This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
HI Charlr6/Charlr6 Archive 1. A UK school, Kingsley College, Redditch, you have created or contributed to has been updated. You may want to keep this page on your watchlist. You may also wish to stay up to date with developments o Wikipedia school articles by visiting the Wikipedia Schools Project pages.-- Kudpung ( talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The age of Hanna in the film is 14. Saoirse Ronan the actress who played her in the film was 17 when she made it. Tabercil ( talk) 13:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
In the film it says that Marissa killed her mother 15 years ago. It has a flashback scene of them driving in the car and Hanna is obviously a baby of about a year old in it. I saw the film two times and I remember that because I really liked that scene. Those aren't proof, those's are just short reviews and synposis of the film. You want the real proof? Go watch the film again. It is coming out soon on DVD/Blu-Ray in the UK and I have pre-ordered it and I will re-watch the film and come back.
[ [1]] Have a look there. It says Hanna's age is 14, but the script had some re-writes until being shot and edited and is based in 2010-2011.
It says in the flashback scene, taking place in 1995 "A man, a younger ERIK HELLER crawls out. He is holding a two year old child in his hands." If she is two years old she was born in 1993. If anything you should be looking for actual proof for the year it is set.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Nigahiga, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. 117Avenue ( talk) 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
-- Charlr6 ( talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha, it's ok. Whenever I try to find info out about an actor, I look them up and when I find what I want I try to quickly add it to IMDB or Wikipedia so people who want to know that information can find it on here or IMDB. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 15:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced rumours or gossip to pages, as you did to James Bond in film. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 12:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In This Is England '88, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Jack Thorne ( 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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Troll Hunter (2014 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll Hunter (2014 film) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove the {{ copyvio}} template from articles, as you did with Titanic (2012 mini-series). Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Cloudz 679 17:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. But there was no copyright being broken. I was trying to create a link to the ITV1 page for the Titanic miniseries and I copied the address over and the link didn't work the first time and it thought it was breaking copyright. I was not breaking copyright, a bot or whoever Cloudz679 is added it in without realising what the problem was. I was still editing the page and fixing links.
I would appriciate if you could look into this matter and take the 'copyright' thing off. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 17:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
How long would it take for a administrator to check it out do you think? And like I said, it was just a link mistake. There wasn't any 'offending material'. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 18:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Titanic (2012 mini-series). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 18:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It is created because there was an accidentally 'copyright issue' on the actual page and Cloud679 said that it would be possible for me to continue editing the page on the template page. Look at the "December 2011" part above to see proof. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 18:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Titanic (2012 mini-series). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Titanic (2012 mini-series) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 18:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Look, the reason it is copied is because of a copyright issue on the actual page and Cloudy679 suggested that I could continue editing it on that page, so I copied all of the information over onto the template thread as suggested by Cloudy679.
Please read "December 2011" and see the proof. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Titanic (2012 mini-series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First Officer ( 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Charl6. Just wanted to point out the reason editors are removing the UK date. It's because of WP:FILM guidelines here, which state, "The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by sources such as the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." Thanks for understanding. With regards, Tenebrae ( talk) 15:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
It's one release date, I'm not listing all of the release dates in the world and it isn't creating a huge new section on the page. I've actually seen quite a lot of films on Wiki that have more than two release dates. The 'guidelines' is pointless. When people want to come onto Wikipedia to look up a film they want to find out stuff about it like the critical reception or the release date or who is starring in it. There shouldn't be guidelines for the release date, it should have the release date of the Top 5 most important countries in the world. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 19:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Charlr6,
Thank you for your considerable support on the above discussion. I added the entry on the article entitled List of English-language films based on foreign-language films on December 12, last year, believing it to qualify totally. Imagine my reaction to this idiotic behaviour from a person who is not prepared to register and log-in, and then, since January 7, persues an aggressive attitude from the start, accusing me of vandalism on January 8, when the opposite is true.
I refuse to be bullied, and I shall now re-instate my edit.
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 15:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Charlr6, you wrote in an edit summary: "The definition of a remake is to 'renew' and that's what this film does, it 'renews'." This is incorrect. If you check the Remake page it clearly states that a "remake" is "A remake is a piece of media based primarily on an earlier work of the same medium.". If your definition were correct, then even the 2009 film adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo would be a "remake" since it "renews" the novel in another medium. It is clear that English is not your first language from your comments, so you might want to be a bit careful about being so certain that you understand the nuances of the meanings of particular words in English. You also should try to avoid making comments like "other posters have been behaving idiotically". Wikipedia has rules about civility, and this is a violation of that. 99.192.88.202 ( talk) 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Charlr6,
Visit my Gareth Griffith-Jones/talk page and you will see that this anon has taken the above subject onto my page too. Another User noticed this and replied to the anon there, addressing him with the above Wiki term. An appropriate title for someone who has the advantage of being non-approachable when it suits, I believe, and on the way to becoming a serial lurker.
