User talk:Garinator1

July 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Natalie Portman. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 03:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You say my edit was not constructive. Portman's appearances on Letterman are integral to her interview life. And her interview life is integral to her career. Yet all the aforementioned topics are untouched on in the article. If you look at my edits, it's clear my track record is good, and I'm no troll. So what's the problem? Garinator1 (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If you need another reason for removal of your edit on Portman, it was unsourced and contained a lot of your personal opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your former point is fair; a citation is in order. I can't say the same about the latter. Common sense should dictate how we describe notable instances, and the drastic difference in the awkward tone from her first interview to now is noteworthy. And as I said, interviews themselves are noteworthy in an actor's life. To at least have the mention of her guest/host relationship with Letterman is greatly informative.

What you consider "common sense" can be vastly different from what others consider common sense. Everyone can have a different idea about what is common sense, making it a personal opinion, and your edit was loaded with your interpretation of the interview and her behavior. For example, I've seen the interview, and I don't agree with some of your description, but my opinion is irrelevant, as is yours. Please take the time to read WP:NPOV. In any event, don't restore the edit without consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. Sundayclose (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)