Cinderella III: A Twist in Time was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 2, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Walt Disney, literary piracy
15 Nov 2009 15:40
Fariorz Rowshanekr, the Iranian script writer, has started a weblog revealing the truth about Walt Disney’s literary theft. In this blog, he has published for the public all his corresponding with Walt Disney in pdf format. IBNA: The dramatic news that has spread recently through the press was an assertion based on weighty documentations.
Fariorz Rowshanekr, the Iranian script writer, has started a weblog revealing the truth about Walt Disney’s literary theft. In this blog, he has published for the public all his corresponding with Walt Disney in pdf format.
Also, two complete autopsy pictures of Cinderella III and his spec script, reached Walt Disney 8 year prior to release of Cinderella III, has been placed in his blog.
Fariborz Rowshanfekr told the press: “In October 1999, I sent a letter to Walt Disney, suggesting a new story for Cinderella series.
In this spec script, devil takes the magic wand from the fairy and captures her. Hence, Devil puts Cinderella and the prince in the magic twister of time and returns them to days before their good fortune.”
He added: “I explained to Walt Disney officials the logic for this story as existence of many Cinderellas in this world who never find the chance to meet a fairy or their prince charming.
Hence, it is better to show people their own fairy of perseverance rather than the outside fairy of desire,’ ‘A month later, I received a letter from Walt Disney saying the company’s long established policy does not allow them to accept or review ideas, suggestions, or creative materials not solicited by them or their subsidiaries. The company sent me an application form of many pages that I did not fill it in.”
“After a while, a person from Walt Disney called me and said my story was poetic and fascinating, but the company is not interested to make another Cinderella cartoon as it is a holy figure of the company. Interestingly, he tried to persuade me to apply for a job in Walt Disney that was none of my interest and I tired to forget everything,” Rowshanfekr continued. “Three years later, Cinderella II was released that was not related to my original story. However, I remembered those words about the termination of Cinderella for Walt Disney and their decision of not making another cartoon for it.”
The script writer added: “After a few years, one of my translator friends congratulated me on Cinderella III release, as he knew about my spec script on Cinderella story. He said: “Congratulations! They stole your story without even one change in dramatic structure.”
To answer the question if all the documents are placed in his blog Rowshanfekr said: “As my lawyers recommended, I did not place all documentations in my blog. The rest of them are to be presented to the court of law.”
The script writer, also, has sent his gravamen to World Intellectual Property Organization , writers Guild of America, and American Court of Justice to claim his legal right.
Additionally, Rowshanfekr handed a copy of his documentations to Farhad Tohidi, the head of Iranian screen writers, before his visit to Oscar Academy. Rowshanfekr mentioned that Tohidi examined the documentations and promised to help as these evidences were strong enough to claim Rowshanfekr’s right.
In Iranian commission’s meeting with Oscar Academy officials, Rowshanfer’s legal documentations shocked the American panel. Fortunately, they introduced a person to Iranian commission who could give juridical advice on this issue.
Rowshanfekr would like to ask all liberal members of cinema, especially script writers, around the world to visit his blog and check the documentations.
It is not just about Mr. Rowshanfekr, it is about all script writers.
If you type in Google browser for “literary theft & Walt Disney” in Persian language, you can find the news about Walt Disney’s literary theft from Fariborz Rowshanekr – an Iranian scriptwriter- as one of the most prominent national headlines.
For more details log on to
http://cinderellaiii.blogsky.com
The Wikipedia article credits Steve Bencich and Ron J. Friedman as writers on this film, but IMDb doesn't. Is IMDb wrong, or are we? If it's IMDb, could we have a citation for Bencich and Friedman's work on this film? Thanks. Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
IMDb isn't always right, as I have found out in the recent years.But it might be best to leave it out for the time being. JakeTheBlake 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the lengthy list of Goofs in accordance with wiki policy. (See WP:TRIV) I've saved them here in case anyone wants to submit them to IMDB, which does allow goof listings. Annie D 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manny H88 ( talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am interested in expanding on the implications of time travel in Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, specifically on how the fairy godmother is involved in the alternate timeline. I would like to add a section to this page; below is the draft of the section I'd like to add.