Well done to you for standing up to this person so bravely.
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 11:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought you might want to know that the discussion on the talk page of the 2011 film has started up again by "a new guy", and what's more our lurker is back busy replying, would you believe... incredible, isn't it?
What's more, "the new guy" visited my talk page this morning.
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 16:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello again,
Have just read your notes re: your planned novel and progress to-date on your User page. Sounds good. A man of many talents.
All the best,
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 12:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 15:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Just thought that you might like this:
This user thinks that registration should be required to articles. |
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 08:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC) ... and this one?
This user enjoys reading fiction. |
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have read that you are a fan of Doctor Who ... I watched "the David Tennant episodes", but have seen none with the his successor (how does he compare?) ... and thought you might want this to add to your User page:
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 11:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you've made this edit at least 12 times on this article, now, because it is on my watchlist for some reason. (I probably reverted some vandalism there once). I don't disagree with the change you are making, and the discussion you reference does show good support from the users who commented. I couldn't find the RFC they discuss, though, so at the moment it doesn't seem as though they've got as far as updating any guidelines yet. As I say, I agree with the change - "universal acclaim" is a bad term, unlikely to be accurate, and far too subjective IMO.
The reason I thought I'd post here is that, before this point, if I were you, I would certainly have started a discussion on the article talk page, to establish a consensus for that change on that article which will be easy to refer to, otherwise I think you may end up reverting for ever in a kind of "slow edit war". If you do decide to start such a discussion, and I forget to turn up to comment in support of the change, please feel free to "ping" me. Cheers. Begoon talk 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
One other little thing I noticed is the edit summary you are using. You might not realise you can use wikilinks in edit summaries, so you could do something like:
Neutral language is preferred in film review summaries, avoiding terms like "acclaimed" or "panned". See [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Neutral language in critical reception|this discussion at WikiProject Film]].
- giving
Neutral language is preferred in film review summaries, avoiding terms like "acclaimed" or "panned". See this discussion at WikiProject Film.
as an edit summary, with nice blue links in History and Recent changes for people to click and find the discussion. As I say, it's a little thing, but helps a bit with edits like this imo. Begoon talk 08:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I have checked history log of Friends and would like you to discuss before you will be warned. Please? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Friends shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. AussieLegend ( talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed yesterday that there has been another "to'ing and fro'ing" going on. It is the mother or father issue. Which is correct? What is your opinion? At least it has all been quiet today so far. Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I have taken so long to reply. I wouldn't be able to help as I don't really have much free time at the moment and already have a few articles I am working on. When I can I will try to help make minor fixes however. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed it because there was no source. You added one great but you dont have to be rude about it. Odoital25 ( talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Um, I got rid of it before you added your source. And when I went to add it had technicall problems. Its not being lazy when my WIFIs bee acting up. So no, doesnt confirm your assumption. Only confirms your presumptious and rude. Its the responsibilty of the editor to add something. Not assume something and add it without proof. If you have no proof for a claim, it shouldnt be put. Its common sense. You don't claim something, without proof, then expect them to find proof that what you've said is wrong, when you have no proof for what you claim. Also, your accusing me of being lazy for not putting in a link to prove you were wrong for putting that back in. A) Once again, common sense. B) A previous editor ALREADY put that, and you still reverted it without proof or even reading his link, so....who is lazy then? Odoital25 ( talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I was helping, by getting rid of unsourced comments. If its unsourced, it doesn't belong on wiki, period! It was unsourced, thus shouldnt be there AT ALL. You only add when you have a source. Not an assumption. You didnt put it on, but when ever someone removed it, you kept putting it back without a source, which is the same. Then you go on some rant, further accusing me of being lazy. That is rude. Using uncivil language is rude. Your using uncivil language, which is rude. Thus, I'm not being rude but stating facts. Further, wifi has been acting up until the last hour or so. By acting up meaning I COULDNT GET ON AT ALL. Which makes your argument moot and nonsense. Odoital25 ( talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
So now you're trying to explain how you were being uncivil to other editors? You kept putting back in an unsource opinion. When an editor adds something it is there responsibility to have a source to back up the claim, and if their is no source for a claim it is not suppose to be put on here at all. Even if you didnt originally add the unsourced claim, you kept adding it when it was removed. Then when it was pointed out why you shouldnt have added it without a source you were uncivil. You say others were being lazy for removing the unsourced claim when you were the one who added it without a source. Then all I asked was for you not to be rude, and you are further uncivil. Odoital25 ( talk) 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You accused me and another editor of being lazy. And I've stated the case repeatedly. I don't have to add a source for a claim when I didnt add it. Also, when it was removed, you kept adding it back. Which IS adding it. I didnt put the claim in. You did. Whether you originally put it in or reverted the removal when it was removed is the same thing. Yet you don't see it. Also, calling editors lazy, and telling an editor what they should do when you were the one in the wrong is rude. You just don't get it. Its in the rules of wiki, you add something, its your responsibility to have a source for it. The burden of proof is with you, no one else. Also, you kept adding it without a source, even though you were told to find a source, yet tell others to do it. That is uncivil. Further, you call others lazy for removing it, when we we're not the ones putting the claim in there. Thats lazy. I'm being responsive. I'm responding to you. You just don't like to hear the facts. Further, your accusing others of laziness, yet it had to be repeatedly reverted before you would even back up what was put. Don't add something if you can't back it up period and be civil.
