User talk:Kellycasady18

Welcome!

Hello, Kellycasady18! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Kellycasady18, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kellycasady18! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Craig Macneill.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Craig Macneill.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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Denniss (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. I see that you removed a number of negative reviews from The Boy (2015 film). I re-integrated the sources that you added but reverted your blanking. Please do not do this. If you are associated with the filmmakers or the film's production, you should read our guideline on how to manage a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. We neutrally report reviews – good, bad, and mixed – without censoring them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, please stop trying to promote the film. If you keep up this disruptive editing, you can lose your editing privileges. I reverted your latest edit because it violates MOS:LINK and because you're clearly moving positive reviews to the forefront. I wouldn't care so much, except that you already removed all the negative reviews, and I'm losing my patience for promotional edits on this article. If it keeps up, I'll seek administrator assistance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I'm just wondering why you are putting all the negative reviews up front. All I've done is added one review up top so that the reviews "good, bad, and mixed" are honestly placed.

Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are trade magazines and are more prominent than random websites on the Internet. I like Badass Digest, but people are going to want to know what prominent critics think. It's not sorted by reception, though some editors like to do that. They lump all the positive reviews, mixed reviews, then negative reviews into different paragraphs. In a film like Star Wars or Titanic, you could probably do that, because there are so many reviews. For a smaller film, there just aren't enough review to support separate paragraphs. Other prefer to sort them by nationality, but, again, there aren't enough reviews for a breakdown by geographic location. I honestly don't care all that much about the order, but, like I said, I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of edits made to this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. That all makes complete sense. It's just that currently the editor has all the negative reviews at the top and the strong ones are at the bottom. Would you mind if I adjusted the order a bit so it feels more neutral? Thank you again for all the information.

How is more neutral to intentionally list positive reviews first? If you want to move the other stuff around, go ahead, but I really don't like the idea of Variety and The Hollywood Reporter being moved. I think they should be the first reviews listed. Once Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic index the film, it will probably have a positive reception, and we can prominently list that. Also, in case I wasn't clear, please don't embed links like [http://www.indiewire.com Indiewire] in the article body. If you want to make a link, use brackets like this: [[Indiewire]], which will link to the Wikipedia article on Indiewire. The citation itself will lead readers to the review. We don't make individual words a link to external websites, because that causes confusion over where the link goes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep those two reviews up top and adjust a couple others that are below. Understood on the citation. Thanks again for clarifying all this, much appreciated.