Cinderella III Alternate Timeline Consequences
After finishing Cinderella III: Twist in Time, my sister Fiona and I both asked the question: What happened to the fairy godmother? If she was turned to stone in the original timeline, then shouldn't the alternate one be completely messed up somehow? So we made some diagrams to make this a little clearer.
We can boil down each timeline into 3 significant parts. In the original timeline, the significant parts (at least in relation to the time twist in the third movie) are the Fairy Intervention, Cinderella Fits the Slipper (which is screwed up in the alternate timeline), and the Time Twist itself. In the Alternate Timeline, the Fairy had already helped Cinderella, effectively eliminating her from the picture anyway, since the only thing she did after that was show up at the wedding. This is fortunate, because she isn't there when Cinderella watches the slipper fit Anastasia, as that would have messed up everything. So, the 3 most important parts in the Alternate timeline are: the Fairy Intervention, the Anastasia slipper wearing, and the end where Everyone Gets What they Deserve. Lets break that down into simpler timelines.
In the original timeline, A leads to B, which ends up in Cinderella's marriage. That leads to the vengeful stepmother creating C, which reversed Cinderella's past to just before point B, which then changed to point D. Remember, the Stepmother reversed time to when Cinderella would have put on the slipper and been proclaimed princess. This means that the fairy godmother has already played her significant part in Cinderella's tale, and isn't seen again 'til the wedding. Since the Stepmother and "evil" stepsisters didn't encounter copies of themselves when they transported into the alternate timeline, we can only assume that the Fairy Godmother wouldn't have either, and since she shows up later in the movie (around E) we can assume that she was also transported into the alternate timeline, if at a different place. This would mean that from point D, the Fairy Godmother as we knew her in the original timeline ceased to exist and was replaced with the one encased in stone. Eventually, someone found the statue and thought to move it into the throne room where Anastasia would marry the prince. Or perhaps it just appeared in the room and no one thought anything of it.
Sabrinarucker ( talk) 23:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Please read WP:FORUM. That is an interesting idea, but this is not the right place to share it. You might want to try the fan boards. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 04:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Cinderella III: A Twist in Time. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The absolutely most interesting thing with this movie is the development of Cinderellas younger stepsister who finally succeds to break away from her mothers domination and go better ways.In the beginning Anastasia does Not run away to avoid work; She is thrown out of the house during a fight with her sister. It may well be part of lady tremaines ruler- techniques to play her daughters out against each other. One of the funniest scenes is when Anastasia is supposed to dance with the prince and demonstrates that se has two left-feet. The king however finds Anastasias attempts rather touching. He is another character and character-role who is somewhat developed and deepened in this movie. The following scene with the king and Anastasia is perhaps the most important in the film.He lectures her about True love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 ( talk) 08:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The absolutely most interesting thing with this movie is the development of Cinderellas younger stepsister who finally succeds to break away from her mothers domination and go better ways.In the beginning Anastasia does Not run away to avoid work; She is thrown out of the house during a fight with her sister. It may well be part of lady tremaines ruler- techniques to play her daughters out against each other. One of the funniest scenes is when Anastasia is supposed to dance with the prince and demonstrates that se has two left-feet. The king however finds Anastasias attempts rather touching. He is another character and character-role who is somewhat developed and deepened in this movie. The following scene with the king and Anastasia is perhaps the most important in the film.He lectures her about True love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 ( talk) 08:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
No point in having two completely alike stepsisters. I must say that I can see no point in having two stepsisters if there is no real difference between them and their roles. Having one good and one bad is quite right. Also cinderella is often - and with some reason - critizized for being a meek and passive female character. A tougher and more feisty but basically good stepsister might make up for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 ( talk) 7:49 am, 12 September 2017, Tuesday (7 months, 1 day ago) (UTC−4)
|
I felt the need to include Cinderella witnessing Anastasia refusing to marry the Prince, Cinderella protecting Anastasia from Lady Tremaine when she attempts to get revenge on her daughter for not going through with her plan, and finally, the subsequent reconciliation between the two when Anastasia reverted to her original form, as the articled did not include this prior to my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberJudoon ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the wording of this line "The king orders his guards to seize Lady Tremaine. In a fit of lust and with no fear, Lady Tremaine immediately uses the wand and turns them all into various animals as they all lunge for her, so they can't get to her, while Drizella tells her to turn Anastasia into a toad." to 'The king order his guards to seize Lady Tremaine who uses the wand to turn the guards into animals.' 2604:3D08:757F:FC3A:FD94:F3A0:6B77:903E ( talk) 17:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel) 17:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Images are appropriately tagged.
