User talk:Kude90

Cultural Marxism

You removed additions I made to the article about Cultural Marxism, stating that it does not represent a neutral point of view. In my opinion, I did give a neutral overview over the topic, describing the matter as it presents itself to an outside viewer, and without taking sides. Would you be so kind to point out what part you think infringes WP:YESPOV? I would like to avoid confusions like this in the future. Also, according to the talk page, a lot of people seem to look for precisely the information I added, so I think it would be good to add it, if necessary of course in an overworked version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.38.15 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that using inflammatory language like "at war with" makes it sound biased against Conservatives. Rewording would be nice. Marxism and Communism is an area which is very interesting to me, and I love reading about it. I will definitely read your revision, if you feel that it is helpful. Thanks, kude. Kude90 (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was a summarization of the given article, where the author uses military language like "frontal assaults against prepared defensive positions". And every source I found about the issue shared this very strong feeling of being in a fight. But I see your point. It should not be described in the most drastic way of being "at war". So I'll change that in this regard. Thank you for getting back to me and your input! Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.248.69 (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of the Thistle

It was meant to help distinguishing who doesn't have a photo and who has a photo but is copyrighted. For some reason, in the list of Garter Knights it worked, while in the list of Thistle Knights it didn't.--94.65.29.101 (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Big Bang Theory episodes

Because we don't have a firm end date, there's no actual guarantee that the series will extend through 2014. Charlie Sheen had a firm contract for Two and a Half Men, but his contract was was still terminated and the future of the series was put in jeopardy. A year simply isn't good enough; we need a date. This is no different to any individual season, where we don't change from "(2013)" to "(2013-14)" until we have scheduled episode dates. Without the date, "(?-2014)" still violates WP:CRYSTAL. If you want to discuss this, please do so at Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory episodes#(?-2014). --AussieLegend (✉) 15:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STOP IT

Twilight doesn't need to be added to the list. It is a bad franchise I agree, but a Rifftrax vote isn't a good resource, and your defense that two films that haven't gotten above 30% is pointless due to the fact that most of the films on the list are lower than 10%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernameiskil (talk • contribs) 18:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Elba

No not happy, because English is perfectly accurate, but I have better things to do with my time.--ukexpat (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, you both should be IP banned for edit warring. But, I don't are either. Since neither of your two terms were working, British is a better fit.

Purity of Arms

I still kept the criticism but moved it to the "criticism of" section, while adding sources about the international law aspects.

Sorry, I realized I did inadvertently remove one source, which I have added back.

I also removed some weasel words, for instance changing "innocent civilian bystanders" to civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.163.127 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It just looked a little odd. No harm done though. Kude90 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OZ

Edited as "Wicked" is not part of OZ canon, thus should not be mentioned in the main section, only later.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.93.249.2 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Twilight Saga

I'm concerned about your unwillingness to have this series of films removed from the worst list. I'm going to quote from the article's lead:

The films listed here have achieved notably negative reputations as being called the worst films ever made. They have been cited by a combination of reputable sources as the worst movies of all time.

"Cited by a combination of sources" is extremely important here. You only have one source that says they are the worst. One is not a combination. One is... one. Since you are so willing to edit war over this, I'm assuming you have more than one source that says the saga is the worst ever made. I'm just confused about why you haven't added it. Why is that? AniMate 02:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added it because it's the biggest vote ever. I added it because most people agreed. Most people still do. I added it because still, nobody has posted A SINGLE SHRED of evidence to the contrary of it being added. Almost all of it was "Personal opinion: Doesn't belong." "There are hypothetical good reviews for it." Not one piece of actual information. I cited my sources. Nobody else has. That's why I kept it. Kude90 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are positive reviews for Twilight from Boston.com, New Moon from the New York Observer, Eclipse from NPR, Breaking Dawn Pt 1 and Pt 2 from The New Yorker.

I personally think the movies are horrible, but at Wikipedia we have a policy called Verifiability. That means you have to be able to prove what you assert. In this particular case, that means you need to have multiple, reliable sources that state that these are the worst movies ever made. You only have one that is from a fan poll, and none from any major critics or organizations. Do you have another source that states these are the worst movies ever made? If not, they have to be removed since the criteria for inclusion is that there must be a combination of sources. AniMate 02:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome

It strikes me that you are relatively new here, and no one bothered to drop a welcome for you. You should find some of the links useful. AniMate 03:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Kude90, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Kude90; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Archiving an off topic section is permissable. It's still preserved, but not on the talk page where it encourages further ignoring of WP:NOTAFORUM. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Van Halen

I believe the information you re-added in this edit is incorrect. I have stated why I think so on the Talk page. Please read my comments and let me know if you still disagree. If you agree, I would appreciate your undoing your edit. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Touch season 2 episode 11 summary

Source number 7 on List of Touch episodes article showed list of episodes, their broadcasting times and their summaries. I just don't get what I did wrong. --CAJH (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2013 (EEST)

You copy and pasted the summery is a WP:COPYVIO. You can't just copy and paste, the summery has to be, as my english teachers always said, "in your own words."

Can we even write our own summaries for the episodes that have not been even aired yet? People could reorder and replace some words from the original summary. But is that a very big difference? --CAJH (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2013 (EEST)

Thomas v. Tobias Gregson

Please refrain from changing Cpt. Thomas Gregson's name to the erroneous Tobias Gregson in the article on Elementary. His name was listed as Tobias in early press for the show, but is actually Thomas. There is a discussion on the show's talk page; if you feel differently, you must stop reverting and discuss there. Also, please check the linked sources in my comments, which are more up-to-date than the main CBS web page for the show. These constant changes you make are a form of slow edit warring, and are highly disruptive, especially when you change back-and-forth between the names the way you do. --Drmargi (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, my page is directly off of the show's main page. It's CBS that's off on this, not us.

