User talk:Bradswanson2010

Please provide evidence that the film was made for $12,000.

Please provide evidence it was made for £500,000 as is otherwise suggested!

The IMDB page confirms the film was made for $500,000. There is no evidence that the film was made for $12,000. The fact that you keep changing this page suggests you have an agenda against this particular production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.166.226 (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB can be edited by anyone. Your IP and the other constant IP that keeps cropping up in the edit of this page suggests that people close to the film are keen to present an impressive front. The directors of this film are notorious for spamming and editing pages related to this film, both on wikipedia and on IMDB. Anyone watching the film can see it was made for nothing, It was definately not made for $500,000 - to claim it was it is ridiculous - and a claim designed to increase the chances of getting the directors next film financed.

Edit Warring at The Zombie Diaries[edit]

Hi. You appear to be engaged in an edit war at The Zombie Diaries. Can I suggest that you stop, discuss your disagreement at Talk:The Zombie Diaries instead, and try to achieve a consensus. If you do not stop warring and start talking, there is a strong likelihood that you will end up being blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not warring, I am correcting the page to state facts. Romero's film included a diary segent in the credits, yet this is constantly deleted. Ther opening segment of the film features several soldiers, not a platoon. This is constantly deleted. The budget for this film was obviously not $500,000 - anyone watching it can see that.

Being right doesn't mean you're not warring - if the edit war continues without you and the other person actually discussing it on the Talk page, there will be no other way to stop it than to file an edit war report, which really could result in you being blocked. I'd really like to try to avoid that happening, so I urge you again to explain what's happening on the Talk page - perhaps explain where you got the $12,000 figure? -- Boing! said Zebedee 02:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has now explained their reasoning on the article's Talk page, so it would be a good idea if you added your own reasoning there and tried to come to some sort of consensus before making any further changes (You shouldn't assume they are reading your words here - the article Talk page is the appropriate venue). -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor is clearly one of the films directors attempting to make the film seem bigger and better than it was. They are also trying to insuinuate that the video diary in a film idea was theres originally, even though an earlier Romero film featured the same idea.

June 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 07:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm not edit warring, but I beleive Filmfan1964 is. He has reverted my correct edits and Island Monkey's correct edits to try to make the release of his film more appear bigger than it is. The site I referenced lists the cinemas the film played in; all three (3) of them. If Filmfan1964 has other verifiable references that prove otherwise, why has he not cited them, rather than just vandalising the page continually? Bradswanson2010.

Bradswanson2010, you are clearly trying to make the film out to be worse than it is with your updates. Despite the fact that 3 screens is incorrect, it isn't particularly relevant to state the number of screens in any case, unless of course you have some ulterior motive? The film received a limited theatrical release and that is all that needs to be said. Landmonkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landmonkey (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landmonkey, I don't need to make the film out to be any worse than it is, the quality (or lack thereof) of the film is borne out by the multitude of negative reviews. Your updates would indicate you are in fact trying to better the reputation of the film - perhaps YOU have an ulterior motive here? All I have updated the article with here is the facts; the film was released in 3 cinemas and it is proved by the link I provided. If you have a reliable reference to show it was released in others, please update the article when it is unlocked or contact one of the editors with the relevent information. Bradswanson2010

Brad I would suggest you are clearly someone who is bitter with this film's success. Why else would you spend so much time looking at the page? You also actively googled the negative reviews and spent a lot of time doing so copying remarks and pasting them into the section you created. May I suggest that wikipedia is not the place for you to vent your frustrations. Landmonkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landmonkey (talk • contribs) 11:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest there's no success to be bitter towards - as proved by the reviews. You and Filmfan1964, which is presumably a duplicate account of yours, seem to want to make the film seem more successful than it is, why would you spend so much time on the page? And are trying to use the "notable films" part of the Canon camera page to advertise your film. I suggest that Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your film. Bradswanson2010