go to, but a ref isn't reliable just because we use it at WP (in fact, before The Daily Mail is deprecated it was cited lots of times), if you could find a couple of other RS using it, that's an indication it's a well-respected ref. Essentially, the about us page is an ad for this person, along with the line
Please hire him, backed up by no evidence. This might be just because I'm silly:), but somehow I couldn't find where it's used The Simpsons (season 13), a Command F search also didn't find any, strangely... VickKiang ( talk) 22:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
arbitary? Still, the refs that cite it looks quite convincing, so I guess it should be fine for GA for uncontroversial topics that don't fall under 2b, probably. VickKiang ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to pause the review until these are resolved, as removing these might change the text of the article substantially. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I've posted at WP:RSN as well and have pinged you to that thread. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Changedforbetter, without more evidence I'm not going to pass this with animesuperhero.com and animatedviews.com in the article. That would tear a big hole in it and I think I'd probably have to fail it anyway while you cut that material out and rewrote. If you're convinced they ought to stay, I suggest that I fail this GA while you work on finding evidence that they are reliable. Any future GA reviewer will read this review and ask the same questions, so I think there's no point in just delaying. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
37.26.83.179 ( talk) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I like to change the run time to 74 minutes Super Chow58 ( talk) 12:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Cinderella III: A Twist in Time was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 2, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Walt Disney, literary piracy
15 Nov 2009 15:40
Fariorz Rowshanekr, the Iranian script writer, has started a weblog revealing the truth about Walt Disney’s literary theft. In this blog, he has published for the public all his corresponding with Walt Disney in pdf format. IBNA: The dramatic news that has spread recently through the press was an assertion based on weighty documentations.
Fariorz Rowshanekr, the Iranian script writer, has started a weblog revealing the truth about Walt Disney’s literary theft. In this blog, he has published for the public all his corresponding with Walt Disney in pdf format.
Also, two complete autopsy pictures of Cinderella III and his spec script, reached Walt Disney 8 year prior to release of Cinderella III, has been placed in his blog.
Fariborz Rowshanfekr told the press: “In October 1999, I sent a letter to Walt Disney, suggesting a new story for Cinderella series.
In this spec script, devil takes the magic wand from the fairy and captures her. Hence, Devil puts Cinderella and the prince in the magic twister of time and returns them to days before their good fortune.”
He added: “I explained to Walt Disney officials the logic for this story as existence of many Cinderellas in this world who never find the chance to meet a fairy or their prince charming.
Hence, it is better to show people their own fairy of perseverance rather than the outside fairy of desire,’ ‘A month later, I received a letter from Walt Disney saying the company’s long established policy does not allow them to accept or review ideas, suggestions, or creative materials not solicited by them or their subsidiaries. The company sent me an application form of many pages that I did not fill it in.”
“After a while, a person from Walt Disney called me and said my story was poetic and fascinating, but the company is not interested to make another Cinderella cartoon as it is a holy figure of the company. Interestingly, he tried to persuade me to apply for a job in Walt Disney that was none of my interest and I tired to forget everything,” Rowshanfekr continued. “Three years later, Cinderella II was released that was not related to my original story. However, I remembered those words about the termination of Cinderella for Walt Disney and their decision of not making another cartoon for it.”
