User talk:Charlr6/Charlr6 Archive 1

Schools

HI Charlr6/Charlr6 Archive 1. A UK school, Kingsley College, Redditch, you have created or contributed to has been updated. You may want to keep this page on your watchlist. You may also wish to stay up to date with developments o Wikipedia school articles by visiting the Wikipedia Schools Project pages.--Kudpung (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hanna

The age of Hanna in the film is 14. Saoirse Ronan the actress who played her in the film was 17 when she made it. Tabercil (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahem - it's 14, not 16 or 17 years old. See here, here, here and here. Tabercil (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In the film it says that Marissa killed her mother 15 years ago. It has a flashback scene of them driving in the car and Hanna is obviously a baby of about a year old in it. I saw the film two times and I remember that because I really liked that scene. Those aren't proof, those's are just short reviews and synposis of the film. You want the real proof? Go watch the film again. It is coming out soon on DVD/Blu-Ray in the UK and I have pre-ordered it and I will re-watch the film and come back.

[[1]] Have a look there. It says Hanna's age is 14, but the script had some re-writes until being shot and edited and is based in 2010-2011.

It says in the flashback scene, taking place in 1995 "A man, a younger ERIK HELLER crawls out. He is holding a two year old child in his hands." If she is two years old she was born in 1993. If anything you should be looking for actual proof for the year it is set.

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Nigahiga, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to reference it, but actually that is his date of birth as I found on his website. I'll find the reference to it and add it on.

--Charlr6 (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you won't believe how many people add unreferenced birthdates to bios. 117Avenue (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Haha, it's ok. Whenever I try to find info out about an actor, I look them up and when I find what I want I try to quickly add it to IMDB or Wikipedia so people who want to know that information can find it on here or IMDB. --Charlr6 (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not add unsourced rumours or gossip to pages, as you did to James Bond in film. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Gossip reported AS disconfirmed though widely reported gossip is OK. That's why the material on Carte Blanche is in there.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In essence, WP wishes to avoid speculation about future events, re WP:CRYSTAL.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In This Is England '88, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Jack Thorne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Troll Hunter (2014 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Troll Hunter (2014 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troll Hunter (2014 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. BOVINEBOY2008 20:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Please do not remove the {{copyvio}} template from articles, as you did with Titanic (2012 mini-series). Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Cloudz679 17:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. But there was no copyright being broken. I was trying to create a link to the ITV1 page for the Titanic miniseries and I copied the address over and the link didn't work the first time and it thought it was breaking copyright. I was not breaking copyright, a bot or whoever Cloudz679 is added it in without realising what the problem was. I was still editing the page and fixing links.

I would appriciate if you could look into this matter and take the 'copyright' thing off. --Charlr6 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I referred it elsewhere, it's a problem because it still exists in the edit history. An admin will take a look at it and delete the offending material, then you can continue working on it. In the mean time, you can edit here Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp. I hope that's not too much of an inconvenience. The edit history will be saved for when the article is ready for main space. Cloudz679 18:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I did the Temp thing and copied the information over for safe storage until the copyright issue is sorted out, but two people realised I had copied the information over and decided to deleted the temp page. What can I do now? --Charlr6 (talk) 20:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How long would it take for a administrator to check it out do you think? And like I said, it was just a link mistake. There wasn't any 'offending material'. --Charlr6 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The admin already cleared everything up, including deleting the page history where the copyright was broken. That was the only problem here. Have a nice day! Cloudz679 09:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Titanic (2012 mini-series). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It is created because there was an accidentally 'copyright issue' on the actual page and Cloud679 said that it would be possible for me to continue editing the page on the template page. Look at the "December 2011" part above to see proof. --Charlr6 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Titanic (2012 mini-series). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Titanic (2012 mini-series) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 18:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, the reason it is copied is because of a copyright issue on the actual page and Cloudy679 suggested that I could continue editing it on that page, so I copied all of the information over onto the template thread as suggested by Cloudy679.

Please read "December 2011" and see the proof. --Charlr6 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you ended up on the wrong end of some inaccurate advice from User:Cloudz679. In reality, copyright violations are not permitted on any page in Wikipedia. Additionally, the subpage feature for mainspace articles is not enabled. The Titanic (2012 mini-series)/Temp article, rather than creating a subpage, merely created another article repeating the copyright violation, albeit with a slash in the name. Therefore, the article was appropriately deleted. If you have any questions or need help, feel free to contact me anytime. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I see, thank you. That's all ok then. --Charlr6 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Titanic (2012 mini-series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First Officer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ghost Protocol

Hi, Charl6. Just wanted to point out the reason editors are removing the UK date. It's because of WP:FILM guidelines here, which state, "The film infobox is too small to reproduce the long lists of release dates provided by sources such as the Internet Movie Database. Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings." Thanks for understanding. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's one release date, I'm not listing all of the release dates in the world and it isn't creating a huge new section on the page. I've actually seen quite a lot of films on Wiki that have more than two release dates. The 'guidelines' is pointless. When people want to come onto Wikipedia to look up a film they want to find out stuff about it like the critical reception or the release date or who is starring in it. There shouldn't be guidelines for the release date, it should have the release date of the Top 5 most important countries in the world. --Charlr6 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, again, Charl6. I'm sure people in different countries would debate about what the five most important countries in the world are! And I understand you feel the guidelines are "pointless," but they've been arrived at by consensus over time, and we all should try to respect that a number of other editors may not feel the same way.

You'd mentioned in an edit summary that you were having trouble finding the discussion about the use of WP:PEACOCK terms like "critical acclaim." It's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film‎#Neutral language in critical reception. And, obviously, Wikipedia encourages discussion rather than simple reverts and edit-warring. The discussion has been going on for a while now and everyone's welcome to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film) IS "a re-make".

Hi Charlr6,

Thank you for your considerable support on the above discussion. I added the entry on the article entitled List of English-language films based on foreign-language films on December 12, last year, believing it to qualify totally. Imagine my reaction to this idiotic behaviour from a person who is not prepared to register and log-in, and then, since January 7, persues an aggressive attitude from the start, accusing me of vandalism on January 8, when the opposite is true.

I refuse to be bullied, and I shall now re-instate my edit.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gareth Griffith-Jones

I'm glad to have supported you. But the other posters have been behaving idiotically.

Its good that you've put it back in the List of English-language films based on foreign-language films, because when people click on the list, there might be someone who didn't even know there was a Swedish version and then become interested. I can't remember what the actual term is but it's like when you might hear a song made from a movie on the radio, like "My Heart Will Go On" for example and you would then want to watch "Titanic" and then possibly other films about the ship or other James Cameron works.

