Jump to content

User talk:Koala15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deathawk (talk | contribs) at 22:46, 19 November 2015 (→The Walk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Koala15, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi Koala15! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Koala15. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Koala15, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dan56 (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hey Koala15! I'm awarding you this Barnstar for your works in articles mostly related to animation and others. Thank you and have a nice day! :) Mediran (t • c) 09:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Czarface, Koala15!

Wikipedia editor Pjposullivan just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Terrific article, a pleasure to read. Many thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Pjposullivan's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for your contributions to bring Monsters, Inc. up to GA status! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Incredibles

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article The Incredibles you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Incredibles

The article The Incredibles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Incredibles for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of TonyTheTiger -- TonyTheTiger (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! One of my favorites. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ratatouille (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ratatouille (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ratatouille (film)

The article Ratatouille (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ratatouille (film) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zanimum -- Zanimum (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half Million Award

The Half Million Award
For your contributions to bring Ratatouille (film) (estimated annual readership: 632,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Ratatouille to Good Article status.

Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of A Bug's Life

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article A Bug's Life you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jionpedia -- Jionpedia (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of A Bug's Life

The article A Bug's Life you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:A Bug's Life for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jionpedia -- Jionpedia (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Toy Story 2

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Toy Story 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mediran -- Mediran (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Marshall Mathers LP 2

Orlady (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Berzerk (song)

Orlady (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For making Toy Story 2 a GA. Keep it up! ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Finding Nemo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Finding Nemo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jionpedia -- Jionpedia (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Finding Nemo

The article Finding Nemo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Finding Nemo for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jionpedia -- Jionpedia (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Shrek

The article Shrek you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Shrek for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Cars (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cars (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 3 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has now passed. Rcsprinter (indicate) @ 23:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Half Million Award

The Half Million Award
For your contributions to bring Cars (film) (estimated annual readership: 964,012) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Bobnorwal (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go get 'em, tiger! :D Bobnorwal (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Pinocchio (1940 film)

The article Pinocchio (1940 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Loeba -- Loeba (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Koala - I was happy to do this GAN but wanted to mention that it's a wee bit disheartening not to get a word of thanks (reviewing does take time and effort). I'm sure you didn't mean to be rude but I wanted to give you a head's up for the future - it's always good to thank your reviewer. That's all, no hard feelings. Keep up the good editing --Loeba (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
For making Disney's Pinocchio a GA! Kailash29792 (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasia

Well done for the quick work on another film GA. You will be happy to know that this article swiftly passed the review. I knew from the start this one would easily pass! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 19:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the help. Koala15 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Fantasia (film)

The article Fantasia (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fantasia (film) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Disney Barnstar
This is for making Fantasia (1940) a GA! And also because you made a GA out of three consecutive Disney articles (Cars, Pinocchio and this). I wish you all the best for making more GA's out of Disney articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Koala15 (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Jungle Book (1967 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Jungle Book (1967 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished the review and put it on hold for seven days. It's a good article - only a few minor points need to addressing. Let me know when you're done with them. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For making Disney's Jungle Book a GA! Kailash29792 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Corpse Bride

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Corpse Bride you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Corpse Bride

The article Corpse Bride you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Corpse Bride for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter Million Award

The Quarter Million Award
For your contributions to bring Corpse Bride (estimated annual readership: 276,997) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Corpse Bride to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! And again, congratulations! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Jungle Book (1967 film)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney and Pixar articles

Your work in this area is unparalleled, and as a lover of these grand animated films, I can't thank you enough for your tireless efforts to bring them up to scratch. Just thought I'd let you feast your eyes on some stats I've put together on the article quality of some of the categories. Its fascinating to see how low many of the articles are (or at least were, when I first created these stat articles in 2012 - before your improvements). Nevertheless there is much work to be done.

I was also wondering if, due to your expertise, you could look over some of the work I've been doing in the realm of animated films and perhaps build upon them through copyediting, research, or other helpful advice to make the articles even better?--Coin945 (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3
Thanks ill check them out. Koala15 (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Though I'm the first to admit that I'm not the greatest Wikipedia editor, I have a massive passion for this topic so have tried to improve the articles with great effort. I sincerely hope you and I can make some of these articles really good. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Beauty and the Beast (1991 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beauty and the Beast (1991 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prashant! -- Prashant! (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Peanuts (film)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For making Disney's Beauty and the Beast a GA! Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Barnstar

Good Article Barnstar
For Disney's The Little Mermaid. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Gerald Shields leading the masses to improve Wikimedia one cosmetically fashionable photograph at a time. North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
Gerald Shields, founder of the North Korean Fashion Watch, awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts to add reliable and poignant discussions about North Korean topics, such as the 2014 comedy movie The Interview. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Thanks for your contribution on VII – Teyana Taylor album. Karlhard (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Hey, thanks for going through all the Children's BAFTA additions I made and fixing the citations! Luthien22 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas


IPadPerson (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year Koala15!

