.


 * The reordering of producers in the infobox may be perfectly fine. But editors need to give reasons for why they are doing something. You can do this in edit summaries or on an article's talk page. But your changing the order of producers for no apparent reason appears inexplicable. What is it about the original order that you found inaccurate or distasteful?


 * Also, you need to stop adding the names of production companies to infoboxes unless these companies are clearly credited onscreen. I would also note there is a difference between a "studio" and a "production company" in terms of how infoboxes define them. Every major actor or director works under a corporate entity for liability's sake. That doesn't mean their "company" did anything other than act or direct. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)