User talk:Erik/Archive 33

This 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.

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Death of a nation

The box office mojo link does not work so does not support the statement. Feel free to find an alternative. Personally I think it's better to omit it, but I'd be equally happy to include along with the competing judgment that it's propaganda. Guy (help!) 16:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

A Quiet Place Part II

Hello. I noticed this has been moved again by the same protagonist. Has there been some change that justifies it, or are they gaming the system given the repeated RMs have not gone their way? Number 5 7 21:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Number 57, there's a new trailer out, but it is pretty much the same conditions as when the teaser was dropped. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying it shouldn't have been moved? Number 5 7 11:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, not under the current circumstances. I think when a billing block surfaces, there will be another RM discussion citing that, and it can be compared to secondary sources writing about the film. It's a weird space because "Part II" is clearly delineated as a subtitle in the videos (with the line break and the different color), but historically, it seems like movies with "Part II" in the title have lacked the colon in their official titles. Yet when looking these up in reliable sources, the colon is partly used for that delineation (as well as a dash or a comma). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing in film

Rather than giving anyone time to cite the longstanding (but suspect) first meaning of whitewashing, you have simply removed it. This does not strike me as the best way to make such a big change to this article. For example, many of the examples listed later on are only of this suspect meaning. tahc ^chat 19:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you move your comment to Talk:Whitewashing in film? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Insulting edit summaries

Hello, Erik. You recently made this edit at The Terminator, with the edit summary, "Undid revision 935547154 by Freeknowledgecreator (talk) revert per WP:OWN policy, specifically WP:OWNBEHAVIOR where Freeknowledgecreator called the changes in details "unnecessary"; editor is known for always reverting any change to plot summary." Do not make personal comments about, or unfounded accusations against, me in edit summaries. It is a form of personal abuse and aggression that I refuse to accept. If you continue I will make an issue of it and respond as needed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not an unfounded accusation of ownership. I listed here evidence of your ownership, and the trend speaks for itself. There is no "personal abuse and aggression" going on here. Ownership is problematic to warrant its own policy page, and your reverting others' edits as simply "unnecessary" is perfectly in line with the ownership behavior that the policy page identifies. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You stated that I am, "known for always reverting any change to plot summary". That is a comment about my reputation and image on Wikipedia for which you have no evidence. It is aggressive, insulting, and naturally unwelcome. The claim that I always revert any change to plot summary is factually false in any case, and you should not have made it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to The Terminator. Whether or not you have done the same with other plot summaries, I don't know. I don't dislike you; I'm being critical of the trend I was noticing from afar and that Woodshed pointed out explicitly. The timeline of evidence of the reverting as "unnecessary", with no partial approval of any edits, matches the ownership behavior as outlined by the policy page. It is more appropriate to be more precise in your reverts, only for edits that make the plot summary worse, not different in a way not liked, and to specifically articulate issues (e.g., poor grammar) in your edit summary. I get that it's easy to revert as "unnecessary" once in a while, but there was an ongoing trend. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Deleting work

I cannot believe that you just deleted everything I spent days adding. I will find sources and re-add all of them. I hope you have a horrible year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyruslcohen556 (talk • contribs) 01:54, February 6, 2020 (UTC)

Cyruslcohen556, you removed almost all of the sourced content in favor of a version that had no sources included. The topic was previously put up for WP:AFD before because it was an unsourced list. It took a source-based overhaul to save the article. You can implement new items to the list, but they have to be sourced. Your work can be found here. I suggest using a user sub-page to add sources to these then put them in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith#Plot summary

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith#Plot summary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure how I can help. I rarely work on plot summaries because there are so many ways to write such a summary and that in the course of time, a summary will be partly or completely rewritten by others anyway. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Wendy Torrance

Thank you for your draft article on the character Wendy Torrance! I had seen it at the beginning of last month for the Women in Horror event but forgot about it by the end. I saw the Italian version and used that as a basis for the article. I'll try to review the merge and other refs to see if more can be added. StrayBolt (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, StrayBolt! I had planned on writing Wendy Torrance because I had written most of Danny Torrance (saving it from deletion a while go) and knew that Jack Torrance existed. It seemed proper for there to be an article for Wendy too. When I saw that you recreated the article, I merged a sandbox draft from User:Erik/Wendy Torrance just to get the histories merged. I have the article on my watchlist, so feel free to post on the talk page to discuss any aspects of it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you, please, help with checking my first article in English?

