User talk:Americanmoviecritic

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for this information. americanmoviecritic

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page THINGS (1989) has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \byoutube\.com (links: http://www.youtube.com/v/hif_us7ejt8&hl=en&fs=1&", http://www.youtube.com/v/hif_us7ejt8&hl=en&fs=1&"). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please don't remove the AfD tag on THINGS (1989) again. It needs to stay there until the AfD has run its course. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rue Morgue Festival of Fear

A tag has been placed on Rue Morgue Festival of Fear requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Abce2|AccessDenied 16:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Rue Morgue Festival of Fear

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created, as you did with Rue Morgue Festival of Fear. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Rue Morgue Festival of Fear. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Rue Morgue Festival of Fear. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Abce2|AccessDenied 16:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Rue Morgue Festival of Fear

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Rue Morgue Festival of Fear. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Note

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THINGS (1989), you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page THINGS (1989) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  
   Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bflickr\.com/(?:photos|groups|search)\b (links: http://www.flickr.com/photos/27928472@n06/2606416223/). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
   If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rue Morgue Festival Of Fear

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rue Morgue Festival Of Fear, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

WP:NN convention

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Toddst1 (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits to THINGS (1989)

Hi there. You don't need to save your edits to see how they'll look. Instead, use the 'Preview' link. This makes it easier to see what changes you're making in the article's history. Also consider adding edit comments to describe your changes when you do save. Pburka (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. In fact I have to thank everyone for their advice and help here at Wiki. Other than a few people who want to have a couple of my entries deleted, I have had some great advice and even help and support for my entries, as well as a few of you editing the entries to make them up to Wiki standards, and I admire those who have helped with their advice and their help. THANK YOU ALL

You may not have noticed that I tagged the article with "In Use"? That means I was going through it to clean-up, expand, copyedit, and properly source. Trust after looking at THIS, that I will do a decent job. But the "In Use" is a way to politely let other editors know it was being worked on so we would not have any edit conflicts. Now, if you want to go it alone... fine... but you'll need to use those reviews and references in the format preferred by Wikipedia. And by they way... your source for "Thing-ite" is not nearly as suitable as what is in the last paragraph of this interview. Let me know. Shall I step away? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Also... a loooooong list of external links will be called a link farm by some editors and simply removed. The informations they contain would best be used by being set as inline references and cites, not external links. Also, the reception section is where the critics opinions are shared... but they must have a citation as well. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Schmidt,' ^{MICHAEL Q.} is right. Adding more external links isn't going to help your cause. Especially if they're blogs. Except for a very small number of exceptions, blogs are not reliable sources. Please read WP:RS to see what is considered a reliable source. (The problem with blogs is that anyone can start one -- just because something is written on a blog doesn't mean it's true.) Pburka (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No don't step away, you're doing great, I thought you were finished. I am not too familiar with Wiki. I will let you take care of the rest. Such as making most of the links references. I thought you done a fine job. There was some people wanting to take the RUE MORGUE FESTIVAL OF HORROR article down as well. Maybe you can help out there if you fet the chance.

I'm the one who is going to step away. I think you are a WIZARD with this stuff.

Please fix up the page like you did before, and change whatever you want.

I'm not too sure how that critics section works that you are talking about, I'll look into that in the future.

There are actually alot of films, and other things that I would like to as well, once I get more familiar with Wiki.

I just kind of went bannanas on this when a couple of people wanted the entry deleted, and I knew that it shouldn't be.

Please take over, and make the changes that you were saying, as you're a master at this.

I am going to add some info to some other movies I noticed etc, in the future for instance MURDER SET PIECES, is down as a stubby. I added a couple of things to that today, but I'll get more info on other sources etc in the future.

This site is actually quite addictive.

Anyway, please fix what you have to fix with the external links, and the Things-ite matter. You were saying it looked better before.

And THANKS FOR YOUR HELP,

I was lost without you.

When I came back to the page earlier today and saw how great of a job that you did, I was very happy.

If I made some wrong changes to the great way you had everything, please do what you want to make it WIKI compatible.

I can hardly wait to add and contribute to various movies, and other articles on this site.

Like I say it is addictive, and it gives you a good feeling to know that you are contributing to knowledge.

Thanks Again MichaelQSchmidt

I have to get some sleep, Take Care,

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic

Okay... I will step back in. Over the next couple hores the article will be fine-tuned. When the "In Use" is removed, you will know that I have finished. Fair enough? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, all I can say is THANKS.