Hello, Charlr6. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Paranormal Activity 3. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Please don't call editors lazy. Please add the information without commenting on the editors. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 00:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
All the examples you deleted have been referred to as found footage. Serendi pod ous 12:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
You have been quiet. Trust all is well with you.
I thought that you might like to add this Indiana Jones userbox to your User page:
This user wears a fedora. |
Hope to hear from you,
Gareth Griffith-Jones (
talk) 11:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 00:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Desperate Housewives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystery ( 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey there,
Basically including the information that iTune viewer reviews have been positive (or whatever) is a kind of original research, in that you did the research and drew a conclusion based on your knowledge. If you click the previous link you'll see that this is not how things are generally done on Wikipedia. Instead what we look for is information that's been given significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. In this particular case if an independent, notable, and reliable source had remarked on how the iTune reviews were mostly positive then that information could be included in the article with a citation pointing to that source. While I have no doubt that what you included is true, the way Wikipedia works is that it's not significant (and thus appropriate for inclusion) unless/until a notable, reliable, independent source reports that information first.
Twinkle is a tool available to most logged-in editors that makes certain tasks much easier. When I saw your edit I was given the option to "rollback the edit (assuming good faith)" (the option I chose since it was clear you were trying to make a positive contribution), "rollback the edit (without judgement)", or "revert vandalism". After you choose the appropriate option you get a pop-up window that allows you to write in an edit summary (like I did) and then the Twinkle tool rolls back the edit, mentions the editors involved, and adds the "(TW)" notice to let people know that I used a largely automated tool to roll back the edit. If you spend a lot of time patrolling new changes looking for vandalism (which is what I do) then using a tool like Twinkle makes things a thousand times easier and faster.
Regards, SQGibbon ( talk) 03:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Charlr6, please immediately stop your removal of current-day currency equivalents, you appear to be embarked on a vendetta to make a WP:POINT. This is disruptive and I will block you from editing if you continue. Continue the discussion on the Dr. No talk page if you wish, but don't start mass-editing articles please. Thanks. Franamax ( talk) 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Friday the 13th: A New Beginning. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago ( talk) 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I've reverted your edits to Skyfall in which you added a teaser poster. The reason for this is that the poster is fan art, and not the actual teaster poster.
I've also reverted your edits claiming Judi Dench's character will die. This is because the articles you used as references quote The Daily Mail, which themselves quote "unnamed insiders", which is what they do when they are making things up. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 23:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Skyfall Teaser Poster 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 04:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Skyfall Teaser Poster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 04:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
In Talk:Trollhunter#Move back to Trolljegeren?, there are concerns over OR on sources and translation. You have already decided to vote and elaborated your vote. However, if you want to discuss more, feel free. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Your Guideline. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Please stop removing this cited review. [1]
References
So, in effect, Escape from The Planet of The Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes and Battle for the Planet of The Apes are prequels to the original saga.
You said "Not a good enough reference as that is the writers of the articles opinion. Not by an official person to do with the production. Might as well add in our own opinion and say its a prequel because we think it is)"
If the writer of the articles is a film reviewer it IS a good reference. He's not just some blogger. It's from an online film journal. Most references about films are from reviews.