Dear Erik! I am new to Wikipedia and only yesterday finished writing my first English-language article about a Russian-Spanish documentary My Pilot, Whale(before that, I published a similar article in my language section of Wikipedia). Wikipedia informed me that it will take up to 4 months for my article to be checked... I'm sorry, I don't know if this is accepted in the community, but I found a link to your profile in the Documentary films task force community and I want to ask you to check my article — I'm sure you know how much you want to see your first Wikipedia article : ) Once again, I'm sorry to bother you, and if this is not the way to do it in the community, please let me know so that I don't disturb anyone in the future. Regards, Ioanradostniy (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ioanradostniy. Don't worry, you are not disturbing me. You have not done anything wrong in asking me to look at your draft. First, I will say that I am not fully versed in how to assess the notability of this kind of film, being a documentary short and with no reviews that I can see. I see that it has won and been nominated for several awards, but I am hard-pressed to find these noteworthy. Reviews help ensure that a film can satisfy WP:NFP, and awards need to be major to satisfy WP:NFO. I am not finding anything (in English-language sources, anyway) that demonstrates notability that would secure a page on Wikipedia. Are you able to find any reviews or interviews or other kinds of coverage from secondary sources (meaning independent publications) in other languages? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Erik! Thank you for the reply! Unfortunately, there are no interviews or reviews in English yet — only in Russian, and this, by the way, is one of the reasons why I decided that a small article about the film in Wikipedia would be appropriate: after all, the film has received a number of awards at various festivals and is completely unique in several ways, and in the English-speaking environment, almost nothing is known about it. First of all, as far as we can judge from the Google search results, this is the only film made with free—living pilot whales in the open ocean (before this film, no one even said that such contact is possible and that such shooting of human-pilot whale interaction is possible). In addition, the film is unique in that the entire underwater part of the shooting was carried out without diving equipment — on hold of breath, in freediving conditions. Given this and the fact that the film has received several awards such as"Best image" (at the international festival of underwater and adventure films in Antibes) and "Best cinematography in a documentary" (at the Madrid international film festival), etc. I decided that a small article about the film in Wikipedia is needed. Once again, thank you for responding and helping! Ioanradostniy (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Ioanradostniy, I don't want you to get your hopes up that the article would be safe from deletion due to the reasons of uniqueness that you mentioned. I have not seen awards from non-notable festivals successfully used to claim a film's notability. Even if you highlight the film's uniqueness in several ways, that is best conveyed by a reliable source that is independent of the film. It still may not be enough. To be clear, it is not English-language reviews that are required. It helps to have reviews from reliable sources, period. Are there any Russian-language that are in Russian-language periodicals that have print circulation? (Web-only periodicals are more generally dubious for reliability.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Erik, thank you for such a clarification! I have searched carefully and here's what I found among the sources:

an article in one of the most famous Russian-language period, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, written by a well-known journalist in the CIS, Andrey Maksimov - however, it is not so much about a film, but more about a public event in the Cathedral in the center of Moscow, where the musicians performed their works under the frames from this film (which were projected on the dome inside the Cathedral): https://rg.ru/2014/03/17/maksimov.html

an interview with the Directors in one of the largest Russian news portals, dedicated to Moscow news — MosLenta (part of the Lenta group) — there the correspondent asks a question about the second film, mentioning that the first film (My Pilot, Whale) has already received a dozen international awards: https://moslenta.ru/city/dolphin.htm

and there is also a speech by Directors at TEDx — but it's not about the film, but about how and why they consider dolphins and whales a kind of "civilization" that lives next to us: Another humanity on YouTube

I hope this can help? Ioanradostniy (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the interview seems like a good source to use. I don't know if the Cathedral-related article helps with notability, though it can be included as a detail for the Wikipedia article. The speech would not be considered independent. Have you tried looking at Russian-language results in Google Books? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint! — I looked at: Google.Books, Google.News and Google.Video, but, alas, I did not find any new materials, except those that are already in the draft. I have updated the article, adding the last links that I found - to the interview and to the article in the newspaper. Please, take a look.Ioanradostniy (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Erik, if now the article is suitable for publication, could you, please, help me with it's "review"? Ioanradostniy (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"Inappropriate" and "cosmetic" edits

If that's how you feel my rendering of references is, it's because I click the "normalize" feature of ProveIt which then renders refs in a particular manner. If you believe that's not the right way to render refs, please comment here. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

It literally does not matter if the "c" in a citation template is capitalized or not. You're not improving anything, and such mass edits of that useless scale should not be supported. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on cinema

On 27 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on cinema, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that due to its similarity to the coronavirus pandemic, Warner Bros.' second most successful film of 2020 so far is 2011's Contagion? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on cinema), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

--valereee (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"Untitled A Quiet Place sequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled A Quiet Place sequel. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled A Quiet Place sequel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC678 18:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit these

Since you care SO MUCH about having red links until a page is created, why don't YOU edit the pages, because you want these people to have pages. Never ask people to make pages for you again. Draft:Polly Morgan (cinematographer), Draft:Michael P. Shawver. Iamnoahflores (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Iamnoahflores, please see WP:REDLINK. I am assuming you were removing them because they were unsightly to you. Red links are part of how Wikipedia grows. The burden is not on the red-linker to create articles. If you don't like the red links, I encourage you to put together a detailed article, not one sentence with zero sourcing. For example, for Dunkirk (2017 film), there were several red links at the time of release, and I put together an article for Fionn Whitehead as seen here. I also sought to create an article for Kyliegh Curran, who didn't have an article until two months after Doctor Sleep (2019 film) came out, and this is how I started it out. Do you want to collaborate on one of the drafts? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't wish to collaborate with you. As per WP:REDLINK, we should put red links if we think the subject is notable enough for an article. I frankly don't see it yet, but you do. So, you can edit them. I gave you the starting point. Iamnoahflores (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not plan to work off your drafts. WP:REDLINK says, "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." Are you certain that these subjects do not warrant articles? Have you tried a search engine test? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh just because I gave a starting point you won't work on it? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? It sounds like you'd rather delete it, only to build it back up again, just because I touched it. How stubborn can you be? Do whatever you want. Also, I used Google Trends, and both don't have enough data for it to show any trend. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

