User talk:Alex 21/Archive 34

Happy New Year, Alex 21!

Happy New Year!

Alex 21,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Hhkohh (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Multi-camera setup/Single-camera setup over at Homecoming

Hey Alex,

Hoping you might take a look at another little instance of an editor raising hell over a non-issue. For the last two days there has been an editor over at Homecoming that has been debating whether the series is single-camera or multi-camera. I would understand one's insistence in having a source for such information before a series is released, when it might be possible to not know one way or the other, but once a series has premiered it is generally clear which set-up is used and such is information is covered by WP:PRIMARY, being the series itself. I think the editor is confused and is under the impression that single-camera setup implies that only one camera is ever used to film any given scene. Obviously that is not the case, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of film knows that in many situations in film and television more than one camera is utilized to increase the "coverage" in a scene. "Multi-camera" vs "Single-camera" rather refers to the specific setup of cameras and the construction of sets. In a multi-camera sitcom, you'll have a set with three walls and there will be three cameras setup in a specific formation all pointing at the same thing. In a single-camera, you will usually have a full four-walled set and the camera setup generally involves one camera situated somewhere in the set. Though, in single-camera you may also have other cameras utilized for close-ups or wide shots but the basic "setup" of the series is still single-camera as it is defined in film and television production. Anyways, myself and Drovethrughosts have reverted the editor a few times and I am concerned at this point of passing the threshold into edit warring. Hope you might take a look at the situation and intervene if necessary. Of all the big hullabaloos around here in the last few weeks this one seems to be the most cut and dry. Hoping your new year is good thus far, BoogerD (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out this rather large conversation that transpired over at the talk page for the article. The conclusions that other editors were drawing would seem to effect numerous, numerous television series articles. I'd truly appreciate if you'd take a look at the one comment I left on the page: Talk:Homecoming (TV series)#Infobox sourcing. – BoogerD (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

24 Hours (again)

Hello again, here asking for a bit more help on Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back. Season 2 premiere just finished airing tonight, but I am trying to add a new part for the column. With there now being two seasons, I would love to format it like Lip Sync Battle Shorties where it lists the number episode for the season, as well as overall. Been struggling trying to figure it out for the 24 Hours page, so if you could help out, that would be great. Thanks again in advance, and thanks for how you've helped so far. Magitroopa (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Olive branch

Hi Alex, I courteously invite you to take a breath and to reconsider the comment you just made at Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), and again remind you of the policy at WP:CIVIL. We share the aim of improving the Doctor Who WikiProject. Have a great day, U-Mos (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I'm thinking about starting an RFC here for whether I should or not... -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Alex, I do have to agree with U-Mos that your comments about RfCs are uncivil and serve no purpose in resolving your disputes with U-Mos. --TedEdwards 01:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's true. I'll be happy to revise them once the editor is happy to actually discuss the content, instead of automatically taking it to RFC or RM in poor faith of all other editors. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

My Spy

Hey Alex,

I know you're swamped with a million other Wiki things at the moment, however I was hoping you might take a look at something for me. I'm messaging you though to take a look at a film article I was editing today: My Spy. Currently in a dispute with another editor over content in the article. I had included writing in the article regarding various producers on the film sourced to Deadline and Hollywood Reporter articles. However, the other editor removed the content as they said the information was "irrelevant". When I objected and pointed out that that was a more opinion-based reasoning rather than anything based in WP or MOS policy they responded by saying, "Relevant according to you. I conceded on some aspects of your edit but Wikipedia is a collaboration. I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you. Additionally, i express the film’s titled because, before that date it was unknown. What is your reason for not noting it?" I'm trying to proceed with caution here and avoid an edit war. Perhaps, you'll take a look at the article. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) As I noticed this message BoogerD, I thought I might chip in. A discussion should be started at Talk:My Spy with TheMovieGuy to avoid the edit war. In regard to my opinion, I think it's ridiculous to say that naming the executive producers is "irrelevant"; it's info relevant to the film is it meets WP:Verifiability. However, saying this, I notice that TMG said I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you., and then YoungForever agreed with you, so is that an end to the dispute? There does seem to be a WP:OWN stance coming for TMG., evidenced by their quote I quoted above. And TMG, just because something isn't in a infobox doesn't mean it can't be stated in the rest of the article; that's a ridculous idea. --TedEdwards 00:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Ted. Discuss this with TMG on the article's talk page. But per their statement (which does indeed smack of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) (also, Wikipedia is a collaboration, and then I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone? Wow!), it seems that there should be no further edit-warring in the article, given WP:EDITCONSENSUS from another editor. If the discussion can't come to an agreement, then WP:3O is also an option. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If somebody else agreed that it belongs as you say, then, in this user’s opinion, it belongs. I cede. TheMovieGuy