To put a stop to this edit warring I've submitted a query to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Prequel_--_Big_Picture_Big_Sound. Wait till we see what they say. Barsoomian ( talk) 03:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Now would be the time to establish your criteria for inclusion. Someone is edit warring to get an example in. I can't revert anymore without being in violation of Wiki rules. So you will have to defend your chosen inclusion criteria yourself. Serendi pod ous 23:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
A cookie for you for supporting me in the discussion over episode descriptions in the Doctor Who (series 7) article talk. Frogkermit ( talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC) |
Charlr6, I've moved the substantive part of the discussion to your own talk page as it is more appropriate. Could you please take on board what I have said on the Skyfall talk page? I am trying to help you here, rather than have a go at you, so please take it in that spirit. You do come across to a number of editors as being rather uncivil in your approaches—the example of "Who the Hell are you?" is just such a case in point, as have some of your rather sarcastic replies to people in the subsequent "Crew" discussion. I will repeat what I said in that discussion as it is something that can only help you in your future Wiki discussions:
Wiki can be a frustrating place, with constant misunderstandings between editors and if you go into a discussion with all guns blazing then a well-meant but badly phrased point can quickly turn into a nasty slanging match—and I've noticed this happen to you on a number of occasions. Similarly, repeating people's words of exasperation (as you did in your final reply to me on the Crew discussion) is only ever going to annoy and alienate other editors. It then becomes much more difficult to have conversations in the future as even your good points will be ignored or dismissed by others who may label you unfairly. I'm not having a go at you, but I am trying to ensure that your time on Wiki is not spent arguing with others, which is time we could all spend editing and improving the project. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 07:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The point of the word "popularised" is that, once those films came out, the genre became popular. Man Bites Dog may or may not be a notable example of the genre, but it did not make the genre popular. If you want evidence, there are 67 films on that list: only five were released before The Blair Witch Project and all but 21 were released in the four years since Cloverfield. Serendi pod ous 20:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
re:behaviour. Don't worry. Just read up on WP:BRD. Serendi pod ous 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Charlr6, Just a quiet word away from the Skyfall talk page. Don't start ad hominem attacks, particularly against me, as I'll bite back. Please keep your comments civil and do not revert to insulting other editors ever - it gets people annoyed and it gets you a bad name. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 14:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Your "vote". I've removed most of the part about the vote, as that's not really the way Wiki works and does nothing but duplicate most of the info in the preceeding sections. I've replaced it with an RfC which will be able to open out the arguments more fully. I've left your comment in there about wanting the name revealed at the end, although you may want to tweak your response accordingly to make it more appropriate, given the context of the statement. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 15:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I have already addressed why I changed the name. Do not accuse me of cheating: I edited openly and in accordance with all known policies and guidelines. I was open about it and have never denied it and I think you should retract the accusation. I undertake my edits in WP:GOOD FAITH and you should take them as such. And I really do not know why you have decided to parrot the accusations for a third (or fourth?) time when I have already discussed them openly on the talk page. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 19:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You asked previously about an article about the Bond film caracter. I've now finished it and transferred it to the article space at James Bond (film character). Happy reading! Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 22:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Martinevans123
Santas Grotto wishes you and yours
"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"
May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....
In your future dealings with editors on articles please be aware of the above policy that says you should discuss any changes after your bold change has been reverted on the article talk page. In other words:
Please bear this in mind in future. This is so that you can fully justify your reasoning behind the changes, and are not caught up in pointless edit wars going back and forth and then you yourself cannot be accused of edit warring. Look forward to working with you. MisterShiney ✉ 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
In your future dealings with editors on articles please be aware of the above policy that says you should discuss any changes after your bold change has been reverted on the article talk page. In other words:
Please bear this in mind in future. This is so that you can fully justify your reasoning behind the changes, and are not caught up in pointless edit wars going back and forth and then you yourself cannot be accused of edit warring. Look forward to working with you. MisterShiney ✉ 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the film almost two weeks ago. The walk-and-talk corridor scene where Loki shape-shifts several times. But we all need to cite our sources, and they can't be personal viewing until after the film comes out. You did cite it the second time, so all's well. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
As one of the previous contributors to {{ Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Utopia episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romani. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Humans (TV series). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. I request that you attempt to bother to read the documentation for Episode list and Infobox television. Then you'll see what the issue is. Alex| The| Whovian 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Simply another contradictory wiki rule. Why can't put on the confirmed actual air date, but can put on the air date for the first episode, both dates are the exact same for start of the show. If one can't on until episode has aired, then why can the other be there? Charlr6 ( talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the image you uploaded - File:GoT-S05E10-Cersei'sWalk.png - when it comes to uploading copyrighted images such as screenshots, please ready Wikipedia policies and upload them in low resolution (i.e. smaller file) to prevent further use due to copyright. Such a copy has been uploaded, and a notice added to the file to have the larger file removed. To further your knowledge on such topics, please follow the links and read the content provided in the template below. Alex| The| Whovian 13:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This image is a
screenshot of a
copyrighted television program. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of low-resolution screenshots
qualifies as
fair use under the
Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be
copyright infringement. For more information, see
Wikipedia:Non-free content. | |||
|
Thanks for uploading File:Tom Holland actor.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq ( talk) 16:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
? Exactly on the original file? Where is the exact place so it can stay?