There was not any kind of "starting point". It was completely WP:POINTy in its very minimal effort, having only one sentence and not even a source cited. As I said before, I have zero obligation to make the articles, just because I think the red links should stay. I exercised my due diligence and did not find any certainty that articles should not exist. I have not used Google Trends before, and I'm not sure how you tried to use it. A couple of search queries (in Google) that were revealing were polly morgan cinematographer cinematography london and michael p shawver editor rhode island. These showed significant coverage that provide background about both figures. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You say the red links should stay, which basically means you think they deserve an article ("do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject"), but you wish not to do anything to remove the red link by making a page. You even know how to make articles, and clearly recognize these people as notable. Yet, you wish not to make one anyways, besides being the only person I know who cares to give them a page. TL;DR, you care, but you also don't. Not to mention, that sentence I did as a starting point, is more than you have ever done so far to give them a page. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

No editor is required to go the full measure of seeing the potential for an article to actually creating one. If that was the case, there would never be any red link in play on Wikipedia. Yes, of course I could create both articles, but I'm not interested in doing that right now. Mainly because when I create a new article, I put my full effort into it, and I don't want to devote my time and energy to that at this time. That's my choice. I have other topics I want to either create or expand, and I see these red links as opportunities for others, if it won't be me in the near future. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

To conclude this, I created Polly Morgan (cinematographer). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I also created Michael P. Shawver. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Detective Pikachu (film)

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Talk:Detective_Pikachu_(film)#Spoilers_in_the_cast_list.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I strongly urge reverting to WP:STATUSQUO ASAP. -- 109.77.197.77 (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Lauren Ridloff

Hello, what are you talking about? First of all, I just fixed typo in the page, because the info panel and even the filmography is not on point. Check any actor's pages, for example Norman Reedus. Does the filmography looks butchered to you? You are not improving it, you are doing quite the opposite.--Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Lauren Ridloff#Problematic edits. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Check Talk:Lauren Ridloff#Problematic edits again. I have feeling I do need the third voice of reason to come to conclusion. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:A Bug's Life#Plot summary issue

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:A Bug's Life#Plot summary issue. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about 'closing out'

Hey, so I saw your edit on the Wikiproject Film page here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film&diff=959251366&oldid=959210327 and I just had a quick question for you. I'm no expert on this so how would you use templates to 'close out' the section since a consensus has been reached on the page? Davefelmer (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Davefelmer, you can use Template:Archive top and Template:Archive bottom. You can see this being used at WP:ANI. You can include a comment saying that a consensus was reached. It's good to keep the notification for archiving purposes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright I did that. Thank you for the help! All the best, Davefelmer (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Judd Apatow criticism

Hello, Erik. You have new messages at Talk:Judd_Apatow#Sexism_Section.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

From what I can see on the talk page you previously reverted edits that are quite similar to what has recently been readded to the article.[1] I would appreciate if you could check and see if this is substantially the same or if this latest attempt is actually appropriate. -- 109.76.212.43 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Review score tables

Do you happen to recall a discussion where the use of Review score tables were deprecated in film articles? It is not stated in the MOS, and I am having a hard time finding it in the talk archives. BOVINEBOY2008 16:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I found this, but I can't seem to find much more. Maybe start a new discussion to see what the consensus is? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I think most of the discussion happened on the TFD side. Check this out. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate it :). BOVINEBOY2008 12:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Transformers

Done. Let me know when it becomes ineffective and semi-protect or pending changes need to be put back in. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Lauren Ridloff

Hi Erik,

Whether big or small, Lauren, the deaf actress, was part of the film “Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes”. It has encyclopedic content.

Deleting this film on list is like sweeping this under the carpet maliciously...it may sound like "systematic discrimination" even if you didn't mean it.

The deaf actress didn’t have a big role at Wonderstruck nor did have any “signed” dialogue (dialogue in sign language) like she had for Sign Gene.

It may not be significant to you but it may be very significant to me and to to those who want to understand her historical background career related. Movies whom she initially took part definitely helped her boost her career.

I strongly believe that you should bring back the info you deleted. Thank you.

--Wowspucks (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Wowspucks. I removed it because not too long ago, I overhauled the article, and I did not find a single mention of Sign Gene in discussions of her career to date. The Comic Book Resources citation simply listed the credits that were shown on IMDb, and IMDb is not a reliable source. I would completely support including it if the discussions mention it, but I saw no evidence that this was the case. We cannot assume that Sign Gene helped boost her career unless a source explicitly states that. Hopefully with her appearance in The Eternals, there can be discussion of Sign Gene to determine some kind of placement. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

To add on, Sign Gene does not mention Ridloff at all, and before, I had tried to find coverage of both Sign Gene and Ridloff but found none. It was a pretty independent film with coverage only focusing on the main roles. I believe I have done my due diligence in ensuring reliably sourced coverage of her background, and I completely support expanding it when new sources emerge. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ridloff worked as an actress on a 2011 film and then again on Sign Gene The First Deaf Superheroes, it was filmed in 2009 but released in 2017. As a matter of logic, being credited in both movies on IMDb in part helped her getting into the third, forth and so on.