But films that are a new version of a book that has already been made into a movie can't escape being a 'remake', even if the new version is closer to the novel than the previous film. In the Dictionary it says simply "to renew", which is what a remake is isn't it?

I'm glad to have helped and supported you.

--Charlr6 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I remembered the actual word that I forgot, its synergy. Just thought I'd add that in.

Yes, a combined or co-ordinated action. Your example is apt. I have just read your addition timed at 15;03hrs. (You have since removed it) but I had already realised that we are dealing with just one rogue editor who appears to be fixated on an issue not worthy of this incredible venom. I am sorry that you are now also the subject of this appalling behaviour, although glad of your support in keeping my entry in the article. Presume we are in for more tonight.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I thought that the "anon" had edited the page, but it was actually just the 'talk' page he had edited, not the actual article which I originally thought it was. So I deleted what I said.

But the example with the synergy is only what I've been told it is, well in a basic way. Charlr6 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Lurker is back but I expect you already have noticed. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very impressed. Very well done. How on earth did you know how to do that? Brilliant.

Also, I have put the record straight regarding the reply that Trappist the monk made to my request to him yesterday. See the Discussion page. You will also see a supporting posting from another registered user providing the sources we have been asked to give. Go to his talk page... you will see that I asked him for his input yesterday too!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I know what you are talking about (unless I've accidentally done something else that was good), but I'm not going to say what it is just in case the "anon" comes onto my talk, reads this and then realises what I've done.

But I just knew that that option was available and wondered if I would be able to do it.

I did see that you put the record straight with Trappist the monk, which is good. Charlr6 (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We just clashed (almost) both at 00:06, when I added to my last posting so you may have missed it. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey,

I saw your edit, don't worry. But our "anon" is actually on the page and has edited bits in about the "common source". Seems like I made the right move to please everyone on that page then. He is even helping out a bit as I've seen in the "history" which is good. But hopefully this is all over now and we can all be pleased. Charlr6 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was following you both with fascination; a complete turnaround. You must be exhausted this morning. I couldn't help letting you know that I was about, by doing those two tiny edits. (The "i before e except after c rule" is not infallible, and has certainly caught me out in the past) As for "those" in place of "ones", I'm afraid it is a hobbyhorse of mine, taught to me by my mother who was an English teacher.

A very satisfactory conclusion, thanks to you.

We will keep in touch,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "remake"

Charlr6, you wrote in an edit summary: "The definition of a remake is to 'renew' and that's what this film does, it 'renews'." This is incorrect. If you check the Remake page it clearly states that a "remake" is "A remake is a piece of media based primarily on an earlier work of the same medium.". If your definition were correct, then even the 2009 film adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo would be a "remake" since it "renews" the novel in another medium. It is clear that English is not your first language from your comments, so you might want to be a bit careful about being so certain that you understand the nuances of the meanings of particular words in English. You also should try to avoid making comments like "other posters have been behaving idiotically". Wikipedia has rules about civility, and this is a violation of that. 99.192.88.202 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You are coming onto my Wiki page now and continuing this?

Wikipedia is not a Dictionary and you can't trust most of the pages, people who created that page are people like you.

And don't be stupid about the Swedish version being a remake, you knew EXACTLY what I meant.

And my English is not my first language? Yes it is, I am from the United Kingdom.

And why didn't you reply back to Gareth about him saying about the posters behaving 'idiotically'? I was agreeing with him. He said he won't accept to be 'bullied', so he implied you were a bully, want to pick on that too? And it's not like you are being civil either is it? You aren't even going to give up are you? That's why you decided to come onto my Wikipedia page and send that message, like you are obsessed with it. And your comment about English is apparently not my first language which isn't true was practically bullying.

But I will not take you seriously until you actually register properly, it would take two minutes tops. So don't give me 'rules of Wikipedia' until you are registered yourself.

--Charlr6 (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"You are coming onto my Wiki page now and continuing this?" --- User talk pages are appropriate places for discussions of edits. The particular edit summary comment I wished to discuss was on a page where you had not participated on the talk page, so I thought putting it here would ensure that you would see it.

"Wikipedia is not a Dictionary and you can't trust most of the pages" --- Wikipedia pages can be trusted to the extent that sources are cited for information. That is what I have been pressing you to do. But if you think that the Wikipedia definition of "remake" is wrong, you should work to fix that. Your proposed definition, however, does not fit the standard usage at all.

"you can't trust most of the pages, people who created that page are people like you. And don't be stupid...." --- These are more personal attacks, which are a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. I have not insulted you and ask that you show the same respect.

"And my English is not my first language? Yes it is, I am from the United Kingdom." --- My mistake. It was an honest mistake based on some of your comments.

"And it's not like you are being civil either is it?" -- I have been civil, yes. I have disagreed, but not insulted anyone.

"I will not take you seriously until you actually register properly" --- Whether or not you take me seriously is not the issue. The only issue is the accuracy of the Wikipedia pages. Without a valid source showing that the 2011 film used the 2009 film as source material, the claim that it is a remake or otherwise based on the 2009 film cannot be substantiated and thus not included on Wikipedia's pages. 99.192.88.202 (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.88.202)

""Your proposed definition, however, does not fit the standard usage at all."" --- My proposed definition? I got the definition from a dictionary, a proper dictionary, not a website that gets its information from articles in the internet.

""I have been civil, yes. I have disagreed, but not insulted anyone"" --- No you haven't, but you are practically bullying me (or trying to convince) to believe the 'Wikipedia' definition of a remake. You aren't giving up, it's like you are obsessed with trying to prove me wrong. You kept saying to give a source of where I found that this film was a remake, but the source would be the dictionary on what a 'remake' is which gives a simple explanation. But I don't believe you have once given any sources about this film not being a remake except linking the Wikipedia definition of a remake.

And if you can trust Wikipedia pages then I find it funny how in University Degree Essays you will loose a lot of marks if you reference Wikipedia, if its so reliable why would you loose a lot of marks?

If you take things really seriously which it seems like you follow Wikipedia by the book, then why can't you just register? Why is it so hard for you to do that? Can you give a good reason why you haven't registered?

But you are practically trying to bully me into believing what you think and what Wikipedia says, but you can't believe everything you read, especially not a site that practically copies everything from other websites. I don't see references to dictionaries on the website. --Charlr6 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition of a Lurker

Hi Charlr6,

Visit my Gareth Griffith-Jones/talk page and you will see that this anon has taken the above subject onto my page too. Another User noticed this and replied to the anon there, addressing him with the above Wiki term. An appropriate title for someone who has the advantage of being non-approachable when it suits, I believe, and on the way to becoming a serial lurker.