Charlr6 (
talk) 16:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tom Holland actor.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I believe that the content you deleted is actually relevant to the article as well. It is already included in the second season finale article, but because this episode is mentioned by name in the source, it's very clearly relevant in this article as well. This is important to the episode's impact on future episodes, thus making it important for this article as well. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 19:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
HI Charlr6/Charlr6 Archive 1. A UK school, Kingsley College, Redditch, you have created or contributed to has been updated. You may want to keep this page on your watchlist. You may also wish to stay up to date with developments o Wikipedia school articles by visiting the Wikipedia Schools Project pages.-- Kudpung ( talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- SineBot ( talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The age of Hanna in the film is 14. Saoirse Ronan the actress who played her in the film was 17 when she made it. Tabercil ( talk) 13:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
In the film it says that Marissa killed her mother 15 years ago. It has a flashback scene of them driving in the car and Hanna is obviously a baby of about a year old in it. I saw the film two times and I remember that because I really liked that scene. Those aren't proof, those's are just short reviews and synposis of the film. You want the real proof? Go watch the film again. It is coming out soon on DVD/Blu-Ray in the UK and I have pre-ordered it and I will re-watch the film and come back.
[ [1]] Have a look there. It says Hanna's age is 14, but the script had some re-writes until being shot and edited and is based in 2010-2011.
It says in the flashback scene, taking place in 1995 "A man, a younger ERIK HELLER crawls out. He is holding a two year old child in his hands." If she is two years old she was born in 1993. If anything you should be looking for actual proof for the year it is set.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Nigahiga, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. 117Avenue ( talk) 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
-- Charlr6 ( talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Haha, it's ok. Whenever I try to find info out about an actor, I look them up and when I find what I want I try to quickly add it to IMDB or Wikipedia so people who want to know that information can find it on here or IMDB. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 15:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced rumours or gossip to pages, as you did to James Bond in film. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 12:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In This Is England '88, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Jack Thorne ( 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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Troll Hunter (2014 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll Hunter (2014 film) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. BOVINEBOY 2008 20:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Please do not remove the {{ copyvio}} template from articles, as you did with Titanic (2012 mini-series). Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Cloudz 679 17:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. But there was no copyright being broken. I was trying to create a link to the ITV1 page for the Titanic miniseries and I copied the address over and the link didn't work the first time and it thought it was breaking copyright. I was not breaking copyright, a bot or whoever Cloudz679 is added it in without realising what the problem was. I was still editing the page and fixing links.
I would appriciate if you could look into this matter and take the 'copyright' thing off. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 17:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
How long would it take for a administrator to check it out do you think? And like I said, it was just a link mistake. There wasn't any 'offending material'. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 18:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Titanic (2012 mini-series). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 18:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
It is created because there was an accidentally 'copyright issue' on the actual page and Cloud679 said that it would be possible for me to continue editing the page on the template page. Look at the "December 2011" part above to see proof. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 18:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Titanic (2012 mini-series). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Titanic (2012 mini-series) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 18:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Look, the reason it is copied is because of a copyright issue on the actual page and Cloudy679 suggested that I could continue editing it on that page, so I copied all of the information over onto the template thread as suggested by Cloudy679.
Please read "December 2011" and see the proof. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Titanic (2012 mini-series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First Officer ( 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Charl6. Just wanted to point out the reason editors are removing the UK date. It's because of WP:FILM guidelines here, which state, "The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by sources such as the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." Thanks for understanding. With regards, Tenebrae ( talk) 15:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
It's one release date, I'm not listing all of the release dates in the world and it isn't creating a huge new section on the page. I've actually seen quite a lot of films on Wiki that have more than two release dates. The 'guidelines' is pointless. When people want to come onto Wikipedia to look up a film they want to find out stuff about it like the critical reception or the release date or who is starring in it. There shouldn't be guidelines for the release date, it should have the release date of the Top 5 most important countries in the world. -- Charlr6 ( talk) 19:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Charlr6,
Thank you for your considerable support on the above discussion. I added the entry on the article entitled List of English-language films based on foreign-language films on December 12, last year, believing it to qualify totally. Imagine my reaction to this idiotic behaviour from a person who is not prepared to register and log-in, and then, since January 7, persues an aggressive attitude from the start, accusing me of vandalism on January 8, when the opposite is true.
I refuse to be bullied, and I shall now re-instate my edit.
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 15:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Charlr6, you wrote in an edit summary: "The definition of a remake is to 'renew' and that's what this film does, it 'renews'." This is incorrect. If you check the Remake page it clearly states that a "remake" is "A remake is a piece of media based primarily on an earlier work of the same medium.". If your definition were correct, then even the 2009 film adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo would be a "remake" since it "renews" the novel in another medium. It is clear that English is not your first language from your comments, so you might want to be a bit careful about being so certain that you understand the nuances of the meanings of particular words in English. You also should try to avoid making comments like "other posters have been behaving idiotically". Wikipedia has rules about civility, and this is a violation of that. 99.192.88.202 ( talk) 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Charlr6,
Visit my Gareth Griffith-Jones/talk page and you will see that this anon has taken the above subject onto my page too. Another User noticed this and replied to the anon there, addressing him with the above Wiki term. An appropriate title for someone who has the advantage of being non-approachable when it suits, I believe, and on the way to becoming a serial lurker.