Bandersnatch infobox

Hi. I noticed you changed the infobox to that for a film. It would be helpful if you could comment at Talk:Black_Mirror: Bandersnatch#What is Bandersnatch?, where the third point I opened for discussion is what infobox to use. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Critics' year-end lists

Hey Alex,

Hoping to get your opinion on something. What do you make of these "Critics' year-end lists" subsections found here: Sharp Objects and here: Crazy Ex-Girlfriend? I haven't been able to find any other sections like them in other television series articles. Do you think it's notable enough for inclusion? Does it need its own subsection? Should it be removed or maybe reformatted? I just ran across it during the last hour and was hoping to get someone else's opinion on it. Message me back as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Considering both lists seem to backed up by reliable sources, they seem notable enough; it's quite a good indication of how good the critics thought the shows were. The fact that these lists aren't on many other articles isn't a reason to remove; Wikipedia needs new ideas, which tend to start off on one article, and also other stuff exists. --TedEdwards 16:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Good points. I hadn't/haven't formed an opinion just yet so it was good to hear someone else's thoughts on the matter. I will say that I'm not sure that the lists belong on the main article for Crazy Ex-Girlfriend though seeing as the series has separate articles for each season. It would seem to make the most sense for them to exist on the article's for each specific season. – BoogerD (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox television season/fullname expensive parser function

Hey Alex, I was looking over the code at Template:Infobox television season/fullname and its connection the infobox. That template is called 8 times as a parameter of {{Ifexist check redirect/if}}, which itself uses {{Ifexist check redirect}}, which uses #ifexist, which according to MW:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#ifexist limits should is limited in the amount of calls that can be used in a page. We could cut this in half if we remove the section_redirect check. What do you think? --Gonnym (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on something which gives an answer whether it is an article or redirect with the same check so that lowers it to 4 and still retains the same functions. --Gonnym (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, I just saw your recent edits; can you please restore the check for making sure that the article is a section redirect, not an article redirect? The next/previous links are only meant to be linked if an article article exists; in the case that it does not, then a link to a section regarding specifically that seasons (for example, on a "List of episodes" article, where a section for the new season exists without a table) is acceptable. A redirect to just a regular article (e.g. You (season 2)) does not count, and thus should not be linked. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Should be fixed now. --Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Thanks for improving the template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox music genre help

Could you please update Template:Infobox music genre, so that colour of the text is automatically determined by Template:Greater color contrast ratio. Doing so would result in numerous pages being removed from Category:Articles using Template:Infobox music genre with invalid colour combination. Grapesoda22 (✉) 22:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Grapesoda22,  Done. The category should begin to clear out if the articles use an acceptable colour. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Grapesoda22,  Empty Only had to update Samba rock. Wondering if I should go through with AWB to remove the now-deprecated |color= parameter... -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Thank you Alex! Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible improvement with User:Alex 21/script-plotlength.js

I've been using your script, and it is very useful. As a possible improvement, could it be designed to ignore templates such as {{long plot}} or other template at the top of plot sections? --TedEdwards 00:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

