User talk:TriiipleThreat

Archives

Orphaned non-free image File:Jude Law as Mar-Vell.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jude Law as Mar-Vell.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie#Critical reception

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie#Critical reception. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Edit Waring on Captain marvel

Your recent editing history at George Dantzig (later corrected to Captain Marvel (film) by Bverji) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

There has been a consensus on the information changed as well as an alternate source provided with conflicting information. Please refrain from reverting the post, if you wish to discuss this change than please do so on the articles talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 22:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I have never edited George Dantzig in my life.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Marvel

So, so good to speak with you again. I'm not on very much these days — it was causing me more stress than enjoyment — and I guess I can't give it up entirely.

I didn't realize during an edit-conflict popup that there'd been a small change. If I might suggest, since we're at just 588 words, that we retain "small cargo [jet]" in order to explain the number of people in it, since "jet" in the context of an Air Force base connotes a one- or two-person plane. This one has to take four people and a cat up, and three people, a cat and several Skrulls back. What do you think?

And damn, it's good to reconnect with you!--Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: Same here! No sweat, its not a big deal. That's a pretty good rationale for including it. I'm just of the philosophy that the verbiage should be kept to a minimum despite the actual word count in keeping with the spirit of the law.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert Avengers: Infinity War edits?

Hi,

I noticed that you reverted some recent edits of mine and some others' on the Infinity Wars article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Avengers:_Infinity_War&diff=888379279&oldid=888331552

I just wanted to know the reason why? I feel the edits were perfectly valid (including a post credits scene that nobody mentioned prior to my adding it) - they were not excessive or wordy either. Yet you just restored it to the last 'reviewed' version in one fell swoop without even considering the validity of the edits? Is there some kind of committee or something that oversees film articles like this that demands reviewing them? Because if so it should be mentioned, otherwise it's not being fair to regular contributors that have valid points to mention. Thanks.

Rush922(talk) 11:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel that way, but the concensus version that was reviewed for good article standing was the result of the labor of many contributors, tweeking it just right. Also I did consider the additions, most of which were just superfluous details of ways and means, that if substituted for something else would not have effected the plot. The summary should just have enough details to convey a general understanding of the plot, any more than that is just excess.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The minor additions may not affect the plot, but they DO clarify it, which can also be good for a plot summary. I.e. it is said that Thanos 'activated the Infinity Gauntlet' - and I wrote 'he snapped his fingers,' which is alluded to in the entire movie; it's only a minor addition and it clarifies what he does specifically. The plot doesn't have to be 'bare bones.' What you're basically doing is leaving little room to change the plot at all- you're saying it's fine as it is and doesn't need any improvement. If so, then why not just protect it entirely and exclude people from editing it? And also, why remove the post-credits scene entry entirely? Not only does it have new plot information (that Fury sent a pager message to Cpt. Marvel) but plot summaries for almost every other Marvel film article explains the post-credits scene itself. There was no need to remove it. Rush922(talk) 05:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s superfluous. The point is Thanos ended half of all life in universe. It doesn’t matter if he snapped his fingers, stomped his feet, or slapped his knees. What I don’t think you realize is the reason we have caps on plot summaries in the first place. They are the intellectual property of the copyright holder. We would love to give an exact detailed accounting of the film with no limitations but legally we cannot. We cannot edit protect a section, only entire pages. Besides, the plot summary is not perfect and there have been changes since the article was reviewed; link changes, notes, etc. Also, the post credit scene is there, it was just incorporated earlier with the other people who were disintegrated. This again, is the result of concensus on the talk page.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, after reading a few more plot summaries of other movies I think I'm seeing your points about superfluity. But can you lead me to where in the WP:FILMPLOT or elsewhere it talks about the legality of how you can write, and it being the intellectual property of the creator? I had never heard of that before. I can understand the film itself and direct marketing material (i.e. pics/photos/posters) being copyrighted, but a plot summary? Anytime you write about a film there's an element of subjectivity anyway, so how does that work? Thanks. Rush922(talk) 07:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PLOTONLY: “For copyrighted works, excessively detailed plot summaries may result in a copyright violation.”—TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:New Gods (film)

Hello, TriiipleThreat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "New Gods".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your opinion

Hi. A conflict has arisen on the Adam Hughes article. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Lane in other media

You are invited to join the discussion regarding the split of Lois Lane to Lois Lane in other media. There might be edit conflict on it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caillou Pettis Article Creation

Hi, can you create an article for actor Caillou Pettis? He is in Shazam! (2019) and Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019). For more information, you can find a lot on Google.

IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6569371/ Sources: https://www.airdriecityview.com/article/airdrie-filmmakers-debut-feature-shooting-this-month-20180823 https://www.pophorror.com/filmmaker-caillou-pettis-announces-cast-crew-additions-for-omnicron-2019/ https://www.pophorror.com/caillou-pettis-takes-over-omnicron-2019-screenwriting-duties/ https://guacamoley.com/the-scoop/2019/01/23/toni-collette-oscar-snub-hereditary/ http://www.mtv.com/news/2060962/taylor-swift-bullied-fan-tumblr/ https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6451041/taylor-swift-sweet-message-bullied-fan-tumblr https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/caillou-pettis/movies https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/caillou-pettis-34420.php https://www.flickeringmyth.com/author/caillou-pettis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.216.163 (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Ned in the MCU

Hey bub! Long time no speak, hope you've been well. I had a quick question in relation to Ned. I recall when Homecoming came out that there was some dispute to whether or not Ned was actually Ned Leeds, and it was agreed not to link that character as a result. However, I'm seeing him linked on both Avengers articles and Far From Home's article, and feel like I may have missed something. Was he confirmed to be Ned Leeds, or was it just decided to let it go? Thanks in advance! Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 16:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead at Captain Marvel

Your recent reversion is simply protecting a version of the lead that was put into the article less than 4 days ago. That's hardly enough time to deem this a "standing consensus", and the terminology you're shooting for is status quo. If we're going to invoke that principle, then we should be reverting to this version which was in place for a significantly longer time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60: I wasn't referring to local consensus on the precise language used in this article but the topical consensus for MCU articles as a whole for using phrases like "The film received mostly positive reviews". See my response on the article's talk to continue this discussion. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'd better take a closer look at the changes I made then. I didn't say "mostly". Also, it's important to understand that local consensus needs to be established in each article when challenged. The only way a consensus on another article (or group of articles) trumps, is when that consensus has been added to a guideline or policy, or if there was a recent RfC that was published appropriately to the right projects/talk pages. Is that the case? Did any of that occur? If not, do not falsely proclaim that an undocumented consensus exists which ONLY covers MCU articles. That's a form of protectionism that will be fought, and if you're going to stand by it, be prepared to defend why you believe only a small subset of film articles must live by a different set of rules. If it's not in MOS:FILM or any other guideline/policy, then it's a weak consensus claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can reply to me on the article's talk page. I do not care to have the same discussion in two locations. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was meant as an aside to hash out any differences we didn't want to publicize to everyone else, but so be it if that's your preference. As far as I'm concerned, this was only a disagreement between two editors, and it all started with an oversight on your part. I'm willing to look past that and move on, but I'd advise against knee-jerk reactions on hitting the revert button in the future. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War of the Realms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arthur Adams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Legend BrianGriffinTheDog (talk) 09:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Thor family tree

Template:Thor family tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Untitled Sif series

Hello, TriiipleThreat. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Untitled Sif series".