I see that you created a page for the upcoming sequel to Man of Steel (film). Unfortunately, there are a few problems with this article. The title you created for this article does not meet the guidelines for article titles, we generally do not have articles for upcoming movies at all until they have at least commenced principal photography, and the sequel does, in fact, already have a title, as shown in this section. For these reasons, I intend to nominate the article for speedy deletion. I am sorry for this, as I know that it can sting to have your contributions deleted. I do hope you won't get discouraged, though. You can check out our introduction page and the teahouse to get accustomed to how things work around here. Most importantly, welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! Novusuna talk 22:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Untitledmanofsteelsequel
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Untitledmanofsteelsequel. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Man of Steel#Sequel. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Man of Steel (film)#Sequel – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Novusuna talk 22:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Man of Steel
You're trying to replace two sources that feature discussion with ones that feature simply press release, or news with no discussion:
The NY Times blog features discussion of the news in the press release, discussing the character's previous appearances, and the actor. The latter, DC's blog, is simply a press release. You can find the same exact content on lots of news websites. (Example: http://www.slashfilm.com/michael-shannon-zod-superman/ )
The first, LA Times, while it is part of a press release, there is a lot of discussion of the character and actress. It is also an exclusive article to that website. DC's blog simply states the actress' role and links to the LA Times article. There is no discussion.
The thing is that the original two references have more discussion of the content. They are more reliable. DC owns the properties, and we can not rely on their own press releases. It is better for their to be discussion. Read any essay or guideline about sources on Wikipedia - WP:PRIMARY, WP:USEPRIMARY, WP:RELIABLE. In the LA Times article, it is part of an interview conducted by LA Times staff, with the director of the film. The NY Times article features both the information of the press release, and discussion added by NY Times journalists. Thus, the two sources NOT from DC's blog are the better way to go here. || Tako (bother me) || 19:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- "I'll let you" - yeah, just a note, try not to talk like that on Wikipedia. That's a sign of bad faith. No one has any authority higher than anybody else.
- David Hyde, when that article was released, was an employee of DC Comics, VP of Publicity. This isn't about him being reliable. It is better to use something that has DISCUSSION on the press release, rather than just the press release. I don't see why you wouldn't like to use the NY Times article, as it contains the same information plus more discussion. || Tako (bother me) || 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're referring to by "talk like that". I'm telling you that when writing leads for film pages, "we" (that's the community of film editors) don't place more emphasis on a film's placement in its "universe" over the people that made the film. You're also unnecessarily adding references to the lead for the actors. We wouldn't do that either. The lead summarizes the article, thus there shouldn't be anything in there that isn't stated in the body, and thus you wouldn't put a reference next to it. The only exception would be directly quoting something in the lead. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- YOU are not actually making an argument for anything. I've specifically talking to YOU. So, I would say YOU in my words. Please go to the talk page if you feel the page needs to be displayed in the order that YOU are changing it to. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. STATic message me! 20:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)