Like this article says: One of the newcomers to The Walking Dead in season 9, Ridloff has quickly endeared herself to fans of the show in her role of Connie, a hearing impaired survivor with a heart of gold and toughness to match. You may also know the actress from her work on Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes and If You Could Hear My Own Tune. https://undeadwalking.com/2019/03/09/talking-dead-guests-walking-dead-913/

She is known to you for a movie but to others for another one.

Personally, I found out about Ridloff back in 2009 through the film company’s old blogspot nowadays out of use https://pluin.wordpress.com/cast/ she was also mentioned on film director and on Sign Gene’s various social media, one of these https://www.instagram.com/p/BgzPgTth6EW/?igshid=qz96fba8oo8b on this video clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS0YE1VJjTU (timecode: 00:23). On IMDb it also mentions that her husband Douglas was part of the film as one of the casting directors.

Beside all of this, whether it helped her career or not, thing that is very subjective, the info that Ridloff was in the film undoubtedly has encyclopedic value. Evidence is there. For reference, we can use one of these links:

# https://www.hearinglikeme.com/lauren-ridloff-first-deaf-superhero-marvels-the-eternals/

# https://www.cbr.com/eternals-mcu-first-deaf-superhero/

# https://walkingdead.fandom.com/wiki/Lauren_Ridloff

# https://hearinghealthusa.com/blog/defying-the-odds-of-hearing-impairment/

# https://www.joblo.com/movie-news/sons-of-anarchy-alum-ryan-hurst-to-join-the-walking-dead-for-season-9-113

# https://www.csfd.cz/film/510904-sign-gene/komentare/

# http://www.comicsblog.fr/31371-The_Walking_Dead_recrute_Lauren_Ridloff_pour_sa_neuvieme_saison

# https://newsbook.com.mt/l-ewwel-super-eroj-nieqsa-mis-smigh-fic-cinema/

# https://www.nytix.com/shows/children-of-a-lesser-god

# https://www.focus.de/kultur/medien/neunte-staffel-der-kult-serie-the-walking-dead-diese-neuen-namen-erwarten-euch-mit-den-whisperers-in-staffel-9_id_9487130.html

Wowspucks (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'll support adding the credit to the filmography table. However, you said, "As a matter of logic, being credited in both movies on IMDb in part helped her getting into the third, forth and so on. " There is nothing to support this claim, so at this time, it does not warrant inclusion in running prose. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Title is actually Sign Gene: The First Deaf Superheroes not just Sign Gene. In regard to the prose, I am not saying that we need to write down that this film helped boost her career. A neutral statement where it says that she was part of the film is needed though. She is deaf, this film is about the first deaf superheroes and now we have the Eternals, a superhero film where she will play the deaf superhero. Out of 466 million deaf people, she was chosen to play this role. Thank you Wowspucks (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert to older version of Misjudged People?

I spent lot of time translating the German article (Verkannte Menschen) into English along with adding and verifying the sources. Why did you revert the article to the skeletal version that is very lacking in information and material?

Don't you ever revert the article to older one! You are doing a great disservice for the deaf community! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwist78 (talk • contribs) 13:36, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

See talk page: Talk:Misjudged People#Revert from mainly-unsourced expansion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did include the citations and sources from BOTH German and English articles! I also included the German Wikipedia links because there are no English versions yet. I translated the German article into English then arranged them for better flow of information. Thanks a lot for wasting my time with dubious claims and without verifying everything first! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwist78 (talk • contribs) 14:46, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

Please comment on the article's talk page. You have been restoring multiple passages that have no inline citations and therefore no way to verify what reliable sources support these passages. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

How about you read the German article and check all of sources yourself??? You are getting ridiculous in this regard, and I am going to report you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwist78 (talk • contribs) 15:04, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be inline citations for all of the content you are adding. The German-language article did not do that for its topic, and you are carrying over that lack of inline citations to the English-language article. Please see WP:BURDEN. Make sure that every sentence or paragraph has an inline citation. You cannot expect to be allowed to dump content without citations and expect readers to go through all of the possible sources to see where the content is covered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There are at least seven sources and several biblography listings in both German and English languages. How many more sources and citations do you need to be satisfied? I have seen so many Wikipedia articles that don't have {{citations needed}} when they should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverTwist78 (talk • contribs) 15:18, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy of verifiability requires inline citations. You talk about sources, but I see none for the content that you are trying to add. Like here, for "Film Development", none of these paragraphs have a single inline citation. "Film Synopsis and Premiere" has only one inline citation (one that existed before), and the rest of the content is unsourced. "Ban and Reintroduction" has two paragraphs that are completely unsourced. With this inconsistent use of inline citations, I question that passages that do have inline citations actually have content that match the sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

See today's Featured Article Apollo 11. Every paragraph has at least one inline citation, and more than one if it pulls from different reliable sources for the content. That is the quality to aim for. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