First of all, I'm not a dude, so please don't call me one. Second of all, it's your obligation to review sources carefully before making changes, which you haven't done, and to participate in discussion on the article talk page when an edit is controversial, which you didn't do. CBS' website is wrong, yes, but the CBS media site, which is always more accurate and thus what was cited, is not. --Drmargi (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you agree with the media site, so it's more accurate? Um... Wrong? before I accept any of that, you have to prove it. As, that's your responsibility. I do believe that the OFFICIAL webpage of the TV show is supposed to be considered the first and formost source of information, because, you know, that's the definition of official?

If you would read the discussion on the talk page, you'd see the most current information is there. Moreover, since you are trying to make the change, the burden is on you to demonstrate your source is more accurate than a current press release from CBS. The website was put up some time late last summer. You need to review WP:RS which discusses reliability of sources, and sign your posts with using the signature button on the menu on the top of the screen. --Drmargi (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote: "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature," (WP:SOURCES) Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the press release site is very, very promotional. That's pretty much what press releases are for, getting the word out on something. I've seen the link you put up on the talk page. And it actually helps prove my point too. The box on the right on the futon critic site states that the character is "Capt. Tobias 'Toby' Gregson." http://i.imgur.com/FWEa7MU.jpgAnd that's the character's name, according to not just the OFFICIAL site, but a reliable third party site. So. How much proof do I need exactly?Kude90 (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the critical distinction. The edge of the Futon Critic page, like CBS's main website, was set up prior to the start of the show, when the show was shooting its pilot. At that time, the character's name might have been intended to be Tobias. A lot of changed have been made since then, and character names often change during production. The press release next to it is current, and therefore more reliable. But the bottom line is that the most reliable source is the show itself. Do you actually watch it? If you do and pay any attention at all, you'll see the name plate on Gregson's desk which quite clearly says THOMAS. From here, the discussion needs to move to the show's talk page, where you're welcome to attempt to gain consensus for the change, but you simply do not have a source more current than the 20+ episode press releases, each of which indicates that his name is Thomas. --Drmargi (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I did google it. You're just making garbage up now, since it says T. Gregson. Not Thomas or Tobias. http://24.media.tumblr.com/b2debe79499b00c432d52aa7fa9159d4/tumblr_midcaau3Dg1ri1p5ro1_1280.jpg

But, you know, let's just make more garbage up.Kude90 (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're done. Please discuss and gain consensus if you can that the character's name is Tobias on the article's talk page. Before you do, read WP:CIVIL. --Drmargi (talk) 10:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Got Fingered

Dude, just KNOCK IT OFF already with the Freddy Got Fingered entry, it is NOT for you to decide if it was one of the most hated films or not, it was in fact one of the worst received movies ever and it's been on the list for years, with FIVE Razzies including Worst Picture and damning reviews, so cut it out and leave it alone!76.24.147.14 (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the rules for this list. The number of razzies don't matter. The only thing that matters is if a reliable source calls it "the worst ever." As no source does that, freddie stays off of the list. You can go to the talk page and try to rally support. But, for now, Freddie got Fingered thus far doesn't belong in this article.

Dude, it's been called one of the worst for over a decade. And its reception in 2001 was one of the most infamous up to that point. You should not base your decisions solely on not hearing the words "Worst film ever made" in all your searches. It was on this list for YEARS because popular still stands that it IS in fact one of the worst ever made.198.7.235.131 (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for adding a movie to this page is that the movie has to be called "the worst ever." Unless you can find even ONE article that calls Freddie got Fingered the worst, it can't be added. Adding it could range from original research all the way to libel. Kude90 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine, I can't find one for Freddy YET, but if you want one for From Justin To Kelly or Howard the Duck, here's one for you: http://aisleseat.com/jackandjill.htm .76.24.147.14 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pass a Method talk 10:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psych edit

I approach you in private because I don't want us to get in an edit war. The fact is, when the 8th season was announced in December, only 8 episodes had been approved. While later ones were approved, as of December, only 8 were approved. The later ones approved at a later date had no bearing on the originally announced number of 8. If you read the paragraph, it makes reference to the two that were later authorized. But it is inaccurate to say that 10 episodes were authorized in December because that was not the case. Having left this explanation on your talk page, I am reverting your edit. Please read further into the paragraph where mention of the two extra authorized episodes are mentioned. In December, only 8 were authorized. Thus I am reverting you yet again. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the rest of the paragraph. I'm reverting your edit, and changing December. That's all it takes.Kude90 (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to K-PAX (film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

from the planet 'K-PAX', 1,000 [[light years]] away in the [[Lyra]] constellation, prot (uncapitalized and rhyming with "goat," is committed to the Psychiatric Institute of Manhattan.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

The term 'bold faced lie' in your edit summary caught my attention. Please don't continue to talk that way on Wikipedia. See WP:No personal attacks. And please be aware that the Hungary article is subject to the WP:ARBEE arbitration case, which provides for discretionary sanctions in cases of tendentious editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

garbage pail kids Movie

I notoiced you undid an edit of mine on the page list of films considered the worst because I undid your edit for 'no reason'.Here are my reasons:1. Your reference that you provided mentioned controversy only in a passing comment which is not allowed.2. The reference mentioned controversy in the film, not the trading card game. Kind Regards,Asmym xix (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Notice.

Hello, as an editor of TV series pages. Your input over on House of Cards re the separation of Main and Recurring characters in the cast list would be much appreciated. MisterShiney ✉ 18:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Calvin Coolidge because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Widr (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American politics listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect American politics. Since you had some involvement with the American politics redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kude90. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kude90. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kude90. 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]