Well done to you for standing up to this person so bravely.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Charlr6. Yes, good for you. The term lurker could, of course, equally apply to me, as my input at GG-J's page was entirely unsolicited. You seem to have more knowledge of the actual subject matter being debated than do I. There is a fine line, of course, between supporting an established fellow editor and throwing fuel onto the flames of a dispute. So I must be careful. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Martinevans123, I commented on GG-J's page too, but I wouldn't have if he didn't suggest for me to visit to see why the "anon" was doing on his page.

But it feels like in some way the "anon" has invaded my personal space by coming onto my Talk page and continuing the discussion that he seems obsessed with. He/she has yet to give me a good reason why he hasn't give a good source of why it isn't a remake except the Wikipedia definition of a remake, but that counts as much as a source as the original Swedish film director saying the film is a remake. I would like to know why he/she hasn't registered yet at all and if there is a reason why. --Charlr6 (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Charlr6 - amid all the ip edits and funny wikipedia editor names, you don't know how refreshing it is to see an editor who includes all his personal data on his User page, including a great photo. I have sometimes felt sorry for even using a real name here. But then again I have also found that openness and honesty tend to go together. It's obvious that all of your contributions are entirely sincere. Hope to see more of you! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hard to pin down an ip isn't it! I particularly enjoyed that edit to 2010 Uzbek League in June 2010, haha. Martinevans123 (talk)

Enjoyed the latest installment of play with our "anon" this evening. Wondered if you were watching, Charlr6, and pleased to see you were.

Hey, Martin, please enlighten me on your comment above!

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it's just in that ip's edit history! Was trying to make the point that an ip editor has no real authority, as its history can be quite random. (Charlr6, sorry for invading your Talk page like this). Martinevans123 (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, feel free. It's fine. Charlr6 (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you here? This is a bit late. Where have you been, haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just been watching a film. The 1979 'Nosferatu' Charlr6 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not the 1922 original then! was it good? Did you say you had seen The Human Centipede - that looked very dark. Martinevans123 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I brought it on Thursday, I thought it was the original until I got back home. But I didn't mind as the remake got really good reviews. But I've seen Human Centipede 1 and 2. The actings terrible, but the story isn't that bad. Well in the first one its good and had potential to be much better. The second one was alright, but bloody. Charlr6 (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. I think your unfinished short story/ script is very interesting. Too bad about the "writer's block" - I have tried to contact you through "another social network", haha. Bye for now. And thanks for the use of your Talk Page! Martinevans123 (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Another social network"? Yesterday I deleted two requests as I didn't know who they were. You could try to contact me again. Haha Charlr6 (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Okies. It's not a request - just a message! Haha. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any messages, I'll have more of a look. --Charlr6 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you had seen this discussion? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought you might want to know that the discussion on the talk page of the 2011 film has started up again by "a new guy", and what's more our lurker is back busy replying, would you believe... incredible, isn't it?

What's more, "the new guy" visited my talk page this morning.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What is the '2011 film' talk page that the person is talking on?Charlr6 (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being deliberately obscure.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011 film) ... Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Charlr6, how are you? Not seen much of you lately! Hope you are well. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Your User page

Hello again,

Have just read your notes re: your planned novel and progress to-date on your User page. Sounds good. A man of many talents.

All the best,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Just thought that you might like this:

This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC) ... and this one?

This user enjoys reading fiction.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have read that you are a fan of Doctor Who ... I watched "the David Tennant episodes", but have seen none with the his successor (how does he compare?) ... and thought you might want this to add to your User page:

This user is not a dragon but will probably be one in his next life

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well Matt Smith's Doctor has a very different feel to David Tennant, not just because he is a different Doctor, but because Steven Moffat took over as head writer. It's got a completely new 'feel' to it. It's got really dark stories that are mostly confusing which has been a criticism. I don't think Steven Moffat is as good a head writer as he could have beenCharlr6 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Russell T. Davies is rather special, isn't he. I guess this red dragon looks rather too Welsh, ey?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Toy Story 3

Hi. I noticed you've made this edit at least 12 times on this article, now, because it is on my watchlist for some reason. (I probably reverted some vandalism there once). I don't disagree with the change you are making, and the discussion you reference does show good support from the users who commented. I couldn't find the RFC they discuss, though, so at the moment it doesn't seem as though they've got as far as updating any guidelines yet. As I say, I agree with the change - "universal acclaim" is a bad term, unlikely to be accurate, and far too subjective IMO.

The reason I thought I'd post here is that, before this point, if I were you, I would certainly have started a discussion on the article talk page, to establish a consensus for that change on that article which will be easy to refer to, otherwise I think you may end up reverting for ever in a kind of "slow edit war". If you do decide to start such a discussion, and I forget to turn up to comment in support of the change, please feel free to "ping" me. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 07:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One other little thing I noticed is the edit summary you are using. You might not realise you can use wikilinks in edit summaries, so you could do something like:

Neutral language is preferred in film review summaries, avoiding terms like "acclaimed" or "panned". See [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Neutral language in critical reception|this discussion at WikiProject Film]].

- giving

Neutral language is preferred in film review summaries, avoiding terms like "acclaimed" or "panned". See this discussion at WikiProject Film.

as an edit summary, with nice blue links in History and Recent changes for people to click and find the discussion. As I say, it's a little thing, but helps a bit with edits like this imo. Begoon ^talk 08:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, I appreciate your message.

And I just thought I'd let you know that I actually believe a film deserves 'universal acclaim', but only if it has high scores. Most films will get around a 7 on IMDB, 60-80% on Rotten Tomatoes and I class that as 'positive'. But I actually tried to edit 'critical acclaim' into the Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol page as it did get a very high score, but then it kept on getting deleted and with a message on the 'edit' section saying to go to that discussion about 'reviews'. So after this, whenever I saw a film with 'critically panned' or 'critically acclaimed' I changed it to 'negative' or 'positive' and then linked the article like you saw.

But I will continue doing the 'positive' and 'negative' "neutral language", despite I believing that films with a VERY high or VERY low score do need 'panned' or 'acclaimed' in them. But how do I "ping" you?

