Talk:Lady Magdalene's

Don't feed the troll

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)

Image copyright

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)

Vandalism

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)

Not so much vandalism as prohibiting self-promotion on Wikipedia

There is obviously a conflict of interest her since Jneil is the producer, director and writer of the movie. The wiki entry read like a puff piece when I first encountered it and the lay out was bad. I touched up the lay out, added some info about the amazon-rating and the ebay auction. Then Jneil just rolled back all of the changes without talking to me, so I returned the favour(which in hindsight regret, it was immature). Jneil is clearly biased, cause every time he encounters any negative feedback, he reacts violently. Like accusing all the imdb-votes to be fake, and now that there dropped in some negative amazon votes, they are fake as well, but he didn't have any problem boasting with the Amazon-rating in the article when it was high. There is no doubt that this movie generated at least some negative feedback, but jneil won't allow any of it on this page, only the positive ones. So again, he is CLEARLY biased. But in an attempt to maintain a civilized discussion I'm going to justify my edits here, and we will have the discussion here(instead of keeping on with the edit war).

1. I'm going to reinsert the section about the ebay auction. There is no reason to not include it in this article(and Jneil felt it was good enough to include in the article before the source was uncovered) and it's the only thing the movie actually got some attention for.

2. If the Anthem Media Award is included in the article, then it should also be stated what the award was(cash prize of 50 USD) to put the award into context.

3. There is no source for winning the Cinema City International Film Festival. As long as there is no actual proof the award was won, it can't be included in the article.

4. The claims of positive notices in media is a very vague statements with very little support, and clearly put in there just to show off the movie in a better light and should be removed. A) The mention in Beverly Hills Outlook isn't a review, more a brief puff piece and interview of Nichelle Nichols which barely mentions the movie. B) There is no source that it's been mentioned in Santa Monica Mirror. C) To say it's got a positive mention in Rotten Tomatoes is very disingenuous since this movie is not listed on Rotten Tomatoes. It's a user on their forums who have written the review, which could be anybody, like somebody involved in the movie.

5. Jneils claims that the IMDB-rating is fake holds no ground. He can't attack a source just cause it's negative. The IMDB-rating has always been what it is, accurate or not accurate. He has no proof of that it's been tampered with. It stays.

6. Amazon-rating, I haven't checked out the latest reviews, but if it is as he says it's peculiar. On the other hand, he had no problems including the amazon reviews when they were all gushing and praising the movie(not to mention that he wrote one of those reviews himself and gave the movie a 5 star rating, which was a large part of the total rating since there were only 6 other reviews). Either he includes it and doesn't mention anything about it, or it's cut out.

The whole section "Legitimate Press Reception and Sock Puppet Cyberattacks" goes, since there was no legitimate press reception sources, and there is no proof of the supposed "Cyberattacks".

7. Jneil should NOT be allowed to edit this article, due to him being partial to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassanovaFrankenstein (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous CasanovaFrankenstein signed on to Wikipedia for the first time only to vandalize this article, as pointed out by Davidkevin.

My edits for the article are all cited and referenced; this troll's edits are unsourced and designed to add unsourced disinformation.

A "review" statement by a reporter does not only have to come from a review of that one film; it can also come from an article covering a film festival which includes comments on the various films which played at that festival. The notices cited are linked directly to those articles.

A clue that the intent of this sock puppet is a personal vendetta against this film is his #3. The Cinema City International Film Festival is an established film festival organized by Suzanne DeLaurentiis, a well-known producer. Lady Magdalene's played at this festival at the AMC theaters on the Universal CityWalk adjacent to Universal Studios Hollywood on September 30, 2008; the awards banquet was October 1, 2008 in a ballroom at the Universal Hilton. There were red carpets heavily covered by major media on both these dates. The info provided to verify this award included that actor Dan Lauria was the award presenter. Yet, this anonymous sock puppet asserts that the film festival award is unverified. No further proof of intent is required.

I am reverting the article to its pre-vandalized version and request a block on it to prevent further vandalism by this and other sock puppets.Jneil (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not insert personal analysis/synthesis of material. The section "Legitimate Press Reception and Sock Puppet Cyberattacks" attempts to makes claims that are personal synthesis of material, see WP:NOR. If it can be re-written more neutrally without the personal synthesis, then no problem - but do not attempt to draw conclusions or press POV content about the contents of the sources (ie: claims of hacking, sockpuppettry, etc are not appropriate) - aside from being personal synthesis, user reviews are inherently non-reliable sources (per WP:RS), so scores based on user-reviews are questionable on their appropriateness to begin with, so are more appropriately removed entirely.

Also, do not re-insert linkspam by inserting IMDB links to persons profiles, this goes against WP:EL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I still don't think Jneil should be allowed to edit this entry. He is clearly too close to the subject. And it's not the first time he's been in a conflict of interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_42#User:Jneil. And further, looking at his history, he almost only edits entries he is personally involved in. Raising the question if he priorities Wikipedia being a reliable source or promoting his own work and public appearance. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the RT-review since there is no link. I added the only remaining review by Cold Fusion. I also put back the section about the Ebay auction, since it's what have brought the movie the most attention in the press.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed Jneils statement about the movie being considered for wide release, since he as the producer clearl isn't objective and it could be used to create a rumour, and there are no press articles about the movie being picked up by a distributor, not to mention that the movie has been out for 2-3 years already. Removed Amazon sale links. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The eBay section also needs to be rewritten. Better to simply state that the film was initially listed for auction on eBay - without the POV narrative. The sources do not state the reason for the listing, that's personal synthesis - as is calling it a stunt. One of the cited sources suggests that the listing was used to draw attention to it - so it could equally be interpretted as a promotional tactic - although interpretation of if the tactic failed or not would likewise be personal synthesis. Better to simply state in the release section that the film had initially been offered for auction on eBay, with the cited sources. Leave interpretation up to the readers of those sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Although Jneil himself has admitted that it was a stunt(and I admit that it was a smart one if you go with any publicity is good publicity, since he only had to pay the ebay fee to get international press cover). I can clean it up, but it's still pretty obvious that it was a promotional tactic(in a good ballsy way, and not in the disingenuous way, like when he edits wikipedia). I mean, he tried to sell the movie, and he was aware of that it might get attention that you can buy a movie on ebay, so two flies in one stone.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone needs absolute proof that there is a sock puppet attack being made against Lady Magdalene's, which began on the IMDb Message boards, escalated with a concerted vandalism attack from sock puppet accounts here on Wikipedia, and has now expanded to sock puppet attacks on Amazon.com's pages for Lady Magdalene's, not that yesterday three identical killer reviews under three different sock puppet accounts appeared yesterday added to previous sock puppet attacks.

Here is the link and text:

The text is identical.

http://www.amazon.com/Lady-Magdalenes-Nichelle-Nichols/product-reviews /B004ZMSDIK/ref=cm_cr_pr_top_link_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&f ilterBy=addOneStar&pageNumber=2

1.0 out of 5 stars The most unsexy film set in a brothel in history, August 13, 2011 By Sweety_Pie - See all my reviews This review is from: Lady Magdalene's (DVD) This film is set in a Nevada brothel, where you would expect some sexy high-jinks and humor associated with the world's oldest profession. Instead we get a drab serving of flat jokes, painfully bad acting and no sex or nudity or even a shot of a naked breast. It is as if the brothel is run by nuns ha ha.

Though the story revolves around a terrorist plot to attack America and there are indeed Muslim terrorists and government agents and a silly plot line that I imagine was designed to thrill and excite, the real draw card for me was Nichelle Nichols in the title role as the madam of a Nevada brothel, "Lady Magdalene's". Sadly, the most wonderful Ms Nichols, (who has such credibility as the first black woman on American television, Uhura, in the original Star Trek), failed to grab my attention and in the end I just felt embarrassed for her. Her singing was the only part of the film that I consider memorable. Such a talented woman. Talent that was sadly ignored when this film was made.

Lady Magdalene's is not sexy. It may as well have been set in a monastery. It is not exciting. It is not engaging. It is not entertaining. It is not funny. It is not interesting. It is simply a boring film dealing with what should have been exciting subject matter.

Not recommended

1.0 out of 5 stars The most unsexy film set in a brothel in history, August 13, 2011 By Oh_Why_The_Hell_Not - See all my reviews This review is from: Lady Magdalene's (DVD) This film is set in a Nevada brothel, where you would expect some sexy high-jinks and humor associated with the world's oldest profession. Instead we get a drab serving of flat jokes, painfully bad acting and no sex or nudity or even a shot of a naked breast. It is as if the brothel is run by nuns ha ha.

Though the story revolves around a terrorist plot to attack America and there are indeed Muslim terrorists and government agents and a silly plot line that I imagine was designed to thrill and excite, the real draw card for me was Nichelle Nichols in the title role as the madam of a Nevada brothel, "Lady Magdalene's". Sadly, the most wonderful Ms Nichols, (who has such credibility as the first black woman on American television, Uhura, in the original Star Trek), failed to grab my attention and in the end I just felt embarrassed for her. Her singing was the only part of the film that I consider memorable. Such a talented woman. Talent that was sadly ignored when this film was made.

Lady Magdalene's is not sexy. It may as well have been set in a monastery. It is not exciting. It is not engaging. It is not entertaining. It is not funny. It is not interesting. It is simply a boring film dealing with what should have been exciting subject matter.

Not recommended

1.0 out of 5 stars The most un-sexy film about a brothel in history., August 13, 2011 By Lovable Vixen - See all my reviews This review is from: Lady Magdalene's (DVD) This film is set in a Nevada brothel, where you would expect some sexy high-jinks and humor associated with the world's oldest profession. Instead we get a drab serving of flat jokes, painfully bad acting and no sex or nudity or even a shot of a naked breast. It is as if the brothel is run by nuns ha ha.

Though the story revolves around a terrorist plot to attack America and there are indeed Muslim terrorists and government agents and a silly plot line that I imagine was designed to thrill and excite, the real draw card for me was Nichelle Nichols in the title role as the madam of a Nevada brothel, "Lady Magdalene's". Sadly, the most wonderful Ms Nichols, (who has such credibility as the first black woman on American television, Uhura, in the original Star Trek), failed to grab my attention and in the end I just felt embarrassed for her. Her singing was the only part of the film that I consider memorable. Such a talented woman. Talent that was sadly ignored when this film was made.

Lady Magdalene's is not sexy. It may as well have been set in a monastery. It is not exciting. It is not engaging. It is not entertaining. It is not funny. It is not interesting. It is simply a boring film dealing with what should have been exciting subject matter.

Not recommended

1/10

Will some Wikipedia editor please put a block on this article?

I am reverting to the pre-vandalized version AGAIN.Jneil (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting well tired of you calling me a troll, vandal, sock puppet etc! Just cause there is somebody who posted fake reviews on Amazon doesn't mean that EVERYBODY on the internet is one. The moment somebody criticizes your work the slightest, you accuse them of being a troll or sock. If you're that paranoid, it wouldn't even surprise me if you put those fake amazon reviews there yourself to prove your point. I mean, if the troll conspiracy against you is that advanced that they managed to plunge both your Amazon and IMDB-rating(over 100 votes over one night and involving IMDB and Amazon staff according to you) you surely think they would be competent enough to not post identical reviews(especially when there are like 15 other reviews posted by trolls according to you on Amazon that aren't similar). My edits on the article has been well justified. You on the other hand have tried to promote your movie here, making your work look better received than it was(the first amazon reviews you had no problems with when they were suspiciously positive, you dismissed IMDB just cause it always had a low rating there, you make awards you won look bigger than they are, add amazon sale links etc etc). You are too close to the subject. Wikipedia is not an ad board or a platform for self-promotion. You have been accused for this before[1]. And looking at your history, you exclusively edits articles where you is personally involved somehow. It's YOU who should be blocked from doing that. Why not edit an article where you have nothing at stake? I'm reverting Jneils changes and also adding the other recipients of the Audience Award that he shared it with at the Cinema City International Film Festival.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Jneil ... You are using personal analysis of the reviews to draw a conclusion. Doing so is original research and is not permitted in Wikipedia per WP:NOR. Do not continue to add that material unless you have a reliable source that confirms the claims you are making about the reviews.

Reply to CassanovaFrankenstein ... I still disagree with the eBay wording. The entire section can be compacted to more neutrally worded content by stripping it down to only say "In 2007, Schulman gained some media attention for the film when he attempted to auction off the movie on Ebay, although no offers were received." - then listing the two sources. The sentence could then easilly be inserted as the second sentence in the "Release" section, where it would fit into the production and release timeline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply Jneil ... Rolled back your changes. If you are going to use those awards to promote your movie, then you have to put them in the right context and what the prize actually was and that you shared the prize with other recipients. And why are you still editing this entry. You CLEARLY are bias. You're just not the producer and have financial investment in the movie, but ALSO director and writer, having emotional investment in the movie.

Reply to Barek: ... I still think it's more appropriate to have it under the media(I changed to media since Cold Fusions review isn't really press) since it's the fact that the movie managed to get media attention in a hopeless situation that is important, not that he listed it on ebay(anybody could have done that). So I melded the "Press Reaction" together with "Ebay Auction". You think it's ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassanovaFrankenstein (talk • contribs) 19:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the location of the ebay content wasn't the issue - it's that it's so blatantly POV (see WP:NPOV) as well as the undo weight applied to that specific element (see WP:WEIGHT). At the very least the quotes need to be purged - the refs exist for a reason: so that users can go to the sources to read the greater detail if they choose. The only reason I suggested moving the material to another section after trimming was that it was then too short for its own section, if another section to merge it into makes sense, I have no issue with that once trimmed to an appropriate neutrally sized length.

On the awards, there's no need to list all the other films that also received awards - we don't do that for other films that I can see, why treat this one differently? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Barek....Yes, I might not sound objective cause of my anger at how Jneil has been using wikipedia to promote his work. And I have also looked into his activity on IMDB, and it highlights how he uses dishonest promotion. That is why I want to include the block quotes, to show the truth. How is the truth subjective? It's the truth. And at the moment the article barely have any info anyway, and the quotes don't make it that much bigger. And I've seen plenty of movies have a short blurb from a review here on wikipedia. Usually there are more than one reviewer, but in this case we only have one review(unless we are going to allow user reviews, but then we have to put in the debated IMDB and Amazon-rating as well).

It's the same thing with the awards. How does the truth hurt the objectivity of the article? If I tell you that I won the Notre Dame Ballroom Dancer Audience Award, then you'll think I'm a hell of a dancer, IF I fail to mention that everybody who competed got that award as well. Jneil constantly does this with facts. He highlight the one that makes him look good, and then removes anything that makes him look bad. He used the Amazon reviews when they were good, removed them when they went bad. He never used IMDB, cause they were always bad. He removed the single review left on this page, cause it wasn't a positive review. He mentions awards he won, but he wont mention what the award actually was, how many competed, etc. If we are going to keep this article completely objective, then we have to remove a lot of info unless we don't uncover the truth also in the article. Lets not forget that the foundation of this article is biased. It's the producer of the movie who started the entry for it. Most of the info is inherently biased. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to consist of facts that are public knowledge. If something is known enough, then it's put on wikipedia. In this case, the producer of the movie put it on wikipedia to use it as promotion.

And I still don't understand why Jneil is allowed to edit his own articles? Especially when he has little interest to edit anything but his own articles. And he constantly gets in conflict with other editors. I provided the source to the previous dispute. Another admin adviced me to bring up Jneil on the admins notice board. Is that the next step I have to take?CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because an article begins with bias in one direction is no reason to swing it to having bias in the other direction - that would be vengeful, not neutral - please see WP:NPOV.

Involved parties are allowed to do some editing to articles with which they are involved - although Jneil does appear to have crossed the line on what level of editing is permitted under WP:COI, I haven't taken action for three reasons: A) I'm an involved editor now, so my taking action would be a conflict of interest, and B) I feel that to some degree he has been baited by multiple single-purpose-accounts who oddly have had no interest in editing outside this one article, and C) some of his reasoning is legitimate, although he over-compensates by restoring to his version with its extreme positive bias. Note: I'm not endorsing his actions, he has crossed the line of WP:COI and needs to back off; but in this case, there are extenuating circumstances.

If you want others to review the article, you could bring a report to either WP:COIN or WP:ANI, but keep in mind WP:BOOMERANG, and be aware that edits (and bias) of all parties can be reviewed closely following reports. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point there, and I'm afraid that my indignation over Jneil abusing wikipedia for promotion might have gotten the better of me. I'm suspecting that the other single-purpose accounts might have migrated to here from IMDB where he had an outburst on the Help-board accusing users attacking his movie with negative reviews and low votes, being abusive to everyone who criticized the movie. He caused quite a stir there on several boards(and noticed that he now deleted all of his posts over there), and when it was revealed that he had used some shady promotion tactics like writing his own wiki entry, amazon review etc, people came over here to correct it. Although looking at some of the edits, they went too far(even by my standards). Some of the amazon-reviews looks fake as well, but many of them look legit. Going by the trailer and released clips, I have no doubt that the rating now is more accurate over there than before when it only had 5-star reviews. But I digress.

I still think Jneil might need to get reported for how he uses wikipedia, only editing articles he's personally involved in, but I didn't come here to war with anybody. I just wanted to fix a corrupt article. Don't know if I will bother editing more articles considering how much fighting this one took, but I'll check out the links you posted if I do, to understand the guidelines better. I don't think we need to bring in a third party. It's not worth the effort and you have done well to rein in both me and Jneil, keeping a levelled head.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The latest edits by CassanovaFrankenstein demonstrate a clear desire to post irrelevant, unsourced, and defamatory materials in this article: (cur | prev) 19:27, 15 August 2011 CassanovaFrankenstein (talk | contribs) (7,461 bytes) (→Media Reaction) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:05, 15 August 2011 CassanovaFrankenstein (talk | contribs) (7,143 bytes) (undo)

CasanovaFrankenstein insists on adding in winners in other categories to the award Lady Magdalene's received at the Cinema City International Film Festival. Why? Does this tell a reader anything useful about the award in the category of narrative features? What do winners in the short films category have to do with it? If an Oscar is given in the category of foreign-language feature, would CasanovaFrankenstein insist putting into the Wikipedia article for that film the award for best foreign-language short? This user clearly has no desire except to dismiss by dilution the award, and this demonstrates a motivation of animus.

And after I conceded that linking to reviews and publicity articles might be inappropriate, and deleting those sections, Casanova Frankenstein restores only those that are negative.

