AdamLLC

Welcome edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hello AdamLLC and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ • Article creation wizard Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jonathan Mostow. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't revert you, check with this guy ------------------------------↑ – ukexpat (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's vandalism because you (along with a couple other anon editors) consistently revert edits with op/ed. RT, the cite you use says nothing about garnering generally favorable reviews, and it does in fact say it fails to live up to it's predecessor. If you have an issue, bring it to the talk page; otherwise stop adding your opinion to the article. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

If your concern is the way the film is presented here, please read the main aritcle and edit it as you see fit... at present the summary in Moscow's entry is just that, and is quite representative of the main article. --Williamsburgland (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Add topic