The script writer added: “After a few years, one of my translator friends congratulated me on Cinderella III release, as he knew about my spec script on Cinderella story. He said: “Congratulations! They stole your story without even one change in dramatic structure.”
To answer the question if all the documents are placed in his blog Rowshanfekr said: “As my lawyers recommended, I did not place all documentations in my blog. The rest of them are to be presented to the court of law.”
The script writer, also, has sent his gravamen to World Intellectual Property Organization , writers Guild of America, and American Court of Justice to claim his legal right.
Additionally, Rowshanfekr handed a copy of his documentations to Farhad Tohidi, the head of Iranian screen writers, before his visit to Oscar Academy. Rowshanfekr mentioned that Tohidi examined the documentations and promised to help as these evidences were strong enough to claim Rowshanfekr’s right.
In Iranian commission’s meeting with Oscar Academy officials, Rowshanfer’s legal documentations shocked the American panel. Fortunately, they introduced a person to Iranian commission who could give juridical advice on this issue.
Rowshanfekr would like to ask all liberal members of cinema, especially script writers, around the world to visit his blog and check the documentations.
It is not just about Mr. Rowshanfekr, it is about all script writers.
If you type in Google browser for “literary theft & Walt Disney” in Persian language, you can find the news about Walt Disney’s literary theft from Fariborz Rowshanekr – an Iranian scriptwriter- as one of the most prominent national headlines.
For more details log on to
http://cinderellaiii.blogsky.com
The Wikipedia article credits Steve Bencich and Ron J. Friedman as writers on this film, but IMDb doesn't. Is IMDb wrong, or are we? If it's IMDb, could we have a citation for Bencich and Friedman's work on this film? Thanks. Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 21:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
IMDb isn't always right, as I have found out in the recent years.But it might be best to leave it out for the time being. JakeTheBlake 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the lengthy list of Goofs in accordance with wiki policy. (See WP:TRIV) I've saved them here in case anyone wants to submit them to IMDB, which does allow goof listings. Annie D 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manny H88 ( talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I am interested in expanding on the implications of time travel in Cinderella III: A Twist in Time, specifically on how the fairy godmother is involved in the alternate timeline. I would like to add a section to this page; below is the draft of the section I'd like to add.
Cinderella III Alternate Timeline Consequences
After finishing Cinderella III: Twist in Time, my sister Fiona and I both asked the question: What happened to the fairy godmother? If she was turned to stone in the original timeline, then shouldn't the alternate one be completely messed up somehow? So we made some diagrams to make this a little clearer.
We can boil down each timeline into 3 significant parts. In the original timeline, the significant parts (at least in relation to the time twist in the third movie) are the Fairy Intervention, Cinderella Fits the Slipper (which is screwed up in the alternate timeline), and the Time Twist itself. In the Alternate Timeline, the Fairy had already helped Cinderella, effectively eliminating her from the picture anyway, since the only thing she did after that was show up at the wedding. This is fortunate, because she isn't there when Cinderella watches the slipper fit Anastasia, as that would have messed up everything. So, the 3 most important parts in the Alternate timeline are: the Fairy Intervention, the Anastasia slipper wearing, and the end where Everyone Gets What they Deserve. Lets break that down into simpler timelines.
In the original timeline, A leads to B, which ends up in Cinderella's marriage. That leads to the vengeful stepmother creating C, which reversed Cinderella's past to just before point B, which then changed to point D. Remember, the Stepmother reversed time to when Cinderella would have put on the slipper and been proclaimed princess. This means that the fairy godmother has already played her significant part in Cinderella's tale, and isn't seen again 'til the wedding. Since the Stepmother and "evil" stepsisters didn't encounter copies of themselves when they transported into the alternate timeline, we can only assume that the Fairy Godmother wouldn't have either, and since she shows up later in the movie (around E) we can assume that she was also transported into the alternate timeline, if at a different place. This would mean that from point D, the Fairy Godmother as we knew her in the original timeline ceased to exist and was replaced with the one encased in stone. Eventually, someone found the statue and thought to move it into the throne room where Anastasia would marry the prince. Or perhaps it just appeared in the room and no one thought anything of it.