Thanks. Charlr6 (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I just meant leave a message on my talk page if I forgot to comment in a discussion you started at Toy Story 3 as a result of this. It's not something I'd go campaigning about myself, but I do agree it needs standardising and doing impartially, and it would be a pretty bad show if I forgot to turn up after suggesting the discussion to you myself. Begoon ^talk 08:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Friends#Category dispute

I have checked history log of Friends and would like you to discuss before you will be warned. Please? --George Ho (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently not. He has now made three reversions in 17 hours and is in danger of breaching 3RR.[2][3][4] --AussieLegend (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Friends shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. AussieLegend (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that you (Charlr6) are a fellow Brit and I wondered if you realised that you are trying to insert the category that relates to New York state ... which in American eyes is a whole heap different to New York city where Friends is set ("so great they named it twice" ie New York, New York or in full New York City, New York State). Just wondered if that is where the confusion has been lying in this little contretemps? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 15:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the first person to put in the category relating to the New York State, it was someone else, then their edit got reverted and I then reverted it back. The show is based in New York City, which is located in the New York state, and I do know New York City, is in New York. And I kept on changing it back because there will be some people who will go onto the Friends page and then see the category about shows/movies based in New York City, and they may also want to know what other pieces of work have been made or set in the New York state. Charlr6 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand your thought process but wiki guidelines do dictate that the most specific category is always used and any higher level ones are omitted. If anyone wishes to search higher, that is down to them to go and look for it.21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Charlr6. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tokyo night

Hello, I noticed yesterday that there has been another "to'ing and fro'ing" going on. It is the mother or father issue. Which is correct? What is your opinion? At least it has all been quiet today so far. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I believe it's a spin-off, and spin-offs can be official and unofficial at the same time. I'm surprised the poster hasn't came back, if he does then there probably won't be any agreements, unless we create a new section with a list of the movies that have been 'inspired by Paranormal Activity'. Charlr6 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity Series page

Sorry I have taken so long to reply. I wouldn't be able to help as I don't really have much free time at the moment and already have a few articles I am working on. When I can I will try to help make minor fixes however. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dont be rude

I removed it because there was no source. You added one great but you dont have to be rude about it.Odoital25 (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Odoital25 is absolutely correct. You should familiarise yourself with WP:V as it's a core policy. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". Regards, ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't be rude? Don't be so lazy. You two should have tried to find a an article saying that it was possibly the last in the series. And why Odoital25 did you go and delete PA4 from the main page as it was "un-sourced" on that page. Maybe you didn't realise at the time I had added it in but you now obviously know I did add a source in and then you could have reverted your own edit and then stuck the source in. And this, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." practically confirms that you two were too lazy to try and do it and is a 'rule' to leave others to do it. Lay it on some other editor. If you were happy enough to find that quote then you should have found a source, simply type "Paranormal Activity 4" into your search engine. Would take 30 seconds. And I may have added the source in, but you were lazy to just try and find that. And if you Suriel weren't lazy you would have added a source in. And if you wanted to follow 'rules' then after reverted my edit you could have put a link to the 'WP:V' first showing that I had to do it, but you didn't.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a helpful place, the 'WP:V', is not helpful and as you two should know that Paranormal Activity is obviously going to get another film, you just needed to look it up for 30 seconds. Charlr6 (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, I got rid of it before you added your source. And when I went to add it had technicall problems. Its not being lazy when my WIFIs bee acting up. So no, doesnt confirm your assumption. Only confirms your presumptious and rude. Its the responsibilty of the editor to add something. Not assume something and add it without proof. If you have no proof for a claim, it shouldnt be put. Its common sense. You don't claim something, without proof, then expect them to find proof that what you've said is wrong, when you have no proof for what you claim. Also, your accusing me of being lazy for not putting in a link to prove you were wrong for putting that back in. A) Once again, common sense. B) A previous editor ALREADY put that, and you still reverted it without proof or even reading his link, so....who is lazy then?Odoital25 (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

" responsibilty of the editor to add something", I didn't add the sequel part in, it's also mentioned on the other PA pages. If it's all common sense, then you should have tried to find something to confirm that a sequel wasn't being made. It was already mentioned on other PA pages that a fourth film is being made. And I'm not lazy because I'm the one who had to add the reference in. What if I never reverted it? And currently at the moment it didn't have a 'sequel' section, that would mean that you didn't even try to find a claim that there isn't a sequel, you just saw it was unreferenced and quickly got rid of it. Didn't even try to contribute to the article. Maybe you two should have 'good practice' to try to find and cite a supporting source saying that a sequel isn't being made. And it's also funny that your wi-fi was being slow for about four-five hours when if you waited for the page to load, it would have loaded and you could have added the source back in, even if it took several minutes to load it would have happened eventually. So you are the lazy one for not letting it load in another tab or just doing something else for a while it was loading. The technical problems would have sorted themselves out in the end, all you had to do was wait. And you are rude too for presuming I'm rude, if Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly place for editors to work then you, if I didn't revert the edit could have helped the article by just looking up quickly whether a sequel was being made, or just quickly looked it up before deleting the section. So you are lazy for not looking up before hand to see whether its true or not and supporting your fellow wikipedians. None of this would be going on, if you and Suriel just before deleting the unsourced material, quickly looked it up to see if it was true or not. That way you would have been supporting your fellow Wikipedians.