D'Souza film categories

Hi, regarding this edit. I realise that ordinarily there are many 'directed by', 'written by' etc, categories, in addition to 'genre' categories - but in this instance "Films directed by Dinesh D'Souza‎" is actually a sub-category of "American propaganda films", ie it has effectively been decided that everything directed by D'Souza is inherently propaganda! Thus they duplicate in both parent and child cats - it is also an unusual judgement to make in advance about a filmmaker, possibly the 'directed by' category should be moved out of "American propaganda films" - meaning that these films are BOTH directed by D'Souza and American propaganda. Hope this makes sense, I don't dispute that these films are generally seen as propaganda, I was merely trying to tidy pointless duplication of categories. Pincrete (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Cuties deletion

Hi Erik,

You deleted my edits on the Cuties film, your reason being "Removed POV addition not covered in source." This is not a "point of view" addition in any way, actually, and if you read the multiple sources everything stated is 100% contained with the cited sources indeed. So please undo your removal. DivineReality (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence has only one source, this, and it does not support that sentence. I have no problem with the general point being restored if it is sourced. I do think we should avoid starting off with "Still," because it sounds like editorializing per WP:EDITORIALIZING. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Draft: MJ (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

I could use some c/es on this if necessary. Also how ready do you think it is? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your sage counsel

Erik

I appreciate your counsel pointing out the long term view. It is the way of Wiki.

I do see change happening, usually a word or phrase at a time. This evolution process is bearable. What annoyed me was that Bink, who edits movie plots without having seen the movies (he actually makes this claim proudly), is a compulsive editor (he made over 200 edits that day), dropped in, mucked up what was a clear plot (though I agree somewhat too much for the 700 word limit--700 word limit, that sounds like the requirement for a high school book report, HAHA) and produced a hack job. Since he had not seen the movie, had no first-hand knowledge of the story, he had no idea what nonsense he created with his edits to remove "bloat".

It was Bink's arrogance in what he did that annoyed me. He sloppily performed just one of very numerous edits (apparently he has a compulsion) and just moved on. When apprehended by my complaint, he just shrugged it off, with what he thought was a Jedi Mind Trick (. . .theses are not the droids you are looking for. . .move on. . .). And that annoyed again. He wasn't interested in working to compromise, he did not care. In his most recent reply to my complaint, he did acknowledge that I was angry; I did appreciate that slight nod.

This was another Wiki learning experience for me. There is so much Wikipedia documentation, rules and such that are just hidden. The Manual of Style (which is admirable) is a document that is hard to get a comprehensive understanding of (short of reading and reading and reading). 700 word limits, only 4 paragraphs in the led, on and on, stuff I stumble on often.

So in penance for my sins, I have rewritten the plot into a tight terse narrative of 665 words. It tells the film's story accurately enough so that a reader will see the story sort of (adequate for Wikipedian purposes). I left out anything that could be left out (it was a lot) although sorely tempted to include some explanatory detail.

So now others will edit. I wonder what enhancements or detractions it will bring.

Wikipedia editing, a blessing and a curse. Oh well, may we live in interesting times.

Thank you.

Stay Safe.

PS I will send you 35 cents for the psychiatric counseling (it used to 25 cents in the Peanuts cartoon, but with inflation and such, the session fee has increased)

Osomite ^hablemos 23:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Osomite, I agree with what Binksternet said. There's no need to attack their character. It's fine to take issue with how the overall matter with that article could have been resolved. I only weighed in to head off a worse argument because I don't think the specificity of plot summaries matter that much. Per WP:PLOT, we provide a "concise" summary to complement the treatment of the topic in an encyclopedic manner. In some other timeline, 400 words could have been the cutoff. Take care. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Help?

Hi. Can you please take a look here, and see if there is a way to promote this movie draft? Thanks. Draft talk:Jarhead: Law of Return. --2604:2000:E010:1100:7901:7BC:9665:2F53 (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reviewing the topic, I have to agree that it is not notable for a standalone article. The article Jarhead 2: Field of Fire redirects to Jarhead (film), and Jarhead 3: The Siege should probably do the same. With lack of significant coverage, the original film's article can have a detailed section summarizing the direct-to-video spinoffs. Maybe that section could have a table with three columns that combine the spin-offs' infobox parameters into a basic presentation? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Do not WP:WIKISTALK me. Thanks. 2A02:C7F:6E64:1C00:C59C:A410:479F:B9DD (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to this, I didn't. I already watchlisted Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and did most of the work on that article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Afrofuturism Films

Hi, I added my film "GODDESS" to the Afrofuturism film page and would like to know why it was deleted? There is adequate sources available to verify that my film is indeed part of this list and the Afrofuturism community. 2601:C0:C97F:82C0:9533:369A:AF23:BABC (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I assume you are referring to this. I agree with you that the film verifiably exists. However, per WP:LSC, "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." I researched the title and could not find reliable sources (see WP:RS) that make the film worthy of notice. You can see that the other films have inline citations pointing to reliable sources that name them. While there are undoubtedly more Afrofuturist works than this list has, we only include those that satisfy the inclusion criteria. Wikipedia does not lead in this way; it follows sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek Generations

I know you've probably got plenty of stuff on your plate, but the FAC could use some additional input and you're my go-to film guy. If you have a chance I'd love your input. Happy holidays, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 05:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

David Fuchs, hope you're well! I just shared some feedback. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking for a second set of eyes

Hey Erik, hope you are doing well. Thought I'd solicit an opinion from you about the audience scores listed at Star Wars: The Last Jedi#Audience reception. I noticed these are being updated regularly, but I could have sworn there was a discussion at some point that determined they should remain static, to reflect what the sources were writing about at the time. What the sources were saying back in late 2017/early 2018 became the focus of an RfC that allowed the audience section in. Doesn't seem like something we should be updating, and instead should reflect that moment in time.