Sabrinarucker ( talk) 23:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Please read WP:FORUM. That is an interesting idea, but this is not the right place to share it. You might want to try the fan boards. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 04:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Cinderella III: A Twist in Time. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The absolutely most interesting thing with this movie is the development of Cinderellas younger stepsister who finally succeds to break away from her mothers domination and go better ways.In the beginning Anastasia does Not run away to avoid work; She is thrown out of the house during a fight with her sister. It may well be part of lady tremaines ruler- techniques to play her daughters out against each other. One of the funniest scenes is when Anastasia is supposed to dance with the prince and demonstrates that se has two left-feet. The king however finds Anastasias attempts rather touching. He is another character and character-role who is somewhat developed and deepened in this movie. The following scene with the king and Anastasia is perhaps the most important in the film.He lectures her about True love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 ( talk) 08:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The absolutely most interesting thing with this movie is the development of Cinderellas younger stepsister who finally succeds to break away from her mothers domination and go better ways.In the beginning Anastasia does Not run away to avoid work; She is thrown out of the house during a fight with her sister. It may well be part of lady tremaines ruler- techniques to play her daughters out against each other. One of the funniest scenes is when Anastasia is supposed to dance with the prince and demonstrates that se has two left-feet. The king however finds Anastasias attempts rather touching. He is another character and character-role who is somewhat developed and deepened in this movie. The following scene with the king and Anastasia is perhaps the most important in the film.He lectures her about True love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 ( talk) 08:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
No point in having two completely alike stepsisters. I must say that I can see no point in having two stepsisters if there is no real difference between them and their roles. Having one good and one bad is quite right. Also cinderella is often - and with some reason - critizized for being a meek and passive female character. A tougher and more feisty but basically good stepsister might make up for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.31.203 ( talk) 7:49 am, 12 September 2017, Tuesday (7 months, 1 day ago) (UTC−4)
|
I felt the need to include Cinderella witnessing Anastasia refusing to marry the Prince, Cinderella protecting Anastasia from Lady Tremaine when she attempts to get revenge on her daughter for not going through with her plan, and finally, the subsequent reconciliation between the two when Anastasia reverted to her original form, as the articled did not include this prior to my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberJudoon ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the wording of this line "The king orders his guards to seize Lady Tremaine. In a fit of lust and with no fear, Lady Tremaine immediately uses the wand and turns them all into various animals as they all lunge for her, so they can't get to her, while Drizella tells her to turn Anastasia into a toad." to 'The king order his guards to seize Lady Tremaine who uses the wand to turn the guards into animals.' 2604:3D08:757F:FC3A:FD94:F3A0:6B77:903E ( talk) 17:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. -
FlightTime (
open channel) 17:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Images are appropriately tagged.
go to, but a ref isn't reliable just because we use it at WP (in fact, before The Daily Mail is deprecated it was cited lots of times), if you could find a couple of other RS using it, that's an indication it's a well-respected ref. Essentially, the about us page is an ad for this person, along with the line
Please hire him, backed up by no evidence. This might be just because I'm silly:), but somehow I couldn't find where it's used The Simpsons (season 13), a Command F search also didn't find any, strangely... VickKiang ( talk) 22:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
arbitary? Still, the refs that cite it looks quite convincing, so I guess it should be fine for GA for uncontroversial topics that don't fall under 2b, probably. VickKiang ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to pause the review until these are resolved, as removing these might change the text of the article substantially. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I've posted at WP:RSN as well and have pinged you to that thread. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Changedforbetter, without more evidence I'm not going to pass this with animesuperhero.com and animatedviews.com in the article. That would tear a big hole in it and I think I'd probably have to fail it anyway while you cut that material out and rewrote. If you're convinced they ought to stay, I suggest that I fail this GA while you work on finding evidence that they are reliable. Any future GA reviewer will read this review and ask the same questions, so I think there's no point in just delaying. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
37.26.83.179 ( talk) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I like to change the run time to 74 minutes Super Chow58 ( talk) 12:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)