I was helping, by getting rid of unsourced comments. If its unsourced, it doesn't belong on wiki, period! It was unsourced, thus shouldnt be there AT ALL. You only add when you have a source. Not an assumption. You didnt put it on, but when ever someone removed it, you kept putting it back without a source, which is the same. Then you go on some rant, further accusing me of being lazy. That is rude. Using uncivil language is rude. Your using uncivil language, which is rude. Thus, I'm not being rude but stating facts. Further, wifi has been acting up until the last hour or so. By acting up meaning I COULDNT GET ON AT ALL. Which makes your argument moot and nonsense.Odoital25 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't an assumption that you would have seen if you looked it up even if it wasn't your job you would have been helping more, and thus none of this would be happening. Sometimes you've got to take an extra step, even if it's out of your boundaries. But on Wikipedia, no one is applied to certain jobs, you can do anything, and you could have chose to help, even if it wasn't your place. Charlr6 (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So now you're trying to explain how you were being uncivil to other editors? You kept putting back in an unsource opinion. When an editor adds something it is there responsibility to have a source to back up the claim, and if their is no source for a claim it is not suppose to be put on here at all. Even if you didnt originally add the unsourced claim, you kept adding it when it was removed. Then when it was pointed out why you shouldnt have added it without a source you were uncivil. You say others were being lazy for removing the unsourced claim when you were the one who added it without a source. Then all I asked was for you not to be rude, and you are further uncivil.Odoital25 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How from what I just said did I say that I was being uncivil to the other editors. Stop saying I was the one who added it. And you are actually avoiding what I was saying now, don't say that I'm presuming that because if you weren't then you would have maybe said "I prefer to follow 100% by the rules and don't do jobs that the Wikipedia rules don't apply to me" or "Actually, I could have looked up a source and helped the article." So you are being furthering unresponsive to what I was saying and practically keep on repeating yourself. You weren't going to get told off if you helped the article, it wasn't going to get reverted by someone saying "you shouldn't have source it, the poster who originally put it there should source it" if you found a source and added it in. Being uncivil, is also being unhelpful, which is what all of us have been now, period! Charlr6 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You accused me and another editor of being lazy. And I've stated the case repeatedly. I don't have to add a source for a claim when I didnt add it. Also, when it was removed, you kept adding it back. Which IS adding it. I didnt put the claim in. You did. Whether you originally put it in or reverted the removal when it was removed is the same thing. Yet you don't see it. Also, calling editors lazy, and telling an editor what they should do when you were the one in the wrong is rude. You just don't get it. Its in the rules of wiki, you add something, its your responsibility to have a source for it. The burden of proof is with you, no one else. Also, you kept adding it without a source, even though you were told to find a source, yet tell others to do it. That is uncivil. Further, you call others lazy for removing it, when we we're not the ones putting the claim in there. Thats lazy. I'm being responsive. I'm responding to you. You just don't like to hear the facts. Further, your accusing others of laziness, yet it had to be repeatedly reverted before you would even back up what was put. Don't add something if you can't back it up period and be civil.

"telling an editor what they should do when you were the one in the wrong is rude", I was suggesting that you could have helped the article.

"Its in the rules of wiki", you could have said "I prefer to follow 100% by the rules and don't do jobs that the Wikipedia rules don't apply to me".

"The burden of proof is with you, no one else." - It may lie on me, but you aren't going to get told off if YOU break the rules and found a source even though it wasn't your responsibility. You would be helpful.

""you were told to find a source, yet tell others to do it" - because it would have been helpful, sometimes you can go out of your boundaries and do things that you may not want to do to help people.

"you call others lazy for removing it, when we we're not the ones putting the claim in there." - I may have reverted it back and didn't put any source in, but you could have been helped and found a source and gone out of your way to do so, so there is laziness from the both of us there. You don't have to follow 100% by the rules, no one was going to tell you off if you researched and referenced something that wasn't yours to do.

"I'm being responsive. I'm responding to you. You just don't like to hear the facts." - Actually no, you aren't being fully responsive as you still didn't say "I could have helped the article and gone out of my way for thirty seconds to find a link, but as it wasn't my job I didn't want to." And it also seems like you don't like to hear the facts that you wouldn't have been told off if you helped. You could have helped the article and gone out of your way and found a source yourself, but it was like you were too scared to break any rules as you might have gotten told off, even though you wouldn't have.

"your accusing others of laziness, yet it had to be repeatedly reverted before you would even back up what was put." - I may have been lazy, but you were lazy to find a source about how there wasn't going to be a sequel. Maybe you didn't have to add that into the article how there won't be a sequel because there isn't a source, but could have just in the edit summary box linked somewhere about how there isn't going to be a sequel.

But it also seems like you take serious offensive to a word that means "when people don't do something even though they know they can". So I could have found the source, but you could have found the source too, but we both didn't even though we could have. So then we are both lazy. Oh, and when I wrote this, I have written it in a civil way to try and make you understand. I wrote it calmly and straight to the point. Charlr6 (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Charlr6. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Paranormal Activity 3. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Please don't call editors lazy. Please add the information without commenting on the editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe how serious offence has arisen by the single word 'lazy', which means when a person can do something and know they can, but choosing against it. But the two editors could have gone out of their way to help the article even if it wasn't their job to do so. And that in a way is a form of being lazy. All I am doing now is proving a point, not doing a personal attack. But would they have gotten told off or warned if they did something that wasn't their job to do? Charlr6 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't that serious. It's just a notification to be careful. You should worry if it's the second or more. There are so many rules and reminders on Wikipedia that it's good to be prompted on occasion. While I understand your concern about editors not finding references, it's not everyone's forte. I frequently tag material with citation needed templates rather than finding the reference myself. Anyhow, don't sweat the little stuff. Keep editing hard. You may annoy people on occasion, but try to treat them fairly and assume good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, the people have the right to know the run time. And how dare you 'warn' me for starting an edit war when YOU started reverting MY edit. If Wikipedia editors need to discuss EVERYTHING on talk pages then articles would take months and months to be written and agreed upon. Charlr6 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

People already HAVE discussed it, that's why there is a tag there that says "THeatrical only", that you blithly ignored. It's not illegal to revert or undo and your "I'm going to keep editing it until I get it my way" thing is getting old fast. I didn't put the tag there but I am enforcing it, it is not important information and it is not something that needs to be accessed quickly anymore than anything else in the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see any discussion on the talk page, but you are blithely ignoring the fact that the public have the right to know information. And you are actually doing the "I'm going to keep editing it until I get it my way" as you keep reverting MY edits. I've actually seen you around Wikipedia a lot, and you revert loads of information, most are probably word counts or vandalism where people might write a rude remark in about the film or a character which is fine, but I see your name in edit lists a lot more than anybody else's. So its like YOU want the articles to follow YOUR rules as you seem to be editing and reverting all the time and dislike it when people add information in, YOU don't see necessary to the article. The run time for the extended version is important as the films are very well known and popular and people would be interested in the extended version and like to know how longer it is. If it was just an indie film with a small cult following but the film features a longer directors cut then it would be fine just to leave it, because that wouldn't be as much important information as Lord of the Rings would be. Most people aren't interested in the development or critical reception of the film, they would be more interested in the simple information, which you are taking away from them. If fans of the film or the book want to view the extended version and want to know how long it is, they can see it in the info box very quickly. But you are deliberately taking that away from them and forcing the readers to look further into the article. Charlr6 (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And the public has the information, it is in the article. There are not exceptions to the infobox for certain films that you think are special. Alternative runtimes are discussed in prose, this is the same for any film with an extended run time. Blade Runner and Star Wars have TONNES of different versions and they are not listed in the infobox either. TONNES. There are no complaints on the talk page about people's inaccessibility to the extended runtime. The most important thing that Wikipedia is NOT, is a fansite. Readers are not being denied "important" information by not having trivia like alternate runtimes in the infobox.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I never said that the film was more special, I was trying to say that because Lord of the Rings is a more mainstream film, there will be more people who would want to know the information than there would be for indie films. And the reason there aren't any complaints is because people like me who think from the readers perspective go on there. But if I was on those pages, I would be complaining. But the run times for the Star Wars versions are closer together than the Lord of the Rings one is, so they readers wouldn't be missing out on much with that information if there is only a five minute difference. And readers are being "denied important" information as you keep deleting it. Charlr6 (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Found footage