Happy New Year!

Koala15,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Hey! I know I'm a year late, but I just wanted to say nice job @ Finding Nemo! Bananasoldier (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horse

Hey Koala15, Shallowharold here. I accidentally removed Berner's name from the featured artists section of Twista's album Dark Horse. The reason for the accident was due to me patrolling Twista's album pages and trying to ward off a vandal who thought it would be funny to put Shia Labeouf's name in the credits of each and every Twista album. While I succeeded in removing Labeouf's name, I accidentally removed Berner's name in the process. My sincerest apologies- I had no intention on doing that. Shallowharold (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle Giant (film)

Hi Koala15, I wanted to let you know that I undid your edit to Gentle Giant (film) because it appeared you deleted a large amount of text for being unsourced. I understand this, however I did have sources for that material bookmarked or saved and just had not yet added them to the article. I have just added about 15 new inline sources to the article supporting all the text that I replaced, so I trust that resolves the issue. Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Thanks, TheBlinkster (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks great. Very nice! Koala15 (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your motivation was clearly what was needed to get that finished up finally. TheBlinkster (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox television

I'm not sure whether you're unaware of the |last_aired= instructions at Template:Infobox television, that would surprise me considering how much you contribute, but both of your edits here and here are inconsistent with the instructions. Saying, "The rest of the episodes will most likely air at some point." is the epitome of speculation and contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. For all you know, those eps will go straight to DVD or Netflix or some other streaming medium, or may not air at all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the last new episode aired last June right? I don't think enough time has passed to say the series has ended without a source that says so. Their are about 9 episodes or more in post-production. Who knows maybe they are waiting to premiere them around the time when Kung Fu Panda 3 comes out. Koala15 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you haven't read the parameter instructions because you keep bringing up "ended", when nobody has said the series has "ended". The instructions say: "In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using {{end date}}. This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date. This is to prevent programs from being listed as "present" in perpetuity." If you intend to have a productive interaction with other editors, you may need to do some reading. Nobody has said that the series has ended, only that it literallly "last aired" June 22, 2014, which is over 12 months ago. Also, was this edit performed by you or someone you know? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No i hadn't read infobox television until today. Is it new? From my time on here i don't remember the "last aired" parameter being interpreted this way. Its usually strictly used when the series has ended. And no i don't know who made that edit. Koala15 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion in July 2014, and the change was made in August 2014 after a sufficient waiting period that yielded no objections. Since you probably won't read the discussion to get the background, the summary is that it became ridiculous to indicate a series as "present" if it hadn't aired a new episode in 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and so on. This was mostly problematic for children's television articles, since Nick and Disney and CN rarely say "we've dumped this show". In network television the trades say straight-up "this show is cancelled". In Kids' TV the best you typically get is the absence of the show in the next season's pickup, which leaves a perpetual mystery: Was the series dropped? Did they make a mistake? Maybe it'll come back? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, i get it. Koala15 (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet & Clank

As I said, see WP:FILMYEAR:

"Always go by the films' earliest release date, whether it be at a film festival, a world premiere, a public release, or the release in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings."

The source, however, states the following about the film:

"The feature, which has already been sold in more than 25 territories by Cinema Management Group (CMG), will be screening for international distributors in Cannes."

The version screened at Cannes was a still-in-progress version screened for the distributors, not its official premiere. Unless something changes and it has a proper premiere before the year ends, it's a 2016 release and should be denoted as such.

