Ghriscore

Archived 2016

Batman v Superman

We don't need to add informations like that unless it has a "commercial analysis" section like Avatar, Titanic, Frozen or Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Yes no doubt it's mentioned China. But if ur aware u came talk about China in the top secrion as any piece of information about the country's box office performance for a particular is written besides its own opening information. I have written box office information in wikipedia for the past 2 years and yes sometimes I do feel that there's a necessity that it should have its own secrion given how it's on pace to become the worlds biggest movie market by 2017 but that's a discussion for some other day. But of u noticed in articles like Transformers: Age of Extinction, Terminator Genisys, Kung Fu Panda 3 Zootopia, I've written the short analysis for the county in their respective section and i did not write them at the top or global section since it would be bias to mention only China or North America at the top. The overall performance at the top is only written on a consensus like "it became a box office bomb" or "... Became a box office blockbuster hit". We don't write specific country's performance. The US and Canada section deals with its subjects. And the rest of the country are dealt in the "Outside North America" section. So if u have two and half years of box office writing experience in Wikipedia u should know this. (User talk:Josephlalrinhlua786) 21:32, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

--The article was writing about a general worldwide trend, it wasn't a simple report on specific territories. You are wrong.Ghriscore (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Perhaps you're not familiar with WP:AGF, so I thought I'd drop you a line. Your comments in this edit and others you've made on that talk page have implied that other editors, such as myself, are not being "sincere". You've also thrown around "DC fanboys" pretty loosely, applying that label to just about anyone who disagrees with you. This behavior contradicts the civility policy and the "Assume Good Faith" guideline on Wikipedia by making negative assumptions about others without clear evidence. I encourage you to focus on content instead of the contributor, as these unhelpful comments can become a distraction to the discussion. I understand you're here to help, and you have put a lot of time into improving the article, so don't take this the wrong way. I only ask that you avoid unnecessary assumptions and respect others in these debates. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm very careful and thoughtful in what I say. I'm cautiously pessimistic(lol), sure, but I was careful NOT to accuse you of anything. You have my good faith, mate, but don't confuse my "say it like it is" Simon Cowell style of talking with anything along the lines of an accusation. For the record, I'm not accusing you or anyone of anything. I was just speaking my mind about general trends, etc. However, quid pro quo, please don't imply that if someone disagrees with me then I must think they are a DC fanboy simply because I'm being terse lately. Also, this isn't my first rodeo ;-) Let's just agree that this is water under the bridge, and see what happens moving forward. The article reads well for the moment, and the story about this film will become clearer and stronger in the coming weeks insofar as box office and the public/critics feelings on this. Nothing personal. Cheers.Ghriscore (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I assumed it wasn't your first rodeo, hence the personalized message as opposed to a basic template. Yes, I agree it's mostly water under the bridge at this point, and I'm willing to move on. Glad to hear you're willing to do the same. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ghriscore. 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)