TedEdwards, pretty sure it already does. From the comment that states "Remove any previous counts, tags, references" onward. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Strange. Because I've been using it on American Horror Story episode articles (a large majority of which have plot summaries which are way to long), and to give the episode "Home Invasion" as an example, at the moment when I use the script, it gives the number 699, but when I preview the summary without the long plot template (which I added last week), the word count is 663. Nonetheless, the script is definitely useful, and is what got me to finally tag the articles and begin to shorten them. --TedEdwards 13:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Strange indeed. I'll take a look at the code tomorrow; thanks for the heads up! -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Young Justice episodes

Hi Alex 21,

I have added back a short summary for Season 2 Episode 20 on the List of Young Justice episodes with some amendments. I am aware that Young Justice: Outsiders (Season 3) has its own article so the short summaries go there. Just wanted to check with you that it is okay to keep the short summaries for the first two seasons. I have been following the series and have started watching Season 3. Andykatib 09:12, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

@Andykatib: That's good, yeah! Keep up the good work. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help keep Wikipedia great. Andykatib 09:51, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox television season/fullname

Template:Infobox television season/fullname has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for Stranger Things

An article that you have been involved with (Stranger Things) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Stranger Things (season 1/2/3)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Stranger Things. Thank you. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Les Miserables 2000

You changed back the length of the this mini series to 100 minutes instead of its full length of 360 saying the it should be an episode length. Can you provide the rules for this? A quick look up shows other mini series, like Roots (original and 2018), Shogun and The Count of Monte Cristo (1998 miniseries), from the same production team as Les Miserables, all showing the full mini series length. All TV mini series I checked have the full series length as it makes more sense. As I cannot immediately find it in MOS:TV, can you please show where you found the rule or guidelines for the length of a TV mini series?

Each episode is just shy of 90 minutes so I will for the moment change it to that (I have the VHS and DVD of this) bigar 23:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bigar: Template:Infobox television: |runtime= Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22–26 minutes" for most half-hour shows. Thanks for mentioning those other articles; I'll be sure to update them. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Throne of Glass series.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Caution

With this edit you (accidentally) removed and broke one of the links. So please be careful next time. Thanks for implementing my editreq. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Babymissfortune: Apologies. Further requests should be implemented in the sandbox first, so this sort of issue does not occur. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Critics

Thanks very much for this – good point well made. Cheers DBaK-photo (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And the CE > EP thing - thanks for that too! Best wishes DBaK-photo (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you help please?

Hi Alex, someone split the FBI tv series article and created a rather messy list of episodes page here. [1] I would delete the information myself but I have no idea how to do redirects or anything like that. So if you could spend maybe a minute fixing this persons mistake and redirecting back to the main article it'd be appreciated. Thanks. Esuka (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Esuka, looks fixed. Cheers. Definitely too early to split - twelve episodes! -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode

Template:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox television episode. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Alex. Wanted to try to clear the air. I don't like how this discussion played out. Became far too adversarial and I would like to apologize for my role in that. I try my best to keep an even keel and AGF but at times I fail. This was a case where I got snarky when there was really no need for it. So for that, I sincerely apologize.

Regarding the template, I hope you understand I'm not suggesting a flat delete here. I'm also certainly not pointing fingers at you for creating it! I actually didn't realize you created it until I came to your page to post this message and saw the message I had posted above (WP:TWINKLE automatically posted that for me). I want to be clear, I'm NOT sitting here saying "What is wrong with you?! Why would you create such a useless fork!" NOT AT ALL my thinking... My only point was that it appears to me this is a fork that really isn't necessary and that the limited number of transclusions can easily be converted to use the more widely used and maintained {{Infobox television episode}}. A limited number of transclusions is not a criteria for deletion in and of itself... BUT, the fact that the template has so few transclusions is an indication to me that maybe a separate template it isn't really needed. So I guess just call it a refactor!

