Carl Waxman
Welcome
editHello Carl Waxman and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page Chris Evans (actor), do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Carl Waxman, you are invited to the Teahouse!
edit
|
Hi Carl Waxman! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC) |
Critical acclaim
editHi there. I noticed you've been editing film articles. They often need a bit of help. However, I noticed that you're using what we call "puffery" or "peacock wording". This includes phrases like "widespread critical acclaim", "universal acclaim", etc. It's non-neutral wording and does not add to the reader's understanding beyond what the review aggregators tell them. If a film has a 90% approval rate on Rotten Tomatoes, just say that. You shouldn't use over-the-top wording to emphasize the rating, and you definitely shouldn't interpret the results as "critical acclaim". When you see something described as having "positive reviews", that's good enough, and it generally doesn't need to be "upgraded" to something more hyperbolic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Please stop adding peacock wording. I have explained to you above why this is problematic. If you continue to do so, you can be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Carl, as NinjaRobotPirate notes above, we don't need editorials in our articles. "Universal acclaim" is hyperbolic fluff and doesn't belong in our articles, nor does similar wording like "nearly universal acclaim". The concept is not achievable. So long as there is one reliable critic in the entire universe who says something negative about the film, there will never be "universal acclaim", not even with 100% at RT and 100/100 at Metacritic. Same goes for language like "Universally panned" We also don't need the sharp POV language like "critically panned", "box office bomb", etc. The WikiProject Film community also shuns language like "mixed to positive" and "mixed-to-negative", the latter being something you added here. This phrasing constitutes synthesis, since you appear to be combining both the Rotten Tomatoes score with the Metacritic score, and then making a statement about the information that neither source says explicitly. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of summarizing the critical response at all so long as we have aggregator data, which are already summaries of critical response. Why summarize a summary? Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Expansion of The Revenant past Plot length limit
editYou are invited to look at the Talk page discussion on The Revenant (2015 film) regarding the Plot length size limit. You have been expanding it past the limit twice. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Katietalk 00:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Sockpuppet investigation
edit
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carl Waxman, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
SummerPhDv2.0 03:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Carl Waxman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You see, sometimes I allow my sister to ply my phone and peruse through Wikipedia pages. She then noticed the God's Not Dead page, a film that she'd also seen, and found that my addition had been deleted. I always log out, just in case she tries anything 'funny'. Now, my other 'contributions' to various other Wikipedia pages are due to my best friend, who's new on this site. Sometimes, whilst I'm in he bathroom, he takes my phone and edits pages in an absurd and completely pointless manner. I understand that you may not believe my previous statements, which is quite reasonable; however, I'd just like you to to consider unblocking me, for I can say that I try to contribute to pages in valid & informative ways.Now, as you can see, complaints have been removed due to the fact - or, in your case,statement - regarding my innocence and the identities of the perpetrators. I'm very sorry for causing you to be concerned, and hope that you will accept my request.
Decline reason:
You see, we hear this so often we wrote up a handy little piece on it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Carl Waxman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Damn. Should've seen this coming. Anyway, I would just like to be informed of the conclusion of my sockpuppetry investigation, as well as the time at which I will be unblocked - if I will be, at all.
Decline reason:
The conclusion is that you engaged in sockpuppetry. The account will not be unblocked until you can convince us that doing so would improve the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Removing the various warnings you received for edit-warring doesn't help your case either. The sockpuppet investigation is a formality in a WP:DUCK case of sockpuppetry, as this is. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Carl Waxman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
HA! KNEW IT!!! Seriously, though. If you could provide this account a second chance, then , I swear, I will endeavor willnmgly to protect my account and prevent myself from performing any pointless or unacceptable edits on page. You have definitely heard this previously, but , please enable me to correct the mistakes people & I have made - 'I' in terms of peacock wording. If this account violates any other guideline, then I PLEAD you to remove it. I'm begging you.
Decline reason:
If all those edits really were made by others, this account must be considered compromised and cannot be unblocked. If they were made by yourself, I see no reason to trust your assurances that from now on you'll change your conduct - there were warnings aplenty, and for edits like this one we shouldn't have to tell you that it's inappropriate in the first place. Huon (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Carl Waxman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I've been using Wikipedia from my iPhone, for the past three-four months. I did not know anything about Wikipedia's policies. I did not get any messages. I did not see the warnings. I would've done more to protect this account, & it's conduct, if I'd the knowledge. Of course, I understand that those were all utterly profane & inappropriate. I even mentioned that I use my phone, indirectly. Like I said, one more chance is all I'm asking for. The reason I ever even started editing on Wikipedia is because I've been finding out a lot information from past sources that I'd like to share with everyone, in order to increase their knowledge about a particular topic, and make Wikipedia pages more informative. I will reference these sources, since I;m obligated to. I want perform any misconduct, such as edit-warring, sockpuppetry, etc. I realize that I'm not supposed to make a lot of unblock request, but I am simply desperate. I have had a great time on Wikipedia, and would love to contribute more. Regarding my sockpuppetry, I promise that I'll try to be more attentive to turning off my phone, rather than keeping it on, within the vicinity of my friend - or sister, who, at times, can be quite mischievous - as I visit the restroom. Now, I'm not trying to rush you - which, from your perspective, I haven't the right to do since you suspect me of doing anything wrong. I admit that I was involved in the edit war for Bajirao Mastani, but I swear to God, I had nothing to do with the obscene edits that you have detected - but, please review this request momentarily. Ms. KrakatoaKatie, please. I'm begging you. Your blocking is exorbitantly understandable, and, frankly, under the circumstances, an apt method of revealing my carelessness at protecting my account & reading Wikipedia policies. Like I said, I plan on contributing all I can to this prestigious, as well as informative, website. I admit my involvement in the peacock wording issue, which was a result of my confusion regarding how some pages contained the phrase 'critical acclaim', for especially acclaimed films, and some didn't. I was always using Wikipedia through my iPhone, so I did not know of all the complaints & warnings I've been receiving - for not only that issue, but also many more. The obscene edit, such as the Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the [Robert Downey Jr.]] ones were caused by friend, or sister. I swear to you that they were. I understand that this quite a lengthy request, but I would simply like you all to forgive me for my uncaring attitude, and allow me to edit whilst actually protecting my account. Now, regarding the usage of my phone by my friend or sister, you might say that you're supposed to compromise; however, I recently read the guidelines about compromising, and it mentioned the knowledge of my password by some others, which, I can assure you, is not currently the case when it comes to my issue. I would also like Huon, OhNoitsJamie, and other administrators to read this, just in the case of desiring a consensus. I would like to thank you for being attentive, as well, for I understand how Wikipedia is supposed to be an area of actual information, rather than obscenity. I would also like to show that if you'r concerned about my constant editing of my one request, then you will see that I've merely added phrases to it. Please forgive me for my uncaring attitude, and - once again- I PLEAD you to accept my request. If you don't believe that I have always used my phone, then you may examine my 'contribs' section. Just in case you don't desire to unblock me, would you please at least remove the block from my IP Address?
Decline reason:
Once an account has been compromised (for example, by being used and abused by other people) it can not be unblocked. I have, therefore, revoked your ability to edit this talk page as you have no further need for it. (If you still want to make further appeals, please see WP:UTRS) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Epilogue You would have had a better chance of being unblocked if you would've just admitted to sockpuppetry in the first place and convinced us that you weren't going to do it again rather than making up an elaborate fable, as if we haven't heard it before. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)