I searched SWLJ's talk archives and couldn't find anything. Either I'm having a memory lapse, or that discussion happened somewhere else. What are your thoughts? Do you think the numbers should be regularly updated? It would have created a contradiction if the user rating ever creeped up above 60% (though it wasn't likely to happen). --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I'm doing well and hope you are too. I don't recall a discussion about keeping them static and did not find any discussion about that. Is it possible that we didn't anticipate that the scores would change? One way we could approach it is to get the scores at the time of scrutiny through Internet Archive and also use the current scores. Both could be included, and both could be in running prose, or one of the scores could be in the "Notes" section. Like I would probably put the "current" score in the "Notes" section as less pertinent but still relevant in a cursory way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I actually think the scores went down. If I recall correctly, they were around 49% on RT and 4.6 on MC originally. Now they're 42% and 2.7, respectively. So it's probably a non-issue, but just curious if it's more a matter of principle to keep these locked than it is a necessity. I like the note idea though. If you beat me to the punch, feel free to suggest on the talk page if you're interested. If not, I'll get around it eventually. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Wonder Woman 1984 § Rotten Tomatoes

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wonder Woman 1984 § Rotten Tomatoes. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sjones23, I appreciate the invitation, but I'll have to pass. I actually prefer a more detailed description of referencing Rotten Tomatoes because it is not information readily understandable by laypersons, but I am all too aware that a certain kind of wording is reinforced across articles over and over. I'll only argue for a more detailed description on articles that I contribute to. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 26#12 Years a Slave (film) (redirect) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 07:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

FAC

Hi there! I've seen some of your reviews on FAC, and since much of your work on WP is related to film, I thought I'd ask you if you have time or interest to review an article on a film actress. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be glad to take a look starting next week. I don't really have a block of time available till then for a focused review. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you so much. Looking forward to your comments, Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Erik. I notice I forgot to mention the article itself, Dimple Kapadia, which is up for FAC. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, Erik! This is just a reminder in case you still intend to take a look at the above article and offer a review. It has attracted little notice. If you are busy and have no time (or energy or interest), please ignore this message. Best wishes, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Coda

Hi - I don't disagree that we should organize things with readers in mind, but isn't chronological order (and not reverse chronological) the standard for disambig pages? I don't think I've seen them sorted by any other way, eg. Dracula (disambiguation), Mummy (disambiguation), and Ben-Hur. --Iiii I I I (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Iiii I I I, fair enough, I've reverted myself. I guess it seems like for films, readers are generally more likely to look for the newer ones. I suppose it barely makes a difference to keep it the forward chronological order. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rio 2 § Big Boss's fate

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rio 2 § Big Boss's fate. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

H Collective: Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 2605:8D80:521:8BB6:346E:2E7F:AA0C:CAB1 (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Permanent link: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 167#Wikispecialist. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk on Music

Hey - I'm wondering if you might be able to discuss through the language issue over on Music (2021 film) a little further? Given I'm an IP editor with not as much history on wikipedia (+ I probably let myself get dragged a little into the heat wrongly with a couple of prev. edits) it seems that they really just don't want to engage in discussion with them. I'm wondering if you might be able to get them to bring up an explanation or further the issue, otherwise it's just a brick wall of either leaving the issue unresolved, or getting it into an edit war where the rapidly revert it without elaborating, and I'm not really sure where that leaves me with it then. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I really encourage you to look at the history of the above IPs edits on the Music article. They started off by edit warring and have continued since then. If you review this history, I think you will realize that their input has been simply bullying form the get go. BTW, there is no reason why this film article should spend ink on discussing the early criticism of the film's trailer by people who had not even seen the film. Just because people are outraged on social media does not mean that their uninformed opinions are encyclopedic. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, we can keep it all on the article's talk page. I'm focusing on content and not contributors and am assuming good faith. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor making mass changes without consensus to do so. Thank you. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Permanent link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Editor making mass changes without consensus to do so. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

There is a request for protection for the Music (2021 film). Since you have been editing it I thought I would let you know. Afootpluto (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Fixed your link, by the way. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Music (2021 film)".The discussion is about the topic Music (film 2021).

