ParticleMan

I made some changes to the Q-Zar article. Hopefully you approve.. Your cousin.. —Cliffb 09:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, ParticleMan! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Hey ParticleMan, thanks for reverting vandalism to my userpage! Sorry he hit your userpage too :( Cheers, – Riana ^{shiny disco balls} 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ParticleMan,

My edit was not an experimentation, not in the slightest, but was an attempt to show the absurdity of the article. Nearly two-thirds of the movies on the list (31 out of 50) were created in either the '90s or the 2000s. Do you really expect me to believe that the past decade and a half was uniquely responsible for the pits of American cinema? That's quite the tall claim to make.

Quite the contrary, my belief is that the reason why people are biased toward selecting movies from these decades is because these movies are still fresh on their minds. The average user on Wiki probably wasn't even alive to see some of the flops of the earlier decades, and probably isn't familiar with historical cinema. And it's exceedingly difficult to make the claim "This must be the worst movie of ALL-TIME!" when only a couple years have passed since the release of said movie.

By using the exact same standards that other users have used for that article, I was able to show the absurdity of their logic. Citizen Kane was also poorly received when it was released and, as previously mentioned, was booed for each of its nine Academy Award nominations (it only manage to take away one of those nominations for best screenplay). It is far too early to cast judgment on movies immediately after their release. This is true of most forms of arts and, tragically, most artistic genius isn't recognized until generations after its release.

Now, I'm not claiming that many of the films on the list will ever amount to anything; I very much doubt that Gigli or From Justin to Kelley has any potential. I am simply pointing out that I'm extremely skeptical as to whether these particular films are the WORST of all-time. And using the reactions of audiences near the time of the film's release is a very bad standard for determining which film is worst, as is shown through the Citizen Kane example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.20.131 (talk • contribs)

"ParticleMan" (e.g. My young and anti-vandalism cousin) I think the key to responding is from the article:

The films listed have either been cited by a combination of reputable sources as the worst movie of the year, or been on such a source's list of worst movies. Examples of such sources include the Golden Raspberry Awards ("Razzies"), Roger Ebert's list of most hated films, and the Internet Movie Database's "Bottom 100" list.

So if 128.12.20.231 provides a source (perhaps a 1941 movie review?) then it would be fair game for inclusion. —Cliffb 05:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Lightning Reaction, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Lightning Reaction. Superm401 - Talk 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think either Lightning Reaction or Shocking Tanks are notable. Also, neither of the articles have any references whatsoever. Perhaps it would make sense to merge them into their manufacturer's article, with appropriate references. Superm401 - Talk 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello. As a recent editor at User talk:216.252.88.182, I wanted to leave you a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk page. While we may prefer that messages be archived, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous users- from deleting comments from their own talk pages. The only talk page messages that may not be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppetry notices, or shared IP header templates (for anonymous editors) ... and these exceptions are just to keep a user from gaming the system. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Self-aware editing

Thanks ParticleMan for calling me on a recent edit. Your comment was: ". . . , at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cult following, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. . . .Thank you. ParticleMan (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)"

I should have properly edited the article; however, I didn't do so because I wasn't sure what the original author intended. The article in question presents this paragraph:

"While cult followings are unquestionably more prevalent in pop culture, examples of this phenomenon exist in serious culture as well, *especially among certain sub-segments of the public, such as homosexuals and other cultural minorities.* Thus we find cults of certain writers, such as Yukio Mishima, J.K. Rowling, H. P. Lovecraft, J.D. Salinger, Simone de Beauvoir and perhaps most famously, J.R.R. Tolkien; composers like Erik Satie or Edgard Varèse; or performers, like Maria Callas, Ferenc Fricsay, Wilhelm Furtwangler or Magda Olivero." (emphasis [*} my own)

The first sentence of this paragraph is certainly not neutral, is badly conceived, and does not provide adequate attribution for a controversial remark. The word "cult" tends to be used to construct a sub-segment of the population in a communicative setting, even if no such bounded part of the public can be otherwise identified. The sentence, then, is redundant at the least. However, the main problem with it is the idea that any cult is more than likely to be composed of "homosexuals and other cultural minorities". Since a cult is a cultural minority, it is again redundant, but this is certainly not a neutral statement as regards gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or queers. It presents these people as deviants, which is no longer an appropriate way to conceive of minorities. Women, after all, are not the "weaker race" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Wikipedia should no more present as if "homosexuals" were a marginal and bizarre group of people. Even if the language were altered, where is the evidence that "homosexuals" are statistically exemplary of cult followings?

Please see the Wikipedia pillars below on neutrality and conduct (re:sweeping generalizations).

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 2,437,312 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Lightningreaction.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply