Hello, I'm Avicennasis. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Template:Noir registry without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Avicennasis @ 21:51, 29 Tevet 5777 / 21:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Espngeek. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Moon Breath Beat, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Hi, I've just reverted your addition of the fandom category to Internet Troll, as it's not relevant in this case - an internet troll is not in itself a fandom, nor are they the primary purpose of said trolls. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and let me know if you have any questions on this or any other topic! Keira199602:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Touched by an Angel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page College Humor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Wikipedia editor TheLongTone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Well I was thinking of sppedying this because I am suspicious of articles relying on Imdb, but a quick google threw up a link to the Tate gallery & they say he has a work in the Met collection...
To reply, leave a comment on TheLongTone's talk page.
Hello, Espngeek. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hello, I'm JonathanDP81. I noticed that you recently removed content from Animalympics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -JonathanDP81 (talk | contribs) 07:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Espngeek/List of books considered the worst, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
Hello! Espngeek,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I dream of horses was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of books considered the worst, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, I'm TJH2018. I noticed that you recently removed content from Cordell Barker without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TJH2018talk00:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renegade Cut until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk02:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
Also, don't add more info than what is needed, there is no reason to point out that a film "yet" remained popular because of midnight screeings for no reason.★Trekker (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Kudpung. Espngeek, thanks for creating Brows Held High!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please check the sources again for relevance
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
I noticed your recent edit to Millennial whoop does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
...ditto for every other edit you've ever made...Erictalk02:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, I'm Nanophosis. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Magic Roundabout (film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Nanophosis (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop removing plots. I'm not sure why you're doing this, but it verges on vandalism. Explain yourself on the article talk page and get consensus to remove an entire plot, please. If you're removing plots because you think they're too long, please don't do this. Instead, streamline the plot down to the size recommended by WP:FILMPLOT, ~700 words. Per WP:PRESERVE, imperfect content that can be fixed should not be removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously need to stop blanking plot summaries. Per WP:PRESERVE, this content should not be summarily removed simply because you think it's too long. If you think it's too long, take the time to actually summarize the plot better. A long plot summary is better than no plot summary (or one that is too short to even understand what the film is about). WP:FILMPLOT recommends a minimum of 400 words, for example. You also need to stop spamming external links to YouTube videos. Please see WP:ELNO. They should almost never be used as citations, because the vast majority of content on YouTube is self-published. A reliable source, such as CNN or the BBC, who operate a YouTube channel could be cited. Reliable sources need to have editorial oversight, a history of fact-checking, and be staffed by professional journalists. Enthusiasts who self-publish their thoughts to YouTube are not a reliable source. If you continue to blank plot summaries or spam links to YouTube channels, I will ask an uninvolved administrator to block you for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
The "show preview" button is right next to the "publish changes" button and below the edit summary field.
Hello, Espngeek. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
Seems a pretty arbitrary time frame covered in the article. Might want to discuss pre-2008 -- were shortlists not provided to the public? Or is this something which only began in 2008 (which I doubt)?
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
On Børge Ring, you added links to Youtube videos. According to my understanding of Wikipedia:Video links, we shouldn't link to Youtube videos, as doing so may be against their copyright. Is it standard in film articles to link to YouTube, and if not, then should we be doing it? Joseph2302 (talk)00:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Vaporwave, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please compare your edits to the already existing articles to see if your edits are up to par. See WP:CITEWIKI and WP:RELIABLE to see how to properly reference a source and what sources to cite. The current way you are sourcing sites isn't the correct way. Micro (Talk) 22:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. KH-1 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of independent notability for this album, which can only be found at the typical streaming and self-promotional sites. The article has a bunch of sources, but most of them actually identify the artists that were sampled on this album, and not the album itself.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
Thank you for your new article on the album "Late Night Delight" and for adding a source after I proposed that it be deleted. However, you have one review that can be mined for the writer's content but is not believable as a footnote for every single song. The article still needs additional evidence that the album is notable.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Could you please not unlink redlinked titles in the list, and not pipe them to the animator's biographical article in lieu of leaving them as redlinks? While it's true that not every film in the list has its own article yet, that's not because there are notability questions about them — by virtue of having Genie/CSA nominations, every single film in the list is inherently notable per WP:NFILM, and the work of getting all the articles up and running just isn't done yet. Wikipedia does not have a rule forbidding all redlinks: if a topic is definitely notable and just doesn't have an article yet, it's allowed to stay a redlink, and the only redlinks we should unlink are those where notability is either questionable or non-existent.
If you bury a red link by piping it to some other topic, then it's much harder for me to keep track of which articles are still missing and need my attention, if I have no way to distinguish blue links that represent finished articles about the films from blue links that have been piped to the animator instead of leading to a finished article about the film — and if somebody else creates the article about a film but forgets to relink it in the list, I have no other way of knowing that they've created the article.
That's why every film in the list should remain wikilinked, to a direct page title and not piped somewhere else, whether there's already an article there or not: that's how the film WikiProject knows what films still need to be worked on. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hit Vibes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Micro (Talk) 01:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late Night Delight until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Micro (Talk) 01:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't reference information in Wikipedia articles to YouTube videos, or primary source copies of the films themselves. Appropriate referencing for Wikipedia content is print journalism published about the film or the award ceremony in media, not streaming copies of the film or the award ceremony. We use secondary sourcing to reference Wikipedia articles, not the primary kind — and you've also been removing solid sources to replace them with weaker and less notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Globe and Mail is a real newspaper, which means it is a secondary source, not a primary one. Real journalism in real newspapers is the good kind of sourcing; YouTube streaming clips are the bad kind. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Five distinct citations to five different news articles is more than adequate for the length that the article currently entails; we don't care about how many different newspapers the citations are coming from nearly as much as we care about how many different citations there are, and five is more than adequate. Sure, additional content can certainly be added with additional sourcing, but nothing currently in the article needs more sources than it already has — we never need more than one citation to resupport the same statement, and any new sources being added to an article should be used to expand the article with new content rather than as a second or third footnote for content that already has a valid footnote. And at any rate, when it comes to retrieving archived media coverage, people can only do that in databases that they have access to — I don't have accounts with HighBeam or Newspaperarchive.com, for example, so I cannot access sources archived in those databases. And, unfortunately, in the database I do have access to, most other newspapers only kick in from 1982 on, and The Globe and Mail is the only newspaper it archives any earlier than that. So, yeah, sometimes The Globe and Mail is all I can actually use for old topics, but that doesn't mean there's a problem if I cite five different articles from it instead of just one.
And as for your question on my talk page while I was writing this, one of our rules for what constitutes a reliable source is that it represents independent coverage about the thing being claimed rather than the thing's own self-published content about itself — for example, a person becomes notable for holding a job because newspapers publish journalistic reportage about his work in that job, not just because he has a staff profile on his own employer's website or a résumé on LinkedIn. And another of our rules is that YouTube videos are never acceptable referencing for anything — for one thing, YouTube is not the rightful holder of the copyright on an Academy Award broadcast, and we are not allowed to link to copyright violations whether they've been already taken down by the host site or not. It's not "discriminatory", because there's no pressing reason why primary source video would even be necessary if more reliable independent sourcing exists.
And furthermore, one of the things you did was to remove legitimate and sourceable awards that should quite rightly be mentioned in the article, without giving any reason whatsoever for why you were doing that. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WorldCat directory entries are also not reliable or notability-supporting sources either. A notability-supporting reliable source contains prose content about the film. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concern over your continued failure to leave edit summaries
Hi there. Did you know that 97% of your 14,200+ edits have no edit summaries, and that only 431 do? This is really unacceptable and extremely discourteous to other editors who have to expend extra effort to determine what changes you've made. This came to light for me, trying to work out who the vandal is and what they were doing by making repeated edits at 13 Reasons Why where an IP editor, along with yourself, has equally failed to explain their edits. I note from this Talk Page that over the last few years you have been repeatedly asked to include them. Please will you do so, in future?
In case, like me, you're terribly forgetful, you can easily go to Special:Preferences and tick the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in the "Editing" Tab so you don't forget next time you save your changes without explaining them. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Espngeek: Hey, I was just wondering why you keep removing the "People" subsection from the "Superlatives" section on the National Film Registry page? I only ask because I don't see the reasoning behind it, as its all superlatives of the people who have been inducted - like the youngest, most inducted, etc. Anyway, I thought I'd reach out before I changed it back again, because if I'm missing something, I'd really like to know so this doesn't keep happening. Thanks! Bradforce28 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give The Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2012 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. SITH(talk)14:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Animalympics. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Typically I'd just leave a note asking why you added a source that didn't support the information preceding it and didn't include an edit summary to explain your intentions, but you've been warned about this multiple times, and frankly as-is it almost appears that you're trying to promote the website you cited. Please stop making unexplained edits.DonIago (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I see you have added some content and sources to the film article Animalympics. While your edits haven't been reverted or anything like that, the reason I am talking to you is that I just want to advise you to use the proper referencing format instead of making direct links. Since a lot of the citations you have provided are either URL's/internet-based, please use the template "cite web" parameter. If you have any questions, please reply to me and I'll see if I can help, Thank you. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings)21:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the bare refs to the best of my ability. Espngeek, it's pretty disappointing that you were unwilling or unable to make these repairs yourself, especially as you've continued editing other articles and did not even acknowledge the dialog at NowIsntItTime's talk page. I hope you'll be more diligent in the future. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for all your improvements on Nicole Van Goethem. Just two points, one important and one very minor:
you added a link to youtube, but it seems to me that whoever uploaded this video doesn't own the rights to this mobie. Linking to copyright violations is strictly forbidden on enwiki. I removed the link, if you have added similar links to other articles (as references or as external links), it would be best if you removed those as well.
You changed "notes" to "references". Both are acceptable (on Wikipedia and in the wider world), and the enwiki rule is that in such cases, the original form is kept (i.e. people don't change "notes" to "references", but if the original is "references" then people who prefer "notes" don't get to change it either). This, like I said, is a very minor quibble only. Fram (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Neon noir into Film noir. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that wasmoved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some of your work as a violation of WP:No original research. You were adding Academy Award winners to articles about the Independent Spirit Awards. The complete listing of the intersection of the two awards in the same article is not something found in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting valid references as you are doing on Blade Runner. THese references are perfectly valid and cover the topics needed. Additionally do not use IMDb as a reference, as a user submitted source it is not reliable. Canterbury Tailtalk12:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go to Preferences > Gadgets > check "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange".
And you will never get another reminder, unless you really don't care...
Hint: You can delete all these reminders, unless you enjoy being reminded that you really really really need to check every single link you create. Took me about 7 years, btw
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
The Show preview button is right next to the Publish changes button and below the edit summary field.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Film as a Subversive Art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belle de Jour.
Have you read WP:DEADLINK? I have again noticed you deleting a dead link. You did not explain why you did this in your edit summary.[3]
There is no reason to delete to delete dead links.
Dead links can be fixed.
Bots will usually find archive copies for them. You can go to the Wayback Machine and find archive copies manually yourself if you want.
In many cases (such as Variety.com) dead links are not dead but have been moved to a different part of the same website.
In the unlikely event you do have a good reason to delete a dead link then explain it in your edit summary. -- 109.79.82.182 (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't comment because of only one change. Roger Ebert is a good example of where the link can almost always be easily replaced/updated, it is good that you fixed it. I reverted some of your deletes to the Watchmen film article too, and again links to Empire magazine can usually be fixed without needing to find archive copies.
But even when the links are dead or difficult to fix you don't need to remove them or replace them with entirely different critics like you did with A Place for Lovers. Leave the dead links and let the bots do their work and try to find archive copies.
I like fixing dead links, too. Couldn't find the originals, so I found what are "reliable sources". It's also a pet peeve of mine that some pages are incomplete. Espngeek (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting dead links is not constructive![4] Do not do it. Your edit was not constructive and I have reverted it. I seriously hope you haven't been doing this since the last time I asked you to stop and try to learn more before deleting.
There's a significant difference between something with a dead source and (apparently) no source at all. Just because you cannot fix it, does not mean no fix is possible. Do not delete dead links. -- 109.76.192.128 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Midnight movie, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New York and Repo Man.
I noticed you added many many Navboxes to the article Meet the Feebles. Please do not add Navboxes indiscriminately to an article.
I am skeptical of Navboxes in general, half of readers (mobile devices) will never see them. Please note: "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article."
In this case all the Navboxes were for Awards that this film did not win, and were not relevant.
The WP:NAVBOX guidelines say "The subject of the template should be mentioned in every article" or to put it another way if Meet the Feebles is not in the Navbox, then the Navbox should not be in the Meet the Feebles article. Hope that makes it clearer.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fantastic Animation Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bob Gardiner.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Caillou into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI!22:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you've been contributing a lot of extra references to Music (2021 film), might I recommend when adding references/citations you either use the visual editor, or learn how to write full references as opposed to merely including them as external links. It is very helpful to be able to display within wikipedia information about the site, author, when it was written, and when it was accessed (as well as being able to include archive links where acquired)! 94.13.35.21 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw that you deleted a bunch of references and citations from Twilight Zone: The Movie, many of which were used to verify potentially contentious claims, with no explanation beyond the word "Unnecessary", so I'm here to tell you that you really should read through Wikipedia:Verifiability. It's a Core Content Policy of Wikipedia, so editing in ignorance of it could get you into trouble. Given that you've been on Wikipedia for a while, such edits might even be presumed to be WP:Vandalism.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Academy Film Archive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Howard Smith.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is the second time I've seen you write some sort of "BLM is immune to criticism" or "no one is allowed to criticize BLM at all" comment on the talk page. Now you're changing other editors' posts. Please, stop being vague, stick to references, sources, what, specifically, should or shouldn't be included in the article, and don't worry about altering other editors' posts. Thanks. ---Sluzzelintalk21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Star Wars Holiday Special, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Murphy.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Eccentric Cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sean Baker.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Postmodernist film into Modernist film. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pulitzer Prize for Music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria Schneider.
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Monty Python and the Holy Grail, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kiss of the Tarantula (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American.
I reverted your addition of the category "films about pedophilia". Just because a character mentions once, that another minor character was a "pedophile" ("a pederast, actually"), does not mean that is the film is "about". Tbh, I initially thought this was a vandalism edit by a new user or a sock, but I see that you are actually an established editor (w/ 40k edits) so I have to wonder, and ask; why would you add that category? - wolf16:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Your recent editing history at Future funk shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
arbitrarily adding multiple bundled references to support minor claims when one reference does the job just fine (WP:CITATIONOVERKILL).
adding sources that you have not actually read to support your original research (WP:OR). You most recently added this link to the future funk article even though the word future funk" is never used by the author.
adding bare-url citations (WP:BAREURLS). I've noticed other editors have voiced concerns to you about this habit in the past.
using user-generated websites and student newspapers as sources (WP:BLOGS). You've been editing for several years and you still don't know that Whosampled and Discogs aren't OK on Wikipedia?
If you can't learn how to properly cite sources, or learn how to add content to Wikipedia without breaking WP:OR, I'll have to report you to admin noticeboard for burdening editors with your persistent sloppy work. I've rarely seen an edit from you that improved any article. ili (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete useful content just because a citation has gone dead. Instead, note on the Talk page that the link has gone dead, and ask editors to update the link, if you cannot find it yourself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carter's Little Liver Pills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mashup.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devonian Wombat was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Source 1 is the only one that definitely contributes to notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Please Hold (2020 film) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Please Hold (2020 film), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Wes Anderson, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your edits to this page, but please see WP:CATVER, esp. the bit that reads - "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me17:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should know that it is not a good idea to remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Thank you.
Hi, you may have noticed that I recently reverted some edits of yours, where you removed dead links/references (edit1, edit2, edit3, edit4, edit5, edit6, edit7). Not only did most of the removed refs/urls have archived version in the web archive (one even already had a working archive url in the ref template); even if they don't, dead links should not be removed simply because you "[c]ouldn't find the article to replace [it]" or "don't know how to archive". Please see WP:DEADREF for a step-by-step guideline on how to deal with dead links. If you really don't want to get into that or can't follow that guideline, I suggest you leave dead links alone altogether or limit yourself to tagging them (with {{dead link}}), if you come across them. (Side note: if you, as suggested by multiple other editors in the past, would start using proper ref templates, you'd actually make it easier for bots to automatically add archive links and thus would need to deal less with them yourself.) Felida97 (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. If you continue to attempt to make these kinds of unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, we may very well find ourselves at WP:ANI and you may be blocked from editing.