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

188.220.86.46 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Permanent link here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your input on Talk:Eagle Eye. I was almost ready to take it to WP:3RD so thanks for saving me from that extra hassle. -- 109.76.192.5 (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Sound of Metal

Thanks for those links. Seeing the film and then reading the credits makes it look like Antwerp, as they speak French there as well. That was certainly never clear to me. Based on those refs we should certainly say Paris then. I think we should include a ref in the synopsis as well as I can't have been the only one who was confused by that. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea about the reference! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: Discussion

Please see the discussion thread at Talk:Sound of Metal#Opening sentence. ParetoOptimusPrime (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} — Preceding undated comment added 01:13, April 17, 2021‎

Review table consensus

Hey! Do recall back when there was a review summary table template for films that was eventually deleted? I am having a discussion with someone who is basically recreating such a table manually but I can't recall what the template was called, or where the AfD is located. BOVINEBOY2008 01:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Bovineboy2008, you've asked me this before! :) See this discussion: User talk:Erik/Archive 33#Review score tables. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Haha! I'll just look through you're talk page archives next time. Cheers! BOVINEBOY2008 16:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Erik,

If you tag a page for speedy deletion because it was deleted through an AFD discussion, could you link to that discussion so an admin reviewing the tagged article doesn't have to search for it? If you use Twinkle to tag pages for deletion, it asks for the AFD link and also posts a notice on the talk page of the page creator which is an important step in the deletion process which makes things easy. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Liz, I can link to the AFD going forward. Sorry, I thought that the template did that already or at least made it easy to find. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of fictional counties for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional counties, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| June 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The Woman King Edit

I got your message. Why are only positive reviews by COMPENSATED critics being mentioned? Why should not IMDB (Which is considered far more accurate) being posted. This film has overwhelmingly received very poor reviews, and the page does not reflect that truthfully. TheOminousDarkness (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Citation Seems Inadequate

This citation https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/woman-king/ that you provide for The Woman King page feels very inadequate. What gives this page credibility? There aren't any sources for any of the claims made throughout this article. I think we should take it and any claims it makes out of the page because they may be misleading. Blackboardd (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't Worry Darling

Next time, see if the user you're pinging has any previous relevance or knowledge of the topic in question. Otherwise, you are wasting both parties' time. The "debatably entertaining turn" doesn't go against the negative reviews, it actually says that what viewers will watch on screen won't be boring and therefore will be "debatably entertaining". So it CAN be entertaining to watch a "bad" performance. ภץאคгöร 18:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Nyxaros, I disagree "critics criticized Styles's performance" is a proper paraphrasing of "debatably entertaining". I find it best to quote these words directly. Furthermore, we need to avoid the WP:SYNTH approach of looking at individual reviews and reaching a higher-level conclusion not indicated by any of the sources. What if you looked at three reviews that said Styles was decent, and I looked at three reviews that said he was lousy? We have to be mindful of batching critics' individual opinions to imply an overall trend. We need to leave it to other sources to do that on a high level. (Not saying they'll always do a good job, but they're the ones to judge trends, not us.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In response to this reply, I would like to point out that I never said (or implied, also goes for WP:SYNTH) that "critics criticized Styles's performance" is a proper paraphrasing of "debatably entertaining". That is not the issue here, and not what I was referring to. That's all I'm going to write. ภץאคгöร 18:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You restored here, "critics... criticized... Styles's performance". Were you basing it on the editorial and/or other sources? The challenge with some sources is that they sample individual reviews without drawing any conclusions. Some sources only do this without doing any kind of summarizing, which makes them inapplicable. With the editorial, the only applicable content from a high level is what I quoted in the RFC. If a source says, this is what some critics said about an actor's performance, and quotes three reviews one by one, that is still broken up, with no summary explicitly written out. I am not sure what your particular approach here was. If you don't feel like clarifying, that's fine, but I wanted to establish how I was seeing it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies § Plot summary format. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Enola Holmes lock

Normally I'd be annoyed by an article being locked because of one editor but in this case I'd be totally fine with it if you want to go there. (I'm half surprised admins haven't jumped in already.) -- 109.79.75.129 (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Enola Holmes 2

Hello, Erik. Just another registered user here, that is, not an IP. My best advice to you is to start those Enola Holmes talk sections yourself, when engaging IP editors that may not know better. That is, my advice to you is not to wait until IP editors follow the rules - instead lead by example and show how the BRD policy is meant to be used yourself. After all, in a room full of IP editors, you're the "grown up" = registered editor.

Another benefit of starting talk sections is that it becomes apparent which other editors are only there to be disruptive - if they persist in edit warring and using edit commentary as their sole means of communication, they can simply be blocked. If there is a talk section, they need to engage there. This greatly lowers the risk to yourself as well - I have come close to violating the 3RR rule when engaging in edit summary discussions, and once there is a talk discussion, things usually calm down. Like, a lot!

You'll find you will stand on higher ground once you realize the initial bother of having to start a discussion pays off. Anyway, read or ignore this as you will - this is meant as nothing more than friendly advice. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There was already a discussion underway at Talk:Enola Holmes (film). The IP-hopping editor does not seem to care about a discussion, and hopping IPs makes it hard to message them (or even block them as needed). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of telling you something you already know: engaging in "discuss through edit commentary" is seldom productive, and is what I am suggesting you stop doing. I encourage you to instead post your comments to that talk section and then revert with a terse "per talk", since this does not invite others to also discuss via edit comments. If for no other reason it makes it considerably less likely you yourself forget about the 3RR rule :) CapnZapp (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'll just point to the discussion. I just do not have any faith that the IP-hopping editor has any interest in discussing; they've said so themselves. "That's just the way it is." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Gross against budget. Good enough, not best.