More than fair.

I saw that there, but I thought for some reason that it may have been done.

I'm going to sleep now.

I'll probably be working on the Rue Morgue Festival of Fear page tomorrow, and some other stuff, I've had enough of the movie THINGS for awhile, lol,

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritc

• Study carefully what I did by following the history of edits here. No blogs. No unneeded External links. Major coverage often decent for sourcing. Minimal coverages usually okay for Verifying. Bigger is better. In creating articles in the future, its always best to creat a "workspace" called a "sandbox". It is a space that is not "main space" or "article space" and allows an article to be tweaked to perfection before being moved to mainspace. Yours would be at User:Americanmoviecritic/sandbox. This way an article can grow without being immediately open to possible deletion. This way you can ask other editors for advice and input. Study the "before" and "afters" HERE to see what it takes to make an article suitable for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I will do that in the future. I understand now that an article should be properly done, and worked on, and then added, and that way it will not be scrutinized in the same way, if it is properly done. I thought it worked differently before, where you worked on something as you went along. I understand what you are saying and how it works now. So, in the future when I start a new topic or article, I will do it in the sandbox, and ask others for help, and really make sure that it is up to par before it is added to the site. I couldn't understand why people wante something deleted before, but I fully understand now.

Thank You once again for all of your advice and help.

Americanmoviecritic--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• And here, don't call any section "Trivia", as that word has greatly negative connotations on Wikipedia. I suggest using a heading of "Production" and subsections of "design", development", financing", "distributors", etc... and make sure your souces are available for others to read. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K, I will do that. I originally was going to put that into the article, and thought it would be easy to put the references in there,etc, and just do it on the spot, but I realized that it would take more time, so I erased it, and put it in the sandbox like you said. And yes, when I do get around to it, I will not call it trivia. Thanks...

Americanmoviecritic--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

About IMDb and Wikipedia...

There is disagreement as to what parts of IMDb are good and what parts are bad. Go read Wikipedia:Citing IMDb to see a proposal, and then read the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. Quite enlightening. Pretty much, it is useful as a tool in directing one's searches, but simply being listed in their database is no assurance of notability. THAT comes from elewhere. Many editors simply dismiss it out of hand as "a database anyone can edit", even though no one can actually "edit" it unless an employee of IMDb. IMDb has a staff that adds information, and they do accept information submissions from folks outside their 4 walls. So though it is a "database to which anyone can submit", and even though such submissions go through a vetting process, it is because this process is not explained in detail that the general consensus on Wikipedia is to not allow it as a source. Also see THIS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone from Wikipedia should get in touch with somebody at the imdb to find out the exact process they go through. I have heard that the process is not as easy as many people have suggested here on Wikipedia. I may be wrong, but this is what I have heard. I also challenged somebody above to find me a movie that was listed on the imdb that was not a real movie or something that did not deserve to be on the imdb, and I have yet to see the person that I challenged above list any titles here.

My point is, I do see the point of view that some Wikipedians are coming from, and I wouldn't implement just anything here just based on the fact that it is listed on imdb, however, I do believe it is a reliable source to a certain degree.

Actually, not here, but over where the debate was happening on the other page. She still hasn't listed any movies that are on the imdb and should not be there. On another token, can the imdb be wrong about some of their facts??? Well od course, just like any other source. But if a movie is listed there, I'll guarantee you that it is a real movie.

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic

• If you put a * or a : before your comments, you can indent them as a seperator.
• As for contacting IMDb, its been tried... check THIS link. Pertty much they hold themselves to a standard of "Accuracy" while Wikipedia holds itself to a standard of "Verifiability"... not always the same thing. Not too remarkably, IMDb holds Wikipedia in low regard because unlike IMDb, Wikipedia is actually editable by anyone. While IMDb might accept submissions, they get vetted for accuracy. Outsiders see Wikipedia as having page after page of arguments and repeated self-interpretations of the rules... rules that can change on a daily basis. When the rules are so mutable and subject to personal interpretation, they get litle outside respect (sigh). Responses from senior IMDb staffer Steve Crook are enlightening and encouraging, as is the response from his boss J Reeves.
• As for arguments within THESE pages that IMDb lists films that "should not be there", you will never get a response or listing back from someone making that claim if you ask them to prove their allegation, as it is unsupportable opinion... but sadly an opinion shared by many. ANY sources has allowable errors... but by some here IMDb is not allowed to have any (sigh). The only response to such a claim is to politely respond "Your unsupportable assertion is not helpful to this discusson."
  • And a last bit of advice... try to be more succint in your responses in discussions. Not that editors have short attention spans (ahem), but long comments are often simply ignored as WP:TLDR. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Horror magazine

