Talk:Lady Magdalene's

message: The user Truthful Additions is determined to vandalize the article Lady Magdalene's by adding in snide and unsourced libels such as "though the chances of the film securing distribution at this late stage are negligible" and "This award was not the main award. In fact, it wasn't even the only "Audience Choice" award. [3] There were FIVE "Audience Choice" award winners and twenty one winners over all. There were only twenty one films in the festival. Everybody won something."
This user is a troll engaging in an edit war for the purposes of vandalism.Jneil (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't feed the troll

message: I, the copyright holder of this image, on the official Lady Magdalene's website at http://www.dujpepperman.com/jesulu/images/LadyMagdalenes_WebSizePoster_2.jpg hereby publish it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. It may be used to illustrate the Wikipedia article Lady Magdalene's. J. Neil Schulman, webmaster; Managing Member, Lady Magdalene's, LLC Jneil (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright

message: From my point of view, there seems to be a deliberate and ongoing campaign of vandalism by one person using two sockpuppet names or two sockpuppets, User:CasanovaFrankenstein and User:Truthful Additions.  Looking at their lists of contributions, the only article either of them have edited has been this one.  I asked for an administrator to step in.  All that has happened is that User:Jneil got a rude letter accusing him of violating 3RR from User:alexf.
Correction of vandalism does not count toward the 3RR rule, and the evidence of vandalism is as obvious as the proverbial nose on the proverbial face.  Would an admin of good will and knowledge of the rules please place protection on this article?  -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I hadn't looked closely enough at the sources for the awards until they were brought up above.  The primary guide for what meets the criteria of a reliable source can be found at WP:RS, and clarifications can be asked at WP:RSN.  The source for the award by San Diego Black Film Festival is to imdb, which is generally not regarded as a reliable source for that type of material.  The award from Cinema City International Film Festival is sourced to a blog - which isn't an automatic rejection for it, but I don't have time right now to research the blog or the publishing site to see if they meet the threshold to be a reliable source.  The source for the award from the Anthem Film Festival doesn't even mention the film, so wouldn't qualify.
In most cases, award groups will at the very least issue a press release, which could be used for this type of content.  Again, I don't have time to look today or tomorrow; but if the awards were given, there should be something stating the fact.  The WP:RSN that I linked can assist with reviewing the reliability of any sources that are questioned, and another place to ask about issues related to the article structure, sources, etc would be a relevant Wikiproject - in this case, someone at WT:FILM might be able to help. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be the one to defend the producers practice of making the movie look better than it is with pseudo awards(yes, the cash prize actually is 50-150USD), but Anthem Film Festival do mention the movie. So that one is at least legit(although IMDB doesn't consider either that award or the CCIFF Online as Film Festivals, they are not on the list of available film festivals you can submit). Regarding IMDB, it's Jneil who submitted the SDBFF award there as well, and I'm not sure what kind of requirements they have. But IMDB doesn't seem to be a legit source, either when it comes to rating or awards(it's all user submitted). And IMDB is the only source that wasn't the producers site I could find, and the producer was the one who put that info up on IMDB. Should I remove the SDBFF Award unless somebody can come up with a proper source? I'm still not familiar with the etiquette regarding posting on the notice boards, but I'll look into it if I get time tomorrow and see what they say about the blog source for the CCIFF Award(looks a bit odd that the author mention herself in the article as a contestant).CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I've looked around a bit and can't still find any reliable sources for the movie winning the San Diego Black Film Festival Award. I'll remove it until somebody comes up with a reliable source. I haven't had time yet to look up the reliability of the source for the CCIFF win, but will do so when I can. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I like to think of myself as honest, and have no reason I can think of not to be objective in this case. I would say that you made a very wise decision here and that renewing it would probably be a good idea. If necessary you could re-read WP:COI to refresh your memory. Ian Spackman (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliability of sources