Also, please stop removing Gramercy Pictures from the page; they are distributing Ratchet & Clank under the Gramercy label. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards yep

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Experienced_Editor Iamiyouareyou (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No

Ok, I'm getting really bored of this whole "you're a newcomer" "you don't know what these guidelines mean!!!" shit, it's really not the case. The article had absolutely no sources, and failed two fundamental notability guidelines, one specific to content, the other to music related content, so it was perfectly fine to redirect. If you want to add all the sources so it passes, be my guest, but please enlighten me on how I don't understand these guidelines o-wiki-god? Azealia911 talk 17:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you did fully understand the guidelines, you would know that you shouldn't revert an article just because its unsourced. Unless its blatantly fake. Koala15 (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that in either guideline? Azealia911 talk 18:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you actually going to work on the album article any more? Because at this point, it still fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 talk 19:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you show that you don't understand the guidelines. The album has already received enough coverage to pass WP:NALBUMS and it only came out last night. Koala15 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please enlighten me to which point of NALBUMS it passes. Azealia911 talk 20:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." But WP:NALBUMS isn't the end all be all for everything anyway. Koala15 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

This edit summary was unnecessary and you know better. The other editor has been templated for edit warring, but your summary was needlessly provocative. General Ization Talk 00:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a joke, and a tame one at that. Have a sense of humor. Koala15 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other editor was obviously not amused, nor would I have expected them to be. You may want to think about the lack of cues to indicate humor in the edit summary field, and that humor is often unappreciated when you are simultaneously and persistently reverting another editor, whether or not it was warranted (I think it was too trivial an edit for either of you to EW over). General Ization Talk 00:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The edit was completely ridiculous, i was just referencing that. I have had much worse said to me on here. It was hardly an edit war either way. Koala15 (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three reverts in less than twenty-four hours, over a trivial edit that would never be considered vandalism, plus a summary that was uncivil in effect if not intent; I think it would be seen differently at WP:ANEW. Let's not find out, shall we? General Ization Talk 00:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no need for you to get so worked up over this. I think the matter has been resolved. I explained to the other editor what was wrong with his edit. Koala15 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions...

Koala15, you removed a tag by reversion with a derisory editsummary "umm yeah, no". Please, do not remove tags while the corresponding issue is unresolved.

If you don't understand why having 20 quotes in a row--all presented in the same way--is a problem, say so. I'll be happy to explain.

When another editor goes to the trouble of explaining on the Talk page why they applied a tag, it's inconsiderate to remove it through blanket reverts without explanation. I'll go replace it now. 146.198.28.207 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wrote that section, and i don't see a problem with it. Definitely not worth a tag. Koala15 (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Koala15, if you wrote the section, all the more reason why you should not revert a tag concerning a criticism of it, since you are apparently less than impartial about your contributions to the article, and possibly less able to "see a problem with it". Whether you agree with the tag or not, please leave it in place long enough to give other editors time to consider the suggestion and potentially improve the article. If there are none to be made in a reasonable time, the tag will be removed. General Ization Talk 01:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see anything wrong with the section? It looks fine to me, its pretty much how reception sections are written on thousands of film pages. This IP just thinks the prose is repetitive for some reason. Any suggestions on what you would change? Koala15 (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with the IP's assessment, and even if I didn't, neither you nor I are the sole judge of whether or not the section and/or other parts of the article could use improvement as suggested. And note: An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. Feel free to engage the IP in the discussion on the Talk page, but stop edit warring over the template. General Ization Talk 02:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are so quick to defend a random IP, but yet you have no ideas on whats wrong with the section and how you would improve it? This tag could stay on the article for five years and no one would do anything. And by no means am i acting like i own the article, its just a simple disagreement. And i've also had enough of you threatening to report me. Koala15 (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I had no ideas, I said I agreed with the criticism. I'm not taking that article on as a project, nor should I need to in order to ask you to stop edit warring over it. And there is a difference between warning and threatening, though the difference could become moot very soon. General Ization Talk 02:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what exactly is a "random IP", and why exactly do you think an IP's suggestion is by definition any less valid than one from a registered user? General Ization Talk 02:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm don't get why people people like you always have to constantly threaten to report editors. I get it you listen to the rules, but no one ever said the rules were the end all be all for everything. I guess it makes you feel special that you follow the rules so closely or something. And i do think an IP's suggestion is less valid, cause the majority of them are vandals. Koala15 (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Visit (2015 film) poster.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Visit (2015 film) poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator Genisys soundtrack

Okay, but I added some little details which I hope is okay to you, and if possible, if you can copy edit it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Callmemirela. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 05:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Penguins of Madagascar. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
ANOTHER user added the template. It is NOT your call to determine if it has been resolved. Let the users who agree with the template determine if it looks better. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 21:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC) Information icon[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 20:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BIG Krit

Hi! May I ask why the see also section was removed? He is an African-American person from Mississippi and I think the ethnicity article should be linked to WhisperToMe (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To me it just seemed odd to put that in a "see also" section. Koala15 (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I sometimes find it difficult to integrate such things into the article text, since the name of the hometown also has to be mentioned, and it sometimes feels forced. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much Too Soon (album)