Anyway, once again, sorry for the way the discussion played out and hope we can move forward towards a constructive solution. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The reply-link newsletter, issue 1

Hi! Welcome to the new reply-link newsletter, which I made because the ol' list on the reply-link talk page was unwieldy. In case you haven't been following development recently, I've sent out some new updates that should let it reply basically anywhere, even in transcluded pages or under hatted discussions (two locations people have been wanting for a while). Reliability has also gone way up, as I've implemented a couple of sanity checks that help prevent the script from responding to the wrong message. Unfortunately, that means the script fails a bit more often. Anyway, try it out if you haven't done so in a while, and let me know what you think! I always appreciate feature requests or bug reports on the talk page. Happy replying! (Signup list/Unsubscribe) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A Discovery of Witches

WHY do you keep reverting my edit? To do it twice without explanation is RUDE, as well as irritating. Do you not believe AMC is showing the series? Because I PERSONALLY watched the first episode yesterday, since it is available free to entice subscribers. WHAT is your problem? Gil gosseyn (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Gil gosseyn, point out to me where I reverted it. I moved the content it to the same paragraph, and removed your promotional "premier commercial-free subscription service" content. Actually check the edit before you make accusations. Coming to my talk page with your whining is is [rude], as well as irritating. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Since when is accurately describing something considered "promotional content"? I have absolutely nothing to do with AMC's promotions, business, or content. I am simply a viewer providing a factual edit, and don't appreciate your unfounded characterizations. Perhaps if you had given an explanation when you made the first reversion, this could have all been avoided. Gil gosseyn (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Gil gosseyn, then show me what I reverted in this edit. I'm waiting. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Affect/effect

I stand by my edit to Game of Thrones. Both affect and effect can be used as verbs; in the sentence in question, effect is better.

"... their past leaves them too broken to do anything but commit brutal acts in their own turn, and that their personal liberation does not affect the social change needed to protect others from suffering."

Let's leave aside all the tightening this sentence badly needs. Affect here isn't exactly wrong. "Their personal liberation does not alter the kinds of social changes which would be needed to protect others." That makes sense, of a clumsy sort (does not change the changes?). But effect, used as a verb, is just precisely the right word here; in fact, "to effect change" is almost the only phrase in which most people still encounter it. So: "Their personal liberation does not produce, or result in, the kinds of social changes which would be needed to protect others."

I'm going to change it back, because I think you reverted it for the wrong reason. It is true that "affect is the verb, effect is the noun" will serve you in the great majority of cases, but both words have distinct nominal and verbal senses. This case calls for effect.

I encourage you to look it up if you don't believe me.

Regulov (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Returning the Favor - Episode Section

Hi Alex,

Would you mind taking a look at this most recent edit ([2]) over at the article for Returning the Favor? I believe we had discussed the issue of sourcing for episode tables and whether the series itself provided sourcing for the episode table. I know on the numerous, numerous television series articles that we edit that it is common practice to remove sourcing (from websites like The Futon Critic for instance) after an episode or season has aired. I believe in the past that you and another editor had suggested that completely removing the information was disruptive and that if anything was to be done adding a tag might be appropriate (though I'm not sure that is true given the fact that literally every article I've contributed to on here does not source episodes once they've aired). Please get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you, I'd love to resolve this issue promptly. – BoogerD (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

BoogerD, the editor seems to be quite the long-term edit warrior on the article. If they have an issue with the table, then they should have tagged the article and taken it to the relevant project to discuss. Mass deletions are indeed quite disruptive, and can be considered vandalism, which is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Thankfully, Esuka has added supporting references, so the reason for their initial deletion is now mute. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Chio's School Road

Hello. You made an edit to the article's episode list table, and now the table displays incorrectly (i.e. in a "stretched" manner). Can you please fix this? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5,  Fixed -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Big Finish Productions

Hi Alex. We still need to cover general notability on all BFP series pages. It has been a few weeks since we last discussed this and wondered how you are progressing. I've made some headway but there is still a LONG way to go until the rest meet WP:N. We have already lost the page for Counter-Measures.

