![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Slevysocal has consistently been reverting edits back to a promotional-laden copy of the article, both here and in Nick Palumbo, which is not consistent with Wikipedia content. Okay, I think everyone but Slevysocal agrees that that's wrong. However, his last several reversions have included the edit summary Do you want Wiki to publish the correct facts? There are several things in this article (that you keep re-verting back to) that are simply not true. Please use the Links.
Obviously, we do want the information to be accurate; but at the same time, we do not want to substitute marketing hype. I invite Slevysocal to discuss the specific inaccuracies he perceives here, so they can be addressed constructively.
Slevysocal, we are not going to substitute your preferred text. As you can see, the consensus is strongly against this, and you evidently have a conflict of interest with respect to this article. However, like most editors, we would like to work with you to make this an accurate article, even if it will not be the promotional piece you are apparently looking for.
Note: I am opening a similar discussion at Talk:Nick Palumbo. TJRC ( talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps adding that the film has a " self-appointed NC-17 rating". No source is provided for this claim.
This is dubious, because "NC-17" is a trademark of the MPAA; they moved to this from the old "X" rating precisely to keep non-MPAA entities from applying their own ratings, rather than reflecting MPAA's judgment.
In his or her edit summaries, the IP editor states that he or she is relying on his or her own research, checking the filmratings.com site, and, not finding this film listed, concluding that the filmmaker, and not the MPAA, assigned its own rating. That's WP:SYNTH. Absent any statement in a reliable source that this is a self-assigned rating, this claim should be omitted, if fo no other reason than it is accusing the filmmaker of trademark infringement. If no reliable source can be found to support this, the statement should be omitted. (Even if it happens to be true, if no reliable source can be found to mention it, that is an indication that it's not all that important of a fact.) TJRC ( talk) 19:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
User:Slevysocal has consistently been reverting edits back to a promotional-laden copy of the article, both here and in Nick Palumbo, which is not consistent with Wikipedia content. Okay, I think everyone but Slevysocal agrees that that's wrong. However, his last several reversions have included the edit summary Do you want Wiki to publish the correct facts? There are several things in this article (that you keep re-verting back to) that are simply not true. Please use the Links.
Obviously, we do want the information to be accurate; but at the same time, we do not want to substitute marketing hype. I invite Slevysocal to discuss the specific inaccuracies he perceives here, so they can be addressed constructively.
Slevysocal, we are not going to substitute your preferred text. As you can see, the consensus is strongly against this, and you evidently have a conflict of interest with respect to this article. However, like most editors, we would like to work with you to make this an accurate article, even if it will not be the promotional piece you are apparently looking for.
Note: I am opening a similar discussion at Talk:Nick Palumbo. TJRC ( talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps adding that the film has a " self-appointed NC-17 rating". No source is provided for this claim.
This is dubious, because "NC-17" is a trademark of the MPAA; they moved to this from the old "X" rating precisely to keep non-MPAA entities from applying their own ratings, rather than reflecting MPAA's judgment.
In his or her edit summaries, the IP editor states that he or she is relying on his or her own research, checking the filmratings.com site, and, not finding this film listed, concluding that the filmmaker, and not the MPAA, assigned its own rating. That's WP:SYNTH. Absent any statement in a reliable source that this is a self-assigned rating, this claim should be omitted, if fo no other reason than it is accusing the filmmaker of trademark infringement. If no reliable source can be found to support this, the statement should be omitted. (Even if it happens to be true, if no reliable source can be found to mention it, that is an indication that it's not all that important of a fact.) TJRC ( talk) 19:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)