Nonsense. The Canon EOS 7D is a camera aimed at independent filmmakers and the Zombie Diaries guys used it on Zombie Diaries 2. Therefore it is absolutely relevant and you need to stop trolling the film and get on with your life. Landmonkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landmonkey (talk • contribs) 16:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop trying to use Wikipedia to advertise the film that you made. Bradswanson2010

Edit warring at Canon EOS 7D[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Bradswanson2010 and User:Landmonkey reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result: Both 24 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Zombie Diaries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --CyberGhostface (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Diaries[edit]

I really don't have an opinion either way as I've never seen the films. That being said, I'm aware of how people involved with films like this spam Wikipedia. If that's the case, instead of edit warring with the anon IPs, have you considered bringing this to the attention of the film wikiproject or a noticeboard? You might get better results that way.-CyberGhostface (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Zombie Diaries, World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries". Thank you. --CyberGhostface (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mdann52 (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Theopolisme _TALK 16:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Guerillero | My Talk 12:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The directors of this film continue to selectively edit Wikipedia to try to present the film in a better light. They continue to delete factually accurate and referenced information, including: Negative reviews, the fact that the first film was made for £8,100, the online criticism over the deceptive DVD covers and the fact that Michael Bartlett blamed Harvery Weinstein for the poor technical quaility of the second film due to him insisting on an early delivery. All of these facts are accurate and referenced yet the directors continue to vandalise the page to try to make their films and themsleves look better. Bradswanson2010 (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bradswanson2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am simply adding accurate information to Wikipedia. If the directors do not like that accurate information, that is not reason for them to continually vandalise the page, nor is it reason for me to be blocked

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

(edit conflict) As you have discovered, edit-warring accomplishes absolutely nothing, because the other party can revert just as often as you can. That's why it's against the rules even if you are right. Possibly the anonymous editor you are edit-warring really is trying to bias the article positively. Your edits are, just as clearly, trying to bias the article negatively. What Wikipedia actually needs is a description of the actual facts, in an article that does not make any judgement about whether this is a good movie or a bad one. If you and the ip worked together, discussing what the facts are on the talk page, maybe, together, you could come up with a truly neutral article about this subject. In the meantime, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to overturn this block, because your request makes it clear that you don't understand the rule against edit-warring, and would go back to doing it as soon as you were unblocked. And that doesn't do the article, Wikipedia, or you a bit of good. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been blocked for a week yet he has been blocked for only a day? I was not trying to bias the article in any way - I was simply adding facts. If those facts are unliked by the films directors, that does not mean they are not true and can therefore be removed by them. Simply deleting information because one disagress with it, is what they were/are doing and is not what Wikipedia is about. The facts were and are relevant to adding to the information about the film. Bradswanson2010 (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block you, so I don't know why the difference in block lengths. Does it matter? The article itself is protected for longer than either of the blocks, and that'll give you time, when you return, to read WP:DISPUTE and discuss the article on the talk page. Maybe get some people involved who are more experienced at Wikipedia and who've never made a zombie movie. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history at World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 08:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit-warring. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account appears to exist solely to add negatively biased opinions to the article World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries and related articles. You have been fully informed about WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW, and it's clear that you are either unwilling or unable to ever begin following those rules. Therefore, I have blocked you, indefinitely, from editing Wikipedia. Please trust that if the information you want to add is accurate, verifiable, and notable, someone else will start a conversation, get consensus, and add it in a neutral way. But you have made it clear that you are not the person who is likely to do that. If you ever become interested in Wikipedia's mission, and want to volunteer to improve articles in a neutral, verifiable way in subject areas in which you don't have a conflict of interest, please feel free, when you request unblocking, to outline a clear plan for editing usefully and non-disruptively in the future. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't "negatively biased opinions" - they are truthful, verifiable facts from proper sources. Check the links. It is quite obvious that the directors of this film continue to delete information they don't like and attempt to paint their film in only a biased way. That is surely not what Wikipedia is about, yet you are enabling them to do this? Bradswanson2010 (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]