Since my last notice/warning, you simply removed dead links on three more occasions (edit1, edit2, edit3), once with the edit summary "dead link". These refs again had either an archive link available or already linked to a working archived version. So, once again: "Do not delete a citation merely because the URL is not working." Also again: if you don't want repair/fix dead links (as outlined in WP:DEADREF), that's fine, but then just leave them alone or tag them with {{dead link}} and move on. Note: You also should not replace a dead link with a {{cn}} tag as you did here, unless you have gone through the other five steps outlined in WP:DEADREF. Felida97 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Espngeek, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username FormalDude, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Maat Means Land, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maat Means Land.
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|FormalDude}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello, Espngeek, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Yeeno, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, To Catch a Yeti, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Catch a Yeti.
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Yeeno}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello, Espngeek, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Yeeno, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Setting Up a Room, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Setting Up a Room.
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Yeeno}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trains in art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hart Benton.
Noticing your recent edit on List of films considered the worst, I must inform you that the Channel Awesome scandal, especially given what it detailed, doesn’t make it an unreliable source. I think it’s more the popularity (or in some cases, notoriety) of the reviewer that determines whether it’s worth adding or not. Heck, this page lists the Cinema Snob who’s decidedly not as well-known. Look, I feel the same about the Channel Awesome fiasco just as anyone else, and I’m not really a fan of NC for that matter. But contempt over what happened is no excuse to remove content such as this from a page.
Crummymummy (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Espngeek. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Please Hold (2020 film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Story of Film: An Odyssey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollywood.
Hello Espngeek. Regarding your recent work on Adele One Night Only, the sentence "At the 74th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards, Adele One Night Only earned a total of five awards from five nominations." should return in the lead - which summarizes the key points of the article. There are now two awards sections, and because of that, readers won't scroll down to see the table that gives the complete information. Oroborvs (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you copied or moved text from Auteur into List of video game auteurs. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Games (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello, Espngeek, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username VickKiang, and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Fun in Balloon Land, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun in Balloon Land.
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Fun in Balloon Land. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. VickKiang(talk)22:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to The Player (1992 film), please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Quaemenelimbus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chris Marker without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Quaemenelimbus (🗨 here) ^_^15:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Minimalist film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assault on Precinct 13.
Hi, I declined your CSD tagging of Bisexual lighting[5] because "some say it's just a theory" does not fit any valid criterion for speedy deletion. A previous AfD, in fact, concluded that it's sufficiently well-documented (theory or not) in reliable sources to merit an article. If you believe this article does not belong on Wikipedia, you may consider a second AfD, though I doubt the outcome will be different. Complex/Rational15:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Espngeek. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of video game auteurs, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
I had only limited it to LGBTQ rep, as that was on the previous page, but I realize now that it was too limiting, so I'm glad you expanded that. I really appreciate that. I'll add anything else I know into that section to make it even larger. Historyday01 (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Disney Speedstorm instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Disney Speedstorm and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Sorry about that I didn't know that the production of the Brave Little Toaster was independent I thought the movie was a disney production (although it was but the company lost the rights) until around 90s that Disney came back with the film rights to distribute on home video and then released two sequels and that's also why the film is not on Disney+ (I found out that there is only in some territory Like for example america since the film is not on Disney+ in Brazil the country I live in, only the sequels) laughs laughs thanks for reading! LeronJomes (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Popular mainstream studio productions of films with strong Christian messages or Biblical stories, such as Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, The Prince of Egypt, The Robe, Sergeant York, The Blind Side, The Book of Eli, Machine Gun Preacher, Risen, Hacksaw Ridge, and Silence, are not specifically part of the Christian film industry, being more agnostic about their audiences' religious beliefs." Espngeek (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Nineties (book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dazed and Confused.
Hi. I noticed you've added rediscovered film categories to a lot of articles that don't mention anything of the films having been lost or rediscovered at all. Many of these mention that they were featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000, which again, doesn't seem to say anything about loss or rediscoverey. Is there something I'm missing? --Paul_012 (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now seen the ANI thread where it was explained to you that that's not what lost and rediscovered films mean. Please stop making such improper additions. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this:
This category is for films that were produced and released, but were assumed lost, faded into obscurity and/or later found again.