Hi Koala15 ! Would you be interested in reviewing or commenting on my newly opened FAC for the article Too Much Too Soon (album)? If not, please feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a page

WHY DID YOU KEEP CHANGING THE PAGE!!!!!😣 listen to me and STOP CHANGING IT 😡

1.Jerry Weintraub passed away at July 9th 2015

2. Warner Bros. Pictures do not expect to Village Roadshow Pictures to return to work with them for The Lego Movie 2

3. Legendary Pictures is now owned by Universal Pictures after 2014

4. They're gonna make a Adventure Time movie, a Five Nights at Freddy's movie and a Ready Player One movie so PLZ Stop changing it 😮 Quintonshark8713 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop adding movies without release dates? Legendary is still producing Godzilla 2 regardless of the Universal deal. And Tarzan was shot last year so Weintraub already did his job before he died. Koala15 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¡Mayday! discography

Please do not remove the split tag from ¡Mayday! discography until discussion is complete. If you would like to comment, please do so on the talk page. Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was really long enough for its own page you would have already moved it. No need for a discussion. Koala15 (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I like to leave split discussions up for at least one month before splitting the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Koala15 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of template

Koala15, please explain what your rationale was for removing this maintenance template. As I see it, the IP posted the template with good reason, since a movie announced in January 2014 and slated for a January 2016 release would be in or have completed production by now, so more information should be available. You do not appear to have made any effort to find and add it, nor to have contacted the IP; you simply removed the template. Is this the same behavior we have been discussing here? General Ization Talk 03:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, i should have left a edit summary. But the source that's in the sequel section is the only thing that has been announced about the film. You can look it up for yourself. Koala15 (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what I asked. I asked why you removed the template. General Ization Talk 04:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because nothing has been announced beyond what is in the article, so an update template isn't needed. You can add it back if you feel its necessary. Koala15 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it is not exclusively up to you what is and is not needed. If you can address a concern expressed by another editor in the form of maintenance template, please do. If you can't, I suggest you leave the template alone. In this case, the template serves the useful purpose of encouraging other editors to be on the lookout for updated information, and to add it promptly to the article when it becomes available. Also, it's just possible that another editor will know of or be able to find content on the Web that you have missed. You should not assume that because you haven't found it, it doesn't exist. General Ization Talk 05:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh OK, i get what you're saying. Koala15 (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros.

Hello. You need to prove your statement that Regency owns the distribution rights to what seems like select films from their WB co-productions. Your statements are unproven, and just because a film doesn't have a release date doesn't mean it should be removed from the page. If you would've had a CITATION, then content would NOT be removed. Read the rules. Thank you. StephenCezar15 (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film's that don't have release date's shouldn't be added, cause we have no idea if they'll ever materialize beyond that. Koala15 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does it say that in the rules? No. I'll say this once again. Read it. StephenCezar15 (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @StephenCezar15: Since I'm not a party to the dispute, this may or may not be helpful. But see WP:NFF, WP:FFILM (essay) and WP:CRYSTAL. The former states: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." (Notability, of course, includes the requirement that extensive coverage in reliable sources exists.) By implication, if they should not have their own articles, they should not be included in lists. I believe these are the policies that Koala15 is referring to, and it is up to you to explain how or why they may not apply to the current situation. General Ization Talk 18:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Five Nights at Freddy's has already found a director. So has Ready Player One. If that information doesn't help, then that's fine. StephenCezar15 (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

CCI Notice

Hello, Koala15. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. 146.200.32.196 (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are old edits that I was already called out on. I don't think its fair to report me for that. Even though I know the new trend is to try and get me blocked. Koala15 (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Koala15. Upon reviewing User:146.200.32.196's evidence, and finding several additional examples of copyright violations, I've opened an investigation page at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Koala15. The investigation covers all significant edits of yours up to mid-August 2015. I note that you're a particularly prolific editor, and while you've contributed a lot of non-free material apparently without permission of the copyright holders, most of your edits are in fact perfectly fine. It would help tremendously if you could take a short break from your content creation and try to construct a list of articles you may have inserted infringing material into, along with the source. (You can use the list of your edits at the CCI page to help.) We can then compare the page with the source and, if unauthorized copying has indeed occurred, we can remove or replace the text. Please let me know if you can do this for us. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying user

Hey Koala15! I here to tell you that, there been an annoying user who keep reverting edits that have something to do about music genres. Can you at least block him or something? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported them. We'll see what happens. Koala15 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

A kitten for you, for being such a great user!