Thanks R2Mar (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Stranger Things

Good morning (from where I am anyways haha). Just wondering if we can get the ball rolling re: the Stranger Things draft. I'm curious as to whether or not you think more needs to be done, and if you do think so, I can try to get those things done today for completion later. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

First and foremost, I'm trying to reach a consensus on this discussion. Most agree, although you don't. I'm trying to ask you what your solution would entail, and you're not responding. How are we supposed to reach a consensus if Coram can't be maintained - if the dissenter won't try in good faith to describe their solution? Secondly, I have no personal conflict with the article - I'm merely just trying to move it into the mainspace. Your silence seemed to indicate an indifference. Thirdly, a number of uninvolved editors have all voiced their support for the move in the discussion. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

SomethingToTellYou, discussions don't need to be closed for a consensus to be apparent. Who said I don't agree? I didn't. I agree with the split, I just believe further work needs to be put into the split main article than the two further edits you did. Please do not put words into my mouth again, it is extremely unappreciated. (Also, I said conflict of interest with the discussion, not with the article - again, words into my mouth...) -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21, what is your definition of "more work?" I've completed edits, and I personally think the article is fine, but I'll complete more once you actually suggest some. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

SomethingToTellYou, I see a lot of season-specific content when searching for "first season", "second season" and "third season". It's interesting how I did most of the heavy lifting for you on your userspace split article, and then you made two edits and deemed it complete. (Also, your apology for butchering my words and accusing me of saying multiple things I did not is accepted, if it were there.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21, I apologize for the misstating of your words. I'm just trying to reach a consensus. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

SomethingToTellYou, a consensus is clearly reached. I have never denied that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21 I did some more edits, specifically to try to remove most of the season-specific content. If you have a second, I would appreciate it if you took a look. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Article name in episode list

Ignore for a moment our layout conversation. I've asked this already twice and still did not recieve any clear answer, so I'm personally asking you here without any distractions.

1. Does {{Episode list}} ever need to use the |1= parameter?
2. Does {{Episode list/sublist}} always need to use the name of the page it is currently located at?

--Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Clear answer: 1, No. 2, Yes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so that means, and correct me if I'm wrong, that since I can retrieve the page name from args['1'] = mw.getCurrentFrame():getParent():getTitle(), I can remove |1= and just use it whenever {{Episode list/sublist}} is invoked. Right? --Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, presumably. I recommend updating WT:TV/WT:MOSTV if you're planning to update the usage of the template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll do that. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I'll wait for this first discussion to finish before doing any change. --Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The Grand Tour

Please note, Episodes should be Titled as the source, ignoring Capital Letters, unless they are present. Until the Episode is Released please do not add Capitals. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2019 (GMT)

@MichaelCorleone7: Incorrect. The titles are titles of works, and thus should conform with MOS:TITLE; more specifically, MOS:TITLECAPS. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Please do not change unless full confirmation from Amazon that titles are MOS:TITLECAPS. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2019 (GMT)

@MichaelCorleone7: What do you mean by full confirmation from Amazon that titles are MOS:TITLECAPS? Wikipedia does not always abide by the same capitalization that Amazon uses - we are not Amazon, therefore we do not use Amazon's rules of grammar. Wikipedia uses the MOS:TITLECAPS guideline, and thus the titles must be updated. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Your edits shall remain for now but please note - threatening another user is against Wikipedia:Harassment policy. If you repeat, you will be blocked from editing. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2019 (GMT)

So is edit-warring, see WP:EW. Although, you do make me laugh: "don't threaten me, and if you do, here's a threat for you." What a joke. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. U-Mos (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Please remove photo in your user page.It is look like publish your greatness with actor

Wiki is not personal note book (183.83.107.223 (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

Pass, it's my personal user page. Thank you for your concern, though. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)