This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:282:8100:32a0:59ed:25c7:2ee8:3fe0 (talk) at 16:12, 22 April 2023 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:12, 22 April 2023 by 2601:282:8100:32a0:59ed:25c7:2ee8:3fe0 (talk) (typo)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)You deserve this
even if you don't want it, just delete it then... :)
|
The Music Barnstar | |
| for all that good work on the Mucky Pup and other pages on which we've crossed paths... Luminifer (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC) |
Vince
Nice job adding to the "Legacy" section. The negatives were written objectively, no undue weight, and the two paragraphs didn't come off as smear pieces. Nice job. Kjscotte34 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Your vandalism on Clerks 3
Calling a film a disappointment or bomb when it had high hopes and made far less money than it cost to make and market (the many additional millions that weren’t even included there) is far from vandalism. However if the rules are that important to you then you’ve been here 10 years and know darn well then about 3RR and so you are knowingly violating THAT rule. Two sources were provided. Please cease in your WP:ASPERSIONS and assume good faith. Smith has had a string of flops, (ie.Yoga Hosers and Tusk, to name a few) so this is nothing new. Your position is coming from a place of personal taste, not the facts. Please seek consensus on a talk page if you truly feel like this information and my reasonable contribution should not be included. I get it, you like this movie and you are a Kevin Smith fan. But review WP:NOTAFORUM then for proper etiquette. 2601:282:8100:32A0:59ED:25C7:2EE8:3FE0 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)