All the examples you deleted have been referred to as found footage. Serendi^podous 12:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, the examples I delete because they don't have any notification of being 'found-footage' films, and editors on Wikipedia believe that films that don't have "this footage was found in this location at" or similar at either the beginning or the end aren't found-footage movies. See here for where people have discussed it. Editor DarkWarriorBlake says that found-footages definition is that ""all or a substantial part of a film is presented as discovered film or video recordings, often left behind by missing or dead protagonists". None of the film is presented as that. Darkwarriorblake". I personally believe that any film in the hand-held shaky camera is found-footage, but it seems that Wikipedia's entry on found footage can only apply to films that feature 'missing or dead protagonists'. So as Wikipedia apparently states that, I changed it on the Found Footage page. [Rec] for examples turns out that it's main character is alive in the sequel, so then according to Wikipedia and Darkwarriorblake that they are supposed to have every main character seen on screen die or address that it's found footage on screen. I'm only doing what apparently Wikipedia states, even though I believe against it. Apparently it's just meant to be a "video-diary" if its not addressed that the footage was actually found. Charlr6 (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought you might want this Indiana Jones...

Hello,

You have been quiet. Trust all is well with you.

I thought that you might like to add this Indiana Jones userbox to your User page:

This user wears a fedora.

Hope to hear from you, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 11:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds very difficult. You have been busy... I hadn't realised. I shall endeavour to study the subject and will help out if I can/if you need any help.

I've just looked to see if you used the ubx above, to find you already had it, both linking to Mr Jones, but with different legend on the boxes.

What are you reading at university? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You must be very talented. You are obviously following a subject that is close to your heart, and that is why you are doing so well. Are you away at uni, or can you continue to live at home? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. All makes sense. It's been good catching up. Bye for now! Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this your "favourite film": Let Me In ?

• I wondered if you had seen this: this discussion, and thought that you would want to read it. It is No. 24 in the Table of contents.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, sorry. I didn't see it. Sorry I didn't reply. But my favourite film is "Let the Right One In", "Let Me In" though is in my top 50 though.

I did go onto the Let Me In page earlier today and it seemed to have been sorted out unless that editor returned and did stuff on it since I looked it up.Charlr6 (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't of interest to me. It was the film title. I thought that it was the Swedish film you'd referred to then. My not referring back to our discussions on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo films earlier this year in January to check on the film title was lazy.

Result: wrong film! Sorry, but it was very late last night.

I have been through most of The Artist wrangle and also read Martin's comments. Sometimes it is just better to eat humble pie and walk away to another subject. All the best,

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey it's ok. It was still interesting to read. I saw "Let Me In" three times at the cinema though. Haha. I must have been the only teenager there who actually read the book and seen the original movie. The other teens in the screen must have saw the trailer and thought it was a proper vampire horror. I could tell they were bored. Sometimes its nice not to be a stereotypical teenager, haha. Charlr6 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Charlr6. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. When you recently edited Desperate Housewives, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mystery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverted "The River" edit

Hey there,

Basically including the information that iTune viewer reviews have been positive (or whatever) is a kind of original research, in that you did the research and drew a conclusion based on your knowledge. If you click the previous link you'll see that this is not how things are generally done on Wikipedia. Instead what we look for is information that's been given significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. In this particular case if an independent, notable, and reliable source had remarked on how the iTune reviews were mostly positive then that information could be included in the article with a citation pointing to that source. While I have no doubt that what you included is true, the way Wikipedia works is that it's not significant (and thus appropriate for inclusion) unless/until a notable, reliable, independent source reports that information first.

Twinkle is a tool available to most logged-in editors that makes certain tasks much easier. When I saw your edit I was given the option to "rollback the edit (assuming good faith)" (the option I chose since it was clear you were trying to make a positive contribution), "rollback the edit (without judgement)", or "revert vandalism". After you choose the appropriate option you get a pop-up window that allows you to write in an edit summary (like I did) and then the Twinkle tool rolls back the edit, mentions the editors involved, and adds the "(TW)" notice to let people know that I used a largely automated tool to roll back the edit. If you spend a lot of time patrolling new changes looking for vandalism (which is what I do) then using a tool like Twinkle makes things a thousand times easier and faster.

Regards, SQGibbon (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning re film article removals

Charlr6, please immediately stop your removal of current-day currency equivalents, you appear to be embarked on a vendetta to make a WP:POINT. This is disruptive and I will block you from editing if you continue. Continue the discussion on the Dr. No talk page if you wish, but don't start mass-editing articles please. Thanks. Franamax (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you even see the talk page before commenting on here? It s not a disrupt and how dare you threaten to block me. Did you even see what was going on and what no one tried to explain properly except ‎Hydeblake?

I believe an editor was performing a personal attack towards me (and I had had problems with him before) as I put an edit into Dr. No's page, using the exact same formula that another part of the page had and the same website for a reference. But then it was reverted, I put it back in explaining why this happened and how it was unfair how they removed mine but not the other edit and no one listened. Yesterday I saw on the Dr. No page the other edit very similar to mine (that used the same formula and math) was still on, so I got rid of it, only to find it go reverted back in. I was taking offence to this as this editor wasn't explaining the removal of my edit that was very similar to the other one, if not the same. As he was doing this it seemed that my edit wasn't allowed, but the other one was, so I decided that as this was the case, then the other James Bond pages shouldn't have the came 'confusion', because it would be highly unfair if my edit wasn't allowed on Dr. No's page but was on all the others. Like being picked last in a PE class even though you were talented the same as or more than your classmates.

And if my edit wasn't allowed, then how is what I was doing a vendetta to make a point? When I was just following what another editor was doing, I thought I'd go on his side and then help other articles to get rid of the same bad edits that I was actually making in the first place apparently. And you sent this at 01:18, when I removed them from the other articles that was a couple of hours before and if you saw an editor reverted them, and then left a kind helpful message instead of one where they assume you already know most of it on the Dr. No talk page.