I think you were overcomplicating things with this edit.[2] To say Addressed apples-vs-oranges comparison; putting production budget versus box office is disingenuous in all cases is a big overstatement (emphasis added). Never say never. In the case of films that earn considerably less than their budget it is not disingenuous, it is merely a simplistic way to show that the film was not a success. Also presenting the numbers seemed a far gentler more neutral way of pointing out the underperformance than using the colorful metaphor of "box office bomb". Less seemed like more.

The details may be more complicated, but the overview is simple, anyone can see that a film that does not even gross as much as the budget is not a success. That simplification is not misleading at all. There is no need to character that as admits that it is not appropriate to compare directly I am merely pointing out that the minimum explanation can be quite simple, while acknowledging that sometimes more complicated explanations might be necessary.

Sometimes more is obviously more (other times it's just overcomplicated). Since you were willing to rewrite the intro extensively and provide a more informative maximal explanation[3], that ultimately makes for a better encyclopedia article, I can certainly get behind that. The gross versus budget comparison might be simple and certainly isn't as good as what you added later, but Wikipedia has long been about "good enough" until someone else is willing to rewrite it better. -- 109.76.131.219 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you copy and paste this to the discussion I had started at Talk:Bros (film) § Budget versus box office? Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

There isn't much to discuss, I'm not saying you're wrong I just think you're overcomplicating the bare minimum version. I am only aiming for slightly above mediocrity (Wikipedia fails at basics like facts and figures so often, some editors refuse to even use the actual figures reported in the reliable sources, like in the article for the film Black Adam). I'm just saying we're both trying to make the article better and don't let the perfect(better) be the enemy of the good (enough). Or keep fighting for perfection and struggle against the many simplistic and reductive things Wikipedia has been doing for years and years, but I fear that way leads only to frustration and madness. -- 109.76.139.210 (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Believe me, I remember at the end of the day that it's just a website.

I've worked with other editors of WikiProject Film to develop a sensible MOS, but some aspects like this seem too granular. I also try to limit my focus to articles that I watchlist or that I see come up often in recent changes. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Features / Starring

What is the antagonist looking for at just the "cast" section? 105.112.59.253 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

We avoid using "antagonist" and related labels per MOS:FILMCAST. The "Plot" section mentions the Portuguese slave traders and the Oyo. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Erik!

Happy New Year!

Erik,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Bullet Train

Could you restore your rewrite of the lead section again please? There are some editors who don't get it. -- 109.79.162.163 (talk) 00:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The other editor seems to have realized I was restoring not removing and accepted the change. -- 109.78.195.159 (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alex Tse (judge)

The article Alex Tse (judge) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret J. Schneider/WP:USCJN

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Snickers2686 (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic Four (2015 film)

Hi, Erik. Just so you know, there's a discussion regarding the review summaries in the lead section of Fantastic Four (2015 film). It can be found at Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)#Summary of reviews in the lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Supernatural horror

Hey Erick. Good to bump into you. I've re-phrased the supernatural horror bit in that book. I feel a bit weird about citing a book that's not about the subject at hand to fill in the blanks on a subject (especially when some of the sourced material was not what was written in the book), so i've taken a quick crack and re-editing it and discussed it on the talk page. Just don't want to edit war over it is all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! We can discuss more on the article's talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Zombiesnyder

Back as Barney Crumble Rusted AutoParts 05:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Erik, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on subgenre

Hi Erik. I'd hate to ask, but would you be able to provide an opinion on Talk:Horror film? Some more voices here would be really helpful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Dune 2

In the Themes section you kept paragraph one and dropped paragraph two. It might be worth keeping a shortened version of the original version of paragraph 2 because it gives insight into comparing the themes as written in Frank Herbert's book in comparison to how Villeveuve represented these themes in his own film version. The reference to Frank Herbert's knowledge of the Algerian war seemed to be useful to readers since Wikipedia even has a linked article for it. Could you consider doing a shorter version of the second paragraph that might preserve some of this discussion? HenryRoan (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tarzan (1999 film) § Plot rewrite. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, there's a discussion at Talk:The Lion King II: Simba's Pride#Changes to the plot and lead if you are interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I am back, but I am worried I could screw up again.

I know it's rude to use the C word, but there is no better way to describe it, I was a cunt back in 2007 on Wikipedia and want to do my best to add something of value to this site. Do you have any advice? As of this year I started reading books because I know books have far more valuable information than random pages on the Internet that could be misinformation. And unlike the Internet what's in books can't be taken away by a proxy provider. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would say just focus on a substandard article of a film you are at least familiar with, and work on improving it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

See this very important.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blaze_The_Movie_Fan#I_am_very_serious_about_leaving_this_site_for_good_IF_one_more_admin_is_needlessly_harsh_on_me.

If just ONE more corrupt admin threatens me I am leaving for good. I'm beyond fed up with power hungry admins ruining this website. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)