Well done to you for standing up to this person so bravely.
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 11:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought you might want to know that the discussion on the talk page of the 2011 film has started up again by "a new guy", and what's more our lurker is back busy replying, would you believe... incredible, isn't it?
What's more, "the new guy" visited my talk page this morning.
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 16:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello again,
Have just read your notes re: your planned novel and progress to-date on your User page. Sounds good. A man of many talents.
All the best,
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 12:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 15:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Just thought that you might like this:
This user thinks that registration should be required to articles. |
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 08:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC) ... and this one?
This user enjoys reading fiction. |
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I have read that you are a fan of Doctor Who ... I watched "the David Tennant episodes", but have seen none with the his successor (how does he compare?) ... and thought you might want this to add to your User page:
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 11:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you've made this edit at least 12 times on this article, now, because it is on my watchlist for some reason. (I probably reverted some vandalism there once). I don't disagree with the change you are making, and the discussion you reference does show good support from the users who commented. I couldn't find the RFC they discuss, though, so at the moment it doesn't seem as though they've got as far as updating any guidelines yet. As I say, I agree with the change - "universal acclaim" is a bad term, unlikely to be accurate, and far too subjective IMO.
The reason I thought I'd post here is that, before this point, if I were you, I would certainly have started a discussion on the article talk page, to establish a consensus for that change on that article which will be easy to refer to, otherwise I think you may end up reverting for ever in a kind of "slow edit war". If you do decide to start such a discussion, and I forget to turn up to comment in support of the change, please feel free to "ping" me. Cheers. Begoon talk 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
One other little thing I noticed is the edit summary you are using. You might not realise you can use wikilinks in edit summaries, so you could do something like:
Neutral language is preferred in film review summaries, avoiding terms like "acclaimed" or "panned". See [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Neutral language in critical reception|this discussion at WikiProject Film]].
- giving
Neutral language is preferred in film review summaries, avoiding terms like "acclaimed" or "panned". See this discussion at WikiProject Film.
as an edit summary, with nice blue links in History and Recent changes for people to click and find the discussion. As I say, it's a little thing, but helps a bit with edits like this imo. Begoon talk 08:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I have checked history log of Friends and would like you to discuss before you will be warned. Please? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Friends shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. AussieLegend ( talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed yesterday that there has been another "to'ing and fro'ing" going on. It is the mother or father issue. Which is correct? What is your opinion? At least it has all been quiet today so far. Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I have taken so long to reply. I wouldn't be able to help as I don't really have much free time at the moment and already have a few articles I am working on. When I can I will try to help make minor fixes however. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed it because there was no source. You added one great but you dont have to be rude about it. Odoital25 ( talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Um, I got rid of it before you added your source. And when I went to add it had technicall problems. Its not being lazy when my WIFIs bee acting up. So no, doesnt confirm your assumption. Only confirms your presumptious and rude. Its the responsibilty of the editor to add something. Not assume something and add it without proof. If you have no proof for a claim, it shouldnt be put. Its common sense. You don't claim something, without proof, then expect them to find proof that what you've said is wrong, when you have no proof for what you claim. Also, your accusing me of being lazy for not putting in a link to prove you were wrong for putting that back in. A) Once again, common sense. B) A previous editor ALREADY put that, and you still reverted it without proof or even reading his link, so....who is lazy then? Odoital25 ( talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I was helping, by getting rid of unsourced comments. If its unsourced, it doesn't belong on wiki, period! It was unsourced, thus shouldnt be there AT ALL. You only add when you have a source. Not an assumption. You didnt put it on, but when ever someone removed it, you kept putting it back without a source, which is the same. Then you go on some rant, further accusing me of being lazy. That is rude. Using uncivil language is rude. Your using uncivil language, which is rude. Thus, I'm not being rude but stating facts. Further, wifi has been acting up until the last hour or so. By acting up meaning I COULDNT GET ON AT ALL. Which makes your argument moot and nonsense. Odoital25 ( talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
So now you're trying to explain how you were being uncivil to other editors? You kept putting back in an unsource opinion. When an editor adds something it is there responsibility to have a source to back up the claim, and if their is no source for a claim it is not suppose to be put on here at all. Even if you didnt originally add the unsourced claim, you kept adding it when it was removed. Then when it was pointed out why you shouldnt have added it without a source you were uncivil. You say others were being lazy for removing the unsourced claim when you were the one who added it without a source. Then all I asked was for you not to be rude, and you are further uncivil. Odoital25 ( talk) 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
You accused me and another editor of being lazy. And I've stated the case repeatedly. I don't have to add a source for a claim when I didnt add it. Also, when it was removed, you kept adding it back. Which IS adding it. I didnt put the claim in. You did. Whether you originally put it in or reverted the removal when it was removed is the same thing. Yet you don't see it. Also, calling editors lazy, and telling an editor what they should do when you were the one in the wrong is rude. You just don't get it. Its in the rules of wiki, you add something, its your responsibility to have a source for it. The burden of proof is with you, no one else. Also, you kept adding it without a source, even though you were told to find a source, yet tell others to do it. That is uncivil. Further, you call others lazy for removing it, when we we're not the ones putting the claim in there. Thats lazy. I'm being responsive. I'm responding to you. You just don't like to hear the facts. Further, your accusing others of laziness, yet it had to be repeatedly reverted before you would even back up what was put. Don't add something if you can't back it up period and be civil.