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Horror magazine, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Unremarkable, non-spam publication.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. I dream of horses (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K thanks for that advice, I'll try to keep my messages short. Wikipedi has this "knock" against them, however... I'll guarantee you that the same people who "knock" Wikipedia use Wikipedia on a daily basis. I personally think it is the greatest resource in the world for information. Don't let anybody get any of you down... Let them say what they want about Wikipedia. Wikipedia makes the Encyclopedia Britanica look like Kids stuff,lol. I know that's going a little far,lol, but you understand my point I'm sure. I have been using Wiki as a resource for a long time. Americanmoviecritic--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A few things to study...

Please study WP:SPA and WP:Sock puppetry. There has been a coment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THINGS (1989) from a user account that never voiced an opinion anywhere on Wikipedia nor made any edits on Wikipedia. This is considered a "SPA" account and is frowned upon, as it intimates that it was created by an established user simply to voice an extra opinion in a discussion in order to sway opinion. It usually has the exact opposite affect from what the SPA intended. Such is subject to investigation and may even result in investigation from a heirarchy called "Checkusers" who have the internet tools to trace the origination of the account's IP address. That a SPA spoke up was not helpful, and could likely lead to him being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do some reading as suggested above to see what I mean. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You must be refering to this messege???? "I have been monitoring this debate and at first I thought that this entry should be deleted myself, however, I have noticed that Micheal has rescued the page, and has done a fine job, and I am all for having this page included in Wiki"

You can check I.P's, It's not coming from my computer, and this sock puppetry which you talk about is not being initiated or done by me. It does sound like someone may have joined just to write the message. How long has this person been a user??? And did you ever stop to think that this person may have really been monitoring this subject, and has finally decided to get involved in Wikipedia, where as in the past nothing compelled them to get involved???

Sounds like I am being accussed here???

In all honesty, I'm not even a big fan of the movie, you Wikipedians can delete the entry for all I care. I thought this site was great,etc,etc, but I'm to the point where I don't even want to learn or partake anymore in this site as great as the feeling of contributing to Wikipedia makes me feel.

The best advice I have, in all seriousness, is to just delete the movie, and avoid all headaches with it. I don't care as I have nothing to do with the movie, other than the fact that I interviewed Gillis a long while back for an article I was writing.

Anyway, check I.P's, because I have nothing to do with whoever wrote that, even though it appears that I do just because the person never wrote anything before.

I NOMINATE TO DELETE THINGS from Wikipedia,

Take Care All,

I'm outta here,

Americancritic--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't check IPs. That's for special administrators called checkusers. Howevr, I saw it as a worry and brought it to your attention. The account making that statement had no previous history on Wikipedia. None. The account made the statement at the AfD as its very first action ever.[1] I was not accusing you... but cautioning you. I love your enthusiasm, but Wikipedia is all about perceptions. I wanted to point out a problem and wished you to be forewarned that it may reflect back on you, even though you might be totally uninvolved. I'm sorry that you have chosen to leave. Thank you for the opportunity you gave me to help improve a nice article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Close Wikipedia account

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. CardinalDan (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Close your account

There is no way to close a Wikipedia account, as all edits you have made are permanently associated with your account. For more info, see WP:VANISH. If you need help in the future, you can go to WP:HELPDESK or place the {{helpme}} template on your user talk page, but please do not create articles in the namespace to ask a question. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Close Wikipedia account

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. CardinalDan (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am stopping, but please tell me what is wrong with having a page that tells people who want to know... THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO CLOSE THEIR ACCOUNT???

What is wrong with that???

I'm going to go play some internet chess... BYE EVERYONE

Pages like that exist in the Wikipedia namespace. The pages which are preceded with "Wikipedia:" Or "WP:" for short are pages that explain Wikipedia processes and guidelines. Pages with no prefix are the actual encyclopedia articles and should not be pages that explain something about Wikipedia. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)