The "faded into obscurity" part simply does not reflect how normal people understand the term. I must strongly ask that you stop trying to force your opinion here. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, the films and filmmakers listed in the article Indiewood should all be part of the American independent film movement. The article should not include films that were produced without any American involvement (Japan, France, Australia, the UK, etc. are not part of the American independent film movement). Furthermore, just because someone has made an independent film does not mean that that film is part of Indiewood nor that the director is therefore a notable "Indiewood filmmaker". Please do not confuse "independent film" with "Indiewood". They are not the same thing. You appear to have made the overwhelming majority of these incorrect additions by conflating "indie" with "Indiewood" and automatically assuming that anyone who has ever made an independent film is therefore a notable "Indiewood filmmaker". I would like to kindly ask you to go through the additions and remove all of the non-American films and filmmakers that were incorrectly added. Nicholas0 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Espngek, I see here that you are familiar with Australian New Wave. I am not entirely familiar with the criteria, but would have thought that Phar Lap is a definite candidade. Could you weigh in? Regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Crunchydillpickle was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Peak TV. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please use edit summaries (see your edits to Cinéma vérité, for example)
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DoctorMatt (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Apologies about my large revert, thought that the edits to the lead was too much and changed the page (especially the lead) also too much without discussion. Probably lots of good material in your changes. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, except for the lead for now, which had been well worked out, although other editors may like yours better. Maybe talk page some of the main points. Cutting down the counterprogramming section is a great idea (although it could probably stay lower on the page than you've put it). Thanks for focusing on the page which will surely improve it. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are combining two different things to create a connection that isn't specified in references. Basically, you need a reference for this stuff, with the source mentioning both awards together. It's not that hard to understand. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just because I said so. You have been violating the hard policy of WP:SYNTH, which is about combining sources to create a new conclusion. You haven't been citing your sources in these award lists, but of course you must be referring back and forth between separate lists of Oscar winners and lists of other award winners to create this synthesis. The synthesis is there despite your lack of citations.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Golden Raspberry Awards. How many times will I give you a final warning against violations of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH? You keep doing it, and you have never promised to stop doing it. Two days ago, you added some cites to the page but none of the cites mentioned Raspberry or Razzie at all. On January 22 you made a series of addtions none of which talked about how the Razzie and the other honor were won by the same film or person. When I cleaned up the page, I ended up removing 30 kb of material that you had added alongside other contributors such as Renebird100. Read my post at Talk:Golden Raspberry Awards for more about why this is wrong.Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
So I speculate: are you in a manic editing state, and nothing — nothing — is allowed to slow you down? Do you fancy yourself a Nietzchean Übermensch, superior to the convention of slave morality that calls for including an edit summary with every edit? Are you one of those who cannot take a gentle reminder to include an edit summary? Do you have a wager over how many edits you can make without an edit summary before you forget and accidentally include an edit summary, or regarding how many times some other editor or their bot will remind you to write an edit summary?
Inquiring minds want to know! – but more, we would like to start seeing edit summaries in your edits. Meanwhile please excuse this admmittedly excessive addition to your Talk page, where I am not the first to write about your omission, deliberate or (incredible if true) accidental, of edit summaries.
Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the list of your contributions yesterday, of which the following is only part. Where are the edit summaries? And I see from your Talk page that you've been requested quite a few times already to include edit summaries. Here's the list. Please let me know if I'm missing something.
(I note that your edit just after you wrote your response to me includes an edit summary. I do appreciate that, even though the summary is not illuminating without a follow-up comparison of the old and new versions.)
Thanks for your contributions to Public Obscenities. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DoctorMatt (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Public Obscenities, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Please don't keep removing the stub templates in Postmodern horror, because the sections with them are not very much improved or expanded. The lead section and the background section are still too short and not very clear. If you would like to remove them, discuss your points in Talk:Postmodern horror. --saebou (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Please stop removing citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. If you continue to attempt to make these kinds of unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, we may very well find ourselves at WP:ANI and you may be blocked from editing.