Hello, Charlr6. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Paranormal Activity 3. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Please don't call editors lazy. Please add the information without commenting on the editors. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 00:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
All the examples you deleted have been referred to as found footage. Serendi pod ous 12:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
You have been quiet. Trust all is well with you.
I thought that you might like to add this Indiana Jones userbox to your User page:
This user wears a fedora. |
Hope to hear from you,
Gareth Griffith-Jones (
talk) 11:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Gareth Griffith-Jones ( talk) 00:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Desperate Housewives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystery ( 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey there,
Basically including the information that iTune viewer reviews have been positive (or whatever) is a kind of original research, in that you did the research and drew a conclusion based on your knowledge. If you click the previous link you'll see that this is not how things are generally done on Wikipedia. Instead what we look for is information that's been given significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. In this particular case if an independent, notable, and reliable source had remarked on how the iTune reviews were mostly positive then that information could be included in the article with a citation pointing to that source. While I have no doubt that what you included is true, the way Wikipedia works is that it's not significant (and thus appropriate for inclusion) unless/until a notable, reliable, independent source reports that information first.
Twinkle is a tool available to most logged-in editors that makes certain tasks much easier. When I saw your edit I was given the option to "rollback the edit (assuming good faith)" (the option I chose since it was clear you were trying to make a positive contribution), "rollback the edit (without judgement)", or "revert vandalism". After you choose the appropriate option you get a pop-up window that allows you to write in an edit summary (like I did) and then the Twinkle tool rolls back the edit, mentions the editors involved, and adds the "(TW)" notice to let people know that I used a largely automated tool to roll back the edit. If you spend a lot of time patrolling new changes looking for vandalism (which is what I do) then using a tool like Twinkle makes things a thousand times easier and faster.
Regards, SQGibbon ( talk) 03:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Charlr6, please immediately stop your removal of current-day currency equivalents, you appear to be embarked on a vendetta to make a WP:POINT. This is disruptive and I will block you from editing if you continue. Continue the discussion on the Dr. No talk page if you wish, but don't start mass-editing articles please. Thanks. Franamax ( talk) 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Friday the 13th: A New Beginning. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago ( talk) 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I've reverted your edits to Skyfall in which you added a teaser poster. The reason for this is that the poster is fan art, and not the actual teaster poster.
I've also reverted your edits claiming Judi Dench's character will die. This is because the articles you used as references quote The Daily Mail, which themselves quote "unnamed insiders", which is what they do when they are making things up. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 23:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Skyfall Teaser Poster 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 04:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Skyfall Teaser Poster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk) 04:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
In Talk:Trollhunter#Move back to Trolljegeren?, there are concerns over OR on sources and translation. You have already decided to vote and elaborated your vote. However, if you want to discuss more, feel free. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Your Guideline. Darkwarriorblake ( talk) 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Please stop removing this cited review. [1]
References
So, in effect, Escape from The Planet of The Apes, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes and Battle for the Planet of The Apes are prequels to the original saga.
You said "Not a good enough reference as that is the writers of the articles opinion. Not by an official person to do with the production. Might as well add in our own opinion and say its a prequel because we think it is)"
If the writer of the articles is a film reviewer it IS a good reference. He's not just some blogger. It's from an online film journal. Most references about films are from reviews.