But why tell me to not start mass-editing articles? The editor on the Dr. No page seemed to make it like my edit wasn't allowed, so if anything I was helping the other articles by quickly getting rid of information that shouldn't be there. And actually, I did discuss on the Dr. No talk page, maybe if you clicked the link that I had on my edit comment then you would have seen. And if you did, then you would have also seen that Hydeblake was being quite helpful and I hadn't reverted in anything since he/she reverted my messages. But no one was being helpful on the talk page at all. I left a few messages yesterday.

So if anyone should be coming onto my talk page and complaining, it should be them.

I've explained everything in great detail and what was going on, try and look up the story before coming onto a talk page and threatening to block someone. If you read the talk page then you would have understood and saw that I hadn't put any edits in or took them on of Dr. No's page. Charlr6 (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Friday the 13th: A New Beginning. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I was watching the film and I noticed the word and added it into 'other notes'. There isn't going to be an article about the film series first use of the word. I'll find a 'quotes' and add that in instead, if thats any help. Not like there was a source for the other 'note' about Corey Fieldman. People would have to get the DVD and look at the special features to find that 'source' and if its true. Charlr6 (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a source provided that would be considered reliable, even if it may not be readily accessible. Please note that wikis are not reliable sources, as anyone can edit them, much like Wikipedia itself. If there isn't a reliable source discussing the fact, then I'd question whether it's especially notable to begin with, or just a bit of trivia which isn't really appropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The other two links aren't wikis. I've kept them in and deleted the Fridaythe13thWikia. And it's in "other notes", like other notes for the film. It's appropriate because it is the first Friday the 13th film to use the word. I've checked and the other film that uses it is "The New Blood" which is three films after A New Beginning I think. Charlr6 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You need a third-party source establishing that this is somehow significant, otherwise we're talking about trivia which should not be included; Wikipedia is not IMDb. All that those sources do is list the quote, with no indication of significance. And RT specifically just lists quotes that users submitted, making it no better than a wiki in this instance. Doniago (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There isn't an article written anywhere saying that "Friday the 13th: A New Beginning is the first Friday the 13th film to use the word 'cunt'", why would there be an article written about that? I don't really see the Corey Fieldman being anything completely nesscesary to the page, it doesn't give any detail that the reader needs to understand. That seems like trivia too. I'll start a talk page discussion on the Ft13th: ANB page and we'll continue to talk on there. Charlr6 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall poster

Hi,

I've reverted your edits to Skyfall in which you added a teaser poster. The reason for this is that the poster is fan art, and not the actual teaster poster.

I've also reverted your edits claiming Judi Dench's character will die. This is because the articles you used as references quote The Daily Mail, which themselves quote "unnamed insiders", which is what they do when they are making things up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Are you sure they are fan art? Because on Friday I was at an IMAX waiting to see Titanic 3D and on a TV it was advertising through a presentation posters of films that would be on in IMAX or IMAX 3D, it showed The Dark Knight Rises, Dark Shadows and I noticed it had the Skyfall poster, it was the poster of the upside down cathedral, and I thought I'd uploaded into here because I can't see an official IMAX cinema showing a poster of some fan art for a film.

I understand the part about the Dench's character and thats fair dos as I expected it might have been anyway, but thought I'd add it in.

But do you have proof that it is fan art that I might have missed? Because I am just puzzled because the Skyfall poster I saw at the IMAX was the upside down cathedral one and I can hardly see them using a fan-art poster.

Thanks.

I'm certain that it's fan art because I know the guy who made it. It was first posted on a few James Bond fan forums last year:

http://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/51194-skyfall-fan-art/page__st__690__p__1173923#entry1173923

I don't know why IMAX would have it, but there have been no posters released yet. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You know the guy? That's pretty cool as it is a good poster, even if it's fan art.

When I saw the poster at on the IMAX TV I assumed it was a newly released one and I had missed it's release.

Do you think I should contact the IMAX informing them its fan art and not official? And link them to the "commanderbond" page. Charlr6 (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Contact them if you want. They may be fully aware that the poster is fan art, and decided to use it in the absence of a teaser poster. Then again, maybe not. Their reasons for it are not really any of my business, and nor is your response to them using it. I'm just concerned with looking after the Skyfall page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This is my talk page, I'm not going to get warned if I go off topic. And I never said you weren't concerned with the "Skyfall" page. Charlr6 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're going off-topic. I'm saying that whether or not you contact IMAX about using the teaser poster is none of my business. I really don't care whether you do it or not. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skyfall Teaser Poster 2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Skyfall Teaser Poster 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, see above on my talk page at "Skyfall poster".

I uploaded it believing it was an official poster and it turns out it was fan-art as you can see on the 'commanderbond' link.

Charlr6 (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skyfall Teaser Poster.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Trollhunter to Trolljegeren

In Talk:Trollhunter#Move back to Trolljegeren?, there are concerns over OR on sources and translation. You have already decided to vote and elaborated your vote. However, if you want to discuss more, feel free. --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey there,

I've been following the page and reading it, but I personally can't think of anything more to discuss.

But thanks for letting me know. Charlr6 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ratings

Your Guideline. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you just choose to not read this? If I post a picture of a penis on a bunch of articles and then the first time you see those articles you're confronted by a big penis, would you argue that because those articles you have seen do it, all other articles should have a giant penis on them? I'm not interested in what you've seen elsewhere, there is a guideline there that says a general rating is not notable information, I posted that before you readded the information so you willfully ignored this. As for filming dates? It tells you about the length of production, its actual information about the production of the film, not what arbitrary rating was handed out by what body. Sort it out. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Did I choose not to read this? No, I was writing a comment in the edit list. It wasn't until I went onto another page that I had a 'new message'.

And your example about the big penis is completely stupid because you and I both know that neither of us, infact any Wikipedians would probably find another picture of a penis and put it on another article.

And I did not wilfully ignore this, I didn't see anything until AFTER I did the second edit. Filming dates do tell you the length of a production. Movie certificates tell you the rating. Readers would want to know movie certificates more than how long it took to make a film. Certificates are part of the production because every film has to have a classification unless they decide to release it 'unrated' in America, or maybe 'exempt' in the UK.

But I'll say it again, your example was stupid and you know it was and you also know that no one would see a picture of a penis on Wikipedia and then post it on another page. Because that 100% does have anything to do with the film or book or celebrity or whatever page the picture of the penis is on.

