User talk:Punkalyptic

I think my Splash note was quite accurate and informative. Did you see the two movies ? A sea being is captured by a government agency, but first falls in love with a human, who has an overweight buddy. The sea being is going to be dissected, the human and the fat friend rescue the being and bring him to the new york harbor, pursued by government agents. The human joins the sea creature under the waves... (Bebgsurg (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2018

As per WP:NOR, your conclusion ("It also provided the plot for The Shape of Water...") is not permitted. Yes, I've seen both films. I may even tend to agree with you. But we're not allowed to express personal opinions. The information should be either cited (i.e. a direct quote from the film's producers, director etc., or from reliable sources/media with the proper wording), or reflect a universal consensus. Unless you think it's plagiarism, in which case you still have to find a source. If you can get a couple of citations, you can re-add it - not as a fact, but as an opinion among sources, perhaps in the reception section. In all honesty, The Shape of Water reminded me more of Free Willy. But if everyone applied his/her personal opinion, every piece of art would have a few dozen influences and sources of inspiration, all uncited. In the end, do what you please, I won't remove it again if you decide to re-add it, but you'll see that another editor will step in and do the exact same thing. Regards Punkalyptic (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal advice; If you're adamant about it, your best bet would be something along the lines of "there are many plot similarities between movie X and movie Y", providing a few details, but this information still has to come from somewhere (a source), and you probably have to add it in both movie X and movie Y respective pages. Punkalyptic (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Erased (2012 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please don't add unsourced budgets or add content sourced to the IMDb. The IMDb is user-generated and is thus unsuitable for citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office data does not fall under inappropriate uses (WP:CITINGIMDB), best case scenario it can be disputed. If you want to dispute the information, by all means, I encourage you to provide a better source. But until then, please refrain from removing it completely. You may either (1) add a refimprove section template, or (2) provide an additional source, or even (3) start a discussion in the talk page. I can also add a couple of additional sources that cite the same budget figure, if that is your problem, but we'll never know if these secondary sources have also used IMDb as their source to begin with, so until a better and more reliable source is found we're gonna go with what we got. You are probably aware there are thousands and thousands of film articles on wikipedia with budget and box office data unsourced, or using IMDb as their only source. When I encounter them, I always edit the data and add a source, when I can find it, and when I can't, a citation needed template is used instead to give the benefit of the doubt, and enough time for editors to come up with a source, so not to lose the data. Please go nitpick one of those cases, at least I provided one. Punkalyptic (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the correct interpretation of disputed. On Wikipedia when one's sources are disputed the onus is on the editor that adds the content to support the content with reliable sources. Tiderolls 19:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per your judgment as administrator, and since no alternative content from reliable sources has been provided, would you rather remove such content entirely, or keep the content with either the ^{[additional citation(s) needed]} or the ^{[better source needed]} template? Punkalyptic (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately for me, admins don't referee content. In any event, that sounds like a great topic for the article talk page. Tiderolls 05:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Punkalyptic. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]