To put a stop to this edit warring I've submitted a query to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Prequel_--_Big_Picture_Big_Sound. Wait till we see what they say. Barsoomian ( talk) 03:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Now would be the time to establish your criteria for inclusion. Someone is edit warring to get an example in. I can't revert anymore without being in violation of Wiki rules. So you will have to defend your chosen inclusion criteria yourself. Serendi pod ous 23:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
A cookie for you for supporting me in the discussion over episode descriptions in the Doctor Who (series 7) article talk. Frogkermit ( talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC) |
Charlr6, I've moved the substantive part of the discussion to your own talk page as it is more appropriate. Could you please take on board what I have said on the Skyfall talk page? I am trying to help you here, rather than have a go at you, so please take it in that spirit. You do come across to a number of editors as being rather uncivil in your approaches—the example of "Who the Hell are you?" is just such a case in point, as have some of your rather sarcastic replies to people in the subsequent "Crew" discussion. I will repeat what I said in that discussion as it is something that can only help you in your future Wiki discussions:
Wiki can be a frustrating place, with constant misunderstandings between editors and if you go into a discussion with all guns blazing then a well-meant but badly phrased point can quickly turn into a nasty slanging match—and I've noticed this happen to you on a number of occasions. Similarly, repeating people's words of exasperation (as you did in your final reply to me on the Crew discussion) is only ever going to annoy and alienate other editors. It then becomes much more difficult to have conversations in the future as even your good points will be ignored or dismissed by others who may label you unfairly. I'm not having a go at you, but I am trying to ensure that your time on Wiki is not spent arguing with others, which is time we could all spend editing and improving the project. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 07:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The point of the word "popularised" is that, once those films came out, the genre became popular. Man Bites Dog may or may not be a notable example of the genre, but it did not make the genre popular. If you want evidence, there are 67 films on that list: only five were released before The Blair Witch Project and all but 21 were released in the four years since Cloverfield. Serendi pod ous 20:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
re:behaviour. Don't worry. Just read up on WP:BRD. Serendi pod ous 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Charlr6, Just a quiet word away from the Skyfall talk page. Don't start ad hominem attacks, particularly against me, as I'll bite back. Please keep your comments civil and do not revert to insulting other editors ever - it gets people annoyed and it gets you a bad name. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 14:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Your "vote". I've removed most of the part about the vote, as that's not really the way Wiki works and does nothing but duplicate most of the info in the preceeding sections. I've replaced it with an RfC which will be able to open out the arguments more fully. I've left your comment in there about wanting the name revealed at the end, although you may want to tweak your response accordingly to make it more appropriate, given the context of the statement. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 15:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I have already addressed why I changed the name. Do not accuse me of cheating: I edited openly and in accordance with all known policies and guidelines. I was open about it and have never denied it and I think you should retract the accusation. I undertake my edits in WP:GOOD FAITH and you should take them as such. And I really do not know why you have decided to parrot the accusations for a third (or fourth?) time when I have already discussed them openly on the talk page. - SchroCat ( ^ • @) 19:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
You asked previously about an article about the Bond film caracter. I've now finished it and transferred it to the article space at James Bond (film character). Happy reading! Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 22:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Martinevans123
Santas Grotto wishes you and yours
"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"
May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....
In your future dealings with editors on articles please be aware of the above policy that says you should discuss any changes after your bold change has been reverted on the article talk page. In other words:
Please bear this in mind in future. This is so that you can fully justify your reasoning behind the changes, and are not caught up in pointless edit wars going back and forth and then you yourself cannot be accused of edit warring. Look forward to working with you. MisterShiney ✉ 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
In your future dealings with editors on articles please be aware of the above policy that says you should discuss any changes after your bold change has been reverted on the article talk page. In other words:
Please bear this in mind in future. This is so that you can fully justify your reasoning behind the changes, and are not caught up in pointless edit wars going back and forth and then you yourself cannot be accused of edit warring. Look forward to working with you. MisterShiney ✉ 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw the film almost two weeks ago. The walk-and-talk corridor scene where Loki shape-shifts several times. But we all need to cite our sources, and they can't be personal viewing until after the film comes out. You did cite it the second time, so all's well. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
As one of the previous contributors to {{ Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Utopia episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romani. 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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Humans (TV series). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. I request that you attempt to bother to read the documentation for Episode list and Infobox television. Then you'll see what the issue is. Alex| The| Whovian 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Simply another contradictory wiki rule. Why can't put on the confirmed actual air date, but can put on the air date for the first episode, both dates are the exact same for start of the show. If one can't on until episode has aired, then why can the other be there? Charlr6 ( talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Concerning the image you uploaded - File:GoT-S05E10-Cersei'sWalk.png - when it comes to uploading copyrighted images such as screenshots, please ready Wikipedia policies and upload them in low resolution (i.e. smaller file) to prevent further use due to copyright. Such a copy has been uploaded, and a notice added to the file to have the larger file removed. To further your knowledge on such topics, please follow the links and read the content provided in the template below. Alex| The| Whovian 13:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This image is a
screenshot of a
copyrighted television program. As such, the copyright for it is most likely owned by the company or corporation that produced it. It is believed that the use of a limited number of low-resolution screenshots
qualifies as
fair use under the
Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be
copyright infringement. For more information, see
Wikipedia:Non-free content. | |||
|
Thanks for uploading File:Tom Holland actor.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason>
with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq ( talk) 16:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}
? Exactly on the original file? Where is the exact place so it can stay?
Charlr6 (
talk) 16:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Tom Holland actor.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I believe that the content you deleted is actually relevant to the article as well. It is already included in the second season finale article, but because this episode is mentioned by name in the source, it's very clearly relevant in this article as well. This is important to the episode's impact on future episodes, thus making it important for this article as well. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214) talk to me! see my work 19:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)