User talk:Edlitz36

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Edlitz36! I am Theleftorium and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

The leftorium 18:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV.com[edit]

Hi. TV.com is not a reliable source. I have therefore removed your addition to the Separate Vocations article. The leftorium 18:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

h4x3d.com isn't reliable either. The leftorium 18:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding the information to the article without citing a reliable source. The leftorium 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snpp.com, wikia and allexperts.com are not reliable either. Please undo your changes. The leftorium 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not an administrator. I am, however, allowed to delete content from our articles that violates Wikipedia's policies. The policy about reliable sources is located at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It states, for example, that "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." None of the sources you provided meet this criterion. They are either fan sites or wikis (which can be edited by anyone). I am not saying that the information you added is false: however, as the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability states, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The leftorium 20:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left is right, they are unreliable user editing sources. CTJF83 chat 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb[edit]

Hey again Edlitz36. Please note that IMDb is not a reliable source so you can't use it to back up information. Regards, The leftorium 16:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A note on sources[edit]

Hi. I've noticed that a number of the websites you are using to source claims that "____ received near-universal acclaim and was one of the top films of ____" do not appear reliable by Wikipedia's standards. For example, sites like Film.com, Filmsite.org, Films101.com, Toptenreviews.com, Angelfire.com, and Imdb.com do not appear to meet Wikipedia's source criteria of being "reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". For more information on finding sources for Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia:Finding reliable sources. Another important consideration is Wikipedia's policy on original research; in order to make the claim that a film "received near-universal acclaim" and "was one of the top film of its year", you need to cite a reliable source that specifically says those things. You can't just look at review scores and then make that deduction yourself, especially to claim that something is "near-universal"; by definition you cannot know this unless you have checked every source in existence, and the internet is not the be-all and end-all of sourcing. If you would like to discuss any of these specific sites' value as sources, I invite you to open a discussion at the talk page of WikiProject Films. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop, as your editing pattern has become disruptive. Your changes - which introduce claims unsupported by the sources, and/or which rely on unreliable sources, are requiring other editors to spend time cleaning up after you. Please read through the information posted on your page, and adjust your editing to accommodate the concerns expressed here. Otherwise, you may end up facing a loss of editing privileges. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat _spy 02:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Shaun austin.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Shaun austin.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Shaun austin.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Shaun austin.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Ellen Ripley appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. The statement "remains one of cinema's most beloved movie characters" is an unsourced opinion not backed up by any of the article's content or sources. It is inappropriate language for an encyclopedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links referencing "toptenreviews" to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Ckatz^chat _spy 08:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for "listal" - this appears to be a user-generated site, and cannot be used as a reference. Please use more caution; while your edits appear to be well-intentioned, they do result in other editors having to clean up more often than should be necessary. If in doubt, please check with the Film wikiproject to see what is and what is not considered a reliable source. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award for Best Film Editing[edit]

I've reversed your removal of the "red links" from the page Academy Award for Best Film Editing. This change should be proposed on the discussion page first. The red links serve as a memo list for articles that should be written, so I personally prefer to leave them there. In general, Wikipedia works by consensus, so I'd expect at least one other editor to agree with your change before it is implemented. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Blasberg[edit]

In the same vein, I've reverted your removal of red links from Erica Blasberg for the same reasons listed about. --Crunch (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please leave the poor REDLINKs alone[edit]

And I too have reverted your removal of redlinks. This is the second time I have reverted your removal of redlinks. Please do read Wikipedia:Red links. Please do read what I posted at Talk:Bride of Frankenstein#Won.27t someone please think of the REDLINKs. -84user (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked due to your recent edit to Chuck Norris. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]