Reverting once again to the last unvandalized version. Is there no editor here who will acknowledge the vandalism of this troll and place a block on this article?Jneil (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I please enquire as to why my edits of the awrds section of this film has been summararily revised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthful Additions (talk • contribs) 05:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Jneil... The truth is irrelevant, unsourced and defamatory? And unsourced? I'm using YOUR source! Which btw isn't exactly unbalanced. The lady who wrote the article was mentioned for an award herself! Do you have any actual proof you got that award? Cause I can't find any evidence anywhere on the net. Why is it not mentioned on Cinema City's own website? They have a record of previous winners and you are not there. And I'M the troll here? YOU ARE THE PRODUCER, DIRECTOR AND WRITER OF THIS MOVIE, YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO EDIT THIS ARTICLE, LEAST NOT BE INVOLVED IN AN EDIT WAR. You remove ANY negative mention of the movie, white washing the truth. The truth is that this movie received a very average to bad reception, yet you refuse to post any of those reviews, and will post awards you either have no proof you won or fluff awards you shared with others. When you got a bad rating on IMDB, you blamed it on hackers. When you got a couple of bad reviews on Amazon, you blamed it on trolls. And then it seems like you actually got some attention from trolls on Amazon or you faked the troll reviews yourself to dismiss all the bad reviews and ratings it got. Why isn't Jneil blocked from editing entries he is personally involved with yet? I'm undoing all your changes. You are too close to this article, you should not be allowed to edit it.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to insert a neutrally worded median between the two extreme versions that have been edit-warred over. Please review this version and post your thoughts on it, taking into consideration WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Even though I still don't think it's biased to present the sources in the article(the truth is the truth) I have no objections to the changes you did in this version. Looks fine.

Although I have two other objections. A) I don't think it's really necessary to mention that it won the San Diego Black Film Festival award in the intro text, since it's already mentioned in the awards-section, and the San Diego Black Film Festival isn't exactly Sundance, Oscars or Cannes, so it reads more like a PR text when you mention an unknown festival in the intro. B) In the music section, there is a mention of Yassin, who is that and how is he relevant to this movie? "The score features violin solos by Julius Schulman, who also provided the violin performances in the film by Yassin.".

I'm going to cut both part out, tell me what you think about it. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the award is better left just in its own section, and the reference in the music section was extraneous and not needed in this article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, so that's it? We're done? Is there some proper wikietiquette or something now? Some virtual hand shake? =)

Although I have a question about Wikipedias requirements regarding the reliability of it's sources(which would be helpful if I continue to edit articles). I'm satisfied with the article now, it reads neither like a puff piece or an attack and I don't want to further diminish the movie. But I can't help but notice that some of the Awards actually don't have any real sources. Neither Cinema City International Film Festival Online(apparently it's a monthly award as well)[2] or San Diego Black Film Festival[3] have any records of the movie winning any award. The only source for it winning CCIF is an article written by a woman who herself competed for an award, all other hits on google for Lady Magdalene's and Cinema City International Film Festival are from the producers own sites or a blog using the same text as on the official site. The only evidence for the movie winning the SDBFF is a picture of the director holding a framed diploma, although such a diploma could easily be faked. In cases like this, there are no official sources required and editors are supposed to threat the claims in good faith?CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Added first review found from the actual press(Las Vegas Weekly).CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC) To Jneil.... Stop removing the "Critical and Press Reaction"-section. You mention no reason for removing it and you are vandalizing the article. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT THIS ARTICLE, YOU ARE THE PRODUCER OF THE MOVIE. Continue and I WILL report you to the administrators board.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

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)

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[4]), 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)

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)

User CasanovaFrankenstein is an outright liar. The San Diego Film Festival's award to Lady Magdalene's for "Best Cutting Edge Film" is listed on IMDb, in the IMDb news stories linked on the movie's IMDb page, as well as a photo gallery linked from the external photos page for the movie on IMDb which shows photos from the award ceremony.

Further, let's bring up the issue of media coverage of this movie. Linked from Buzz on the official movie website are positive newspaper, magazine, and film website notices for the movie; yet CasanovaFrenkeinstein cherry picks only disparaging reviews because it's his intention to craft a negative portrayal of this film.

Yet, now the article carries a warning that A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. (August 2011)

Why this warning, questioning the veracity of this article's content? It is because the producers of this movie have been attempting to do nothing more than defend the Wikipedia article writing on our product from vandalism turning it into outright defamatory commercial libel.

Is there an honest and objective editor here to do justice?Jneil (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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)