User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

December 2013[edit]

Information.svg Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Garden State (film), as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, for the following reasons:

  • Sites with user-generated content, such as the Internet Movie Database, are not reliable under WP:USERG, which is part of Wikipedia's policy on Source Reliability. I made this clear in my edit summary when I removed that source.
  • You claim in your edit summary that "we don't wikilink references". In fact, the wikilinking parts of references is a widespread practice on Wikipedia, one which I've been doing since I began editing here in 2005. If this is false, and you know of a policy, guideline, consensus or part of the Manual of Style that precludes this, then please let me know.

In addition to this, you also reverted all the other edits I made to the article, including the following:

  • Correcting the names of publishers in citations. The name of review aggregator cited in the article, for example, is Rotten Tomatoes. Not, which is its url. A website's url is not the same thing as its name. While there are some websites whose names includes the suffix ".com" in their names, not all of them do. This is illustrated by both the banner at the top of the site's webapage and along the top border of your browser, which gives that site's name as Rotten Tomatoes.
  • Similarly, if you feel that the IGN source in question is actually called IGN Music, then it should be capitalized, and not written as "IGN music", since the word "music", if part of that publisher's name, would be a proper noun.
  • You restored unused parameters in citations. Why did you do this?
  • You restored the incorrect title to the Oscar City Centre citation, when I had corrected it. The correct title, which you can see if you read that source, is "Miramax and Fox Searchlight Jointly Acquire Worldwide Rights to Garden State". Not "MCN Sundance 2004:Fox Searchlight and Miramax acquire Garden State".
  • You undid the formatting to the citations, so that the text of the cited source's titles are rendered in plaintext, and the name of the publisher rendered as the text of the link to that source, which is the reverse of how citations are properly rendered on Wikipedia.
  • You undid my correction of the author citation of the People magazine cite, so that it now again attributes Zach Braff as the author, when the author of that piece is Caroline Howard. Why did you do this?
  • You undid my updating of the Glide magazine citation so that it now points to the previous link, which is a dead link. Why would you do this?
  • There is also no reason to place arrow brackets on either side of a cited source's url.
  • You even reverted the updated access dates from the citations, which are supposed to indicate the last time that source was accessed. The proper accessdate of a source I reviewed during my last edit, is December 18 of this year, and not 6 February 2006.

You offered no rationale for any of these other edits in your edit summary, which gives the appearance that you simply blindly reverted them. This can be construed as tendentious or disruptive editing. If you disagree with any of this, let me know, and I'll begin a discussion on the article's talk page in which we can invite other editors to weigh in. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits to Castle (TV series)[edit]

Information.svg Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Soham 14:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair use[edit]

Sorry, but File:leiadeathstar.jpg can't be used in the Princess Leia article, it is a non-free image and can only be used in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. WP:NFCC#10c requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, and this image does not have a rationale for Princess Leia. There is already an image of Princess Leia in the infobox and it is unlikely that fair use could be claimed for a second image. January (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)