This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NJZombie (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 22 April 2023 (→Your vandalism on Clerks 3: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:29, 22 April 2023 by NJZombie (talk | contribs) (→Your vandalism on Clerks 3: Reply)(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)
- No, YOU don’t get it. In fact couldn’t be more wrong. I actually thought the film pretty much sucked and felt it was a huge disappointment. The problem here is you not sourcing your edits and adding your own personal analysis of it being a bomb or a disappointment which is NOT supported by your sources at all. You simply added its budget and revenue and then added your own personal views at the end. The sourced part about the revenue and budget are fine, hence why that hasn’t been touched. You have zero knowledge of what a film company or Smith expected a limited run engagement to bring in. Your unsourced POV edits of it being a bomb are the issue here and the constant addition of unsourced info, using multiple IP addresses, is what is actually considered vandalism. In fact your own edit warring on the article, and the IP hopping to do so, has already been addressed elsewhere on Misplaced Pages within the last 24 hours and the only reason action wasn’t taken at that time is because you hadn’t been warned yet. NJZombie (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)