- Minionlover2015 (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Book of the Life

Is there any reason why you undid my edits for Book of Life? I was attempting to make it more readable and for it to read smoother and less like a group of news releases. I also added some, what I consider relevant info. --Deathawk (talk) 07:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cause you removed info, and what you wrote had typos. Koala15 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I removed was casting info which generally adds nothing to the production section that isn't already covered by the cast section.Furthermore that was actually a small section of my edit that you could of simply added back in without undoing the rest. --Deathawk (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with writing when the cast was announced. Its usually covered in production sections. Koala15 (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brick Like Me

Did you check the link? Entire paragraphs are identical to various pages, and I don't see any paragraphs which are entirely in quotes. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 12:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? Koala15 (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Collegiate (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Francis Martin
Women Are Like That (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Grant Mitchell

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Over the Hedge (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding MOS guidelines

Hi I've been noticing some film production sections are getting really unweildy and I thought you might enjoy contributing to my discussion about brainstorming updates to the MOS:Film to address these. The discussion is located here --Deathawk (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding production sections.

I've recently been trying to clear out some film articles of what I, and others have felt were violations of Wikipedia: Recentisms in which production sections were mostly reittering what the cast section said and adding a date to them. I notice that you have added several of these areas back in without explaining why. I was kinda hoping we could get on the same page, or at least see from each others point of view.

What I'm using is the ten year test which asks, "Will this event still be relevent in 10 years time?" I would argue that when various cast members join a project, does not meet that standard. At a certain point casts appear in the movie and it's no longer notable whether cast member X joined on Monday the 15th or Tuesday the 1st. Currently there is a discussion going on the Manual of Style page for Film regarding how to better adress these concerns in the style guideline. I would really appreciate your input, ideally in both here and that discussion, but I would also appreciate an either/or --Deathawk (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that the casting information could be presented better, I think the casting information is relevant to the production section. We just need to find a better way to integrate it. Koala15 (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Koala15: I would say with some restraint, yes it can be, however I feel that stating when the entire top bill of the cast joined is more destructive and harmful than not. I see it as scaring away a lot of potential editors who just don't want to have everything get lost in the shuffle. I think Ricki and the Flash is a good example how not keeping things in check can hurt an article's quality. There's some interesting tidbits in there about the film but if you were just to glance at the article you'd probably give up before you ended the first paragraph of it (talking specificly about that of the production section.) I know I tried to get it under control, but I just gave up because it was such an overwhelming task. I feel like by not getting these under control we're missing out on what could be some amazing articles. --Deathawk (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hell on Devil's Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Cornthwaite (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double links in infobox and article

It's okay, as mentioned to have links in both the infobox and the material. Some people read only the infobox. Others (me, for example) seldom read the infobox. It is not automatically redundant. The Jungle Book (1967 film). Student7 (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jenny Lewis The Voyager.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jenny Lewis The Voyager.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Walk (2015 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 3D (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm OluwaCurtis. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Show Them No Mercy!, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 15:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fair Warning (1937 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sidney Wagner
Thru Different Eyes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Charles Lane

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work

Good work on [1]. In particular, thanks for not copy and pasting a plot summary from the web. That happens sooo often. --Lucas559 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:The Sunset Trail poster.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:The Sunset Trail poster.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Koala!

As writer and producer of the film ITHACA, I updated the page and made corrections to listed cast members.

No need to undo my changes!

Thank you!

Erik — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomings (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casting sections

We've both disagreed on this for a while, and I think it's coming to a head on the Trumbo (Film) page. We actually have not really discussed this thoroughly. you've said your piece, I've said mine, but we have not come to a compromise on this.

I am not trying to actively remove information or to be a deletionist, I'm actually trying to add to the level of content in a section. The problem is that when repetitive content is introduced it makes the article harder to read and less future proof. For instance the article for the movie Toy Story is immensly readable now despite it being for a movie that's twenty years old. I'm aiming to make all the film articles up to that standard. This is not Deadline or even a news site, this is an encyclopedia and therefore not every bit of casting news is relevant to the project (in fact most of it probably isn't)

I'm not alone in my opinion on the recent state on the recent quality of film articles being poor due to recentisms. others have also expressed my concern when I brought it on multiple occasions all in public forum. It was only after conversing with them and seeing no one else chime in that I started to take an active role in helping to clean up these sections.

Please let's try to come to a consensus this time instead of agreeing to disagree. --Deathawk (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem with adding casting information to the production sections. Could the info be presented better? Maybe. But removing sourced content is not the answer. You also removed more than just casting info. Koala15 (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


First of all I apologize for not getting back to you sooner

The problem with Casting sections is that it's redundant and hides good information. Just because it's sourced does not mean that the content is worthy of staying. Wikipedia policy, specificly What Wikipedia is not specificly notes "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles" I would also state that if one is truly interested in this information the info could be found on older pages of the wiki article so it is not gone forever. --Deathawk (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scotland Yard (1930 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Kay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on Up (2009 film)

I appreciate you putting a reference about Whitmore and the grandparents as an inspiration. Still, the sentence as it is reads wrong, because it's not clear what "their own grandparents" refers to. Who's "they"? In the referenced interview, Docter means "Bob Peterson's and mine", but the position in the article makes it seem like he's talking about Tracy, Matthau and Whitmore's grandparents, and if we search for an earlier subject, only Docter is there, so there's no grammatical justification for "their". Kumagoro-42 05:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Daring Young Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Hurlbut (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Game Year Of The Wolf.

You need to STOP CHANGING Blood Moon: Year of the Wolf, to Studio Album. Its is compilation album as Game has said this in many interviews, and as the album has 4 tracks which Game is not on. Thanks. And dont tell me to "cite a source" because you haven't cited shit either.

Warning of ban.

Information icon Hello, I'm Jayceon123. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Blood_Moon:_Year_of_the_Wolf because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. This is a level 1 warning. Any further alters to the page titled "Blood Moon: Year of the Wolf" (specifically changing it from a Compilation Album to a Studio Album) could lead to severe penalties and your account being blocked/banned from editing articles in the future. Thanks.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Why Sailors Go Wrong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sidney Wagner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Harvester, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Edward Snyder and Robert Lee Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western vandal

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I've reverted some IP edits to pages you created: Sioux City Sue (film), Saddle Pals (film), Robin Hood of Texas and Trail to San Antone. I think the additions I've undone are a mixture of how PAW Patrol won the West and copyvios from IMDB. But I'm no film buff so, if there's any encyclopedic content in there that can be salvaged, please feel free to restore it!

Thanks, Certes (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Trumbo (2015 film)

Please stop edit warring on Trumbo (2015 film). I'd already started a discussion on the Talk page. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

Consider not burdening the already badly backlogged CAT:RF with unnecessary requests. For example, this file was already renamed once at your request, and the current name should be quite sufficient. Widr (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I chose the wrong name by accident. I still don't get why we can't rename files ourselves. Koala15 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you, should links that become unavailable remain on the article? Reply or remove this message if it doesn't make sense to you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag them as dead links or replace them. Koala15 (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That made sense. Okay I try to do that next time, thanks for the advice. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Iknow23. I noticed that you made a change to an article, ESGN, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iknow23 (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited To Mary - with Love, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edwin Maxwell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at Blood Moon: Year of the Wolf

Rather than continuing the edit war at Blood Moon: Year of the Wolf over whether the album is a compilation or a studio album, could you please contribute to the discussion of the question at the article's talk page? Resolving the issue through discussion there will help keep the article's history uncluttered. Thanks. Jayceon123 has already been warned for his part in the chronic edit war and for his abusive behavior toward you in his edit summaries. AtticusX (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to start a discussion for months but no one seemed interested. Koala15 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Walk

It seems like your main issue, judging by our last conversation is me removing sourced content, but as information changes it becomes necessary to rearrange and, yes even remove, some things. The opening sentence of the section "On January 23, 2014, it was announced that Robert Zemeckis would direct a film based on the story of French high-wire artist Philippe Petit's walk between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center on August 7, 1974" worked when the film was in early production. However as an already released film it looks sloppy and like we haven't updated the section in months. You wouldn't expect the opening sentence in a Jurassic Park production section to be "In January 1992 Spielberg announced the development of a dinosaur related fantasy Jurassic Park" (BTW I have no actual knowledge of when Jurassic Park was announced to the public, probably before that) because it's been out for 20 + years and no one really cares about the hypothetical date of 1992. Similarly with the cast we don't need to know when six different actors signed on for a film that is ultimately about one man.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a news site. One of the guidelines for the project is that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and that breaking news should not be emphasized but that rather one should look at how things impact the entire topic, and dates of actors do not in my opinion qualify for this exemption. --Deathawk (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can rewrite it but there's no need to remove it. I think the content is relevant to the production. The answer isn't always to remove it. Koala15 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I can come up with something later. I was actually going to but I got distracted. --Deathawk (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koala15&oldid=691452552"