And also, I didn't willfully ignore the message, I didn't see it until after I sent it. Charlr6 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The point was that you generally point to other articles you've seen as an excuse to do something. I've given you a link above that says that what you've seen is incorrect and that a rating is not notable by itself, in this case it's even less notable because one of them is using IMDb as a source and IMDb is not accepted as a source on Wikipedia because it is, like Wikipedia, user edited. EDIT Though I apologise for accusing you of ignoring it entirely without having read it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see that the MPAA source was IMDB. Well, I didn't put that in, and if I did I would have looked for the MPAA rating through Google or on the actual site. I did add the BBFC one though and add a reference to the BBFC website.

And the reason I 'point to other articles', is because when I add things in, its because I've seen it in other articles. That's what most people probably do on Wiki. I did actually go searching before I put the edit in the other day for a Wikipedia policy, I spent a good few minutes looking for something to do with movie certificates and I couldn't find anything at all, so thats another reason I thought I'd add it in.

And that's ok, I forgive you. Tell you what, I'll remove the certificates edit, if you haven't done it already while I'm writing this. Charlr6 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Charl I wasn't patient with you, a lot of people are being dicks on here lately and I'm taking it out on people. Thank you for reading the guideline. For your future info, ratings can be included when there is something notable about them, such as a film series that was previously rated R being turned into a PG-13 flick and annoying the previous audiences, as this tends to get some coverage on sites. It happened with The Expendables II, and the Alien films. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I know that The Hunger Games in the UK was cut in the UK by 7 seconds to avoid a 15 rating, and apparently some fans of the book were disappointed. I know that the latest Twilight film Breaking Dawn Part 1 was cut in the UK, Ireland and in America to avoid a 15/15a/R rating because of the sex scene. I also know that after a while 'old' films get re-rated using modern day movie guidelines as there are 'worser' films in terms of violence and language and sex now than there were in the 80s for example, so some 18-rated film from the 80s wouldn't be as bad now compared to other films, so it would get re-rated down.

But next time I see a film that has been rated and cut a few seconds, I'll see if I can see why and then add information in about it, as the director and editor would have to go back into post-production quickly to cut bits out to make it more 'tame'. Charlr6 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see your frustration with other editors, sorry if sometimes I seem a bit of a dick. When I obviously am its usually when someone has frustrated me, just like other editors frustrate you. Charlr6 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Prequel citations

Please stop removing this cited review.

References

You said "Not a good enough reference as that is the writers of the articles opinion. Not by an official person to do with the production. Might as well add in our own opinion and say its a prequel because we think it is)"

If the writer of the articles is a film reviewer it IS a good reference. He's not just some blogger. It's from an online film journal. Most references about films are from reviews.

To put a stop to this edit warring I've submitted a query to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Prequel_--_Big_Picture_Big_Sound. Wait till we see what they say. Barsoomian (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It still has one or two other references. Why is this one so important to you? Why don't we just list an Amazon review instead? I read his 'review' of the boxset and it was too informal, just like referencing IMDB would be unreliable because of its informality. It was too much of an opinion than fact. I review movies on Rotten Tomatoes and I wouldn't see someone referencing a review on there. The other references it has are fine as they are more 'articles'. Why is that reference so important to you? And most references about films are from reviews, you are correct, but I have only seen references to reviews in the 'critical reception' and what Roger Ebert might think about a certain film or Roger Moore and if they liked it or not. I'm not taking all of the references off. So why is that one so important for you to have? And why rush to get some help? Too scared I would keep on changing it back and don't even want a discussion? The review is too informal and you might as well list IMDB and some famous movie reviewer off YouTube like Jeremy Jahns or Catherine Reitman. Charlr6 (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Found footage

Now would be the time to establish your criteria for inclusion. Someone is edit warring to get an example in. I can't revert anymore without being in violation of Wiki rules. So you will have to defend your chosen inclusion criteria yourself. Serendi^podous 23:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I just literally went onto my watchlist and then saw that there was editing on the Found Footage page. I've looked through the edits but I don't really get whats going on. He wants to add 'Apartment 143', but you are taking it out for some reason. What is exactly going on? And what do you mean my chosen inclusion criteria? Additions can be put into the list as long as they have the film title, director, production company and release date.

So what is the problem? Because I'm not really sure. The editor is putting a film in to the list, it has a title, director, production company and release date. Charlr6 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hold it. If you don't care what gets added then why did you take out all the ones you did? Were you simply bored? Serendi^podous 09:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? When did I say I don't care? I looked at the page at what the other editor and you were doing and I didn't see a problem. And most of the ones I took out either hadn't had any good information or were sourced to IMDB, which is an unreliable source even if its an actual movie, which we know it is. I did say to you on the found footage page that you can put the ones back in, I don't mind. As long as you can find information that is needed, like the title, the director, the production company and the release date.

Did you not even bother listening to me? I never even created my own 'criteria' for the page, I just took films out that I couldn't find good information on or were sourced to IMDB. I don't mind if they get put back in, as long as other editors can find the information I cannot. So how dare you come at me saying that I don't care what gets added, I said that I didn't mind if you put back the edits I took out. You could put back all of the edits I took out, I don't mind, as long as you can find the relevant information. So what do you not get from what I am saying? Charlr6 (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Charlr6, your approach seems perfectly fair and reasonable. I'm not quite sure how that could be misunderstood. I am surprised by your skepticism with IMDB, as it's used in wikipedia all over the place. But you are probably right to err on the side of caution. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

IMDb is always called an unreliable source on Wikipedia, and on the found footage page before, tons of films were literally referenced to IMDB. On the ref list it was links to IMDB after IMDB after IMDB. On every other Wikipedia page I have never seen that and whenever a link to IMDB is put it, it is taken out more or less soon after. Charlr6 (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So your criterion was IMDB citation. OK, but the material added has no links, to IMDB or anywhere else. If The St. Francisville Experiment cannot be added, then neither can that bit of whatever it is. Serendi^podous 10:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I got the information from Wikipedia itself, from the pages those movies were actually on. I never said that The St. Francisville Experiment can't ever be added, I said you can put it back in. Charlr6 (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

A cookie for you for supporting me in the discussion over episode descriptions in the Doctor Who (series 7) article talk. Frogkermit (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just checked Wiki again and saw 'New Message' and thought "oh dear God its going to be someone having a moan again", and for once its someone actually being nice. I've never been given a cookie before or anything. Haha. Thanks. Charlr6 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats okay :) Frogkermit (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Your discussion style

Charlr6, I've moved the substantive part of the discussion to your own talk page as it is more appropriate. Could you please take on board what I have said on the Skyfall talk page? I am trying to help you here, rather than have a go at you, so please take it in that spirit. You do come across to a number of editors as being rather uncivil in your approaches—the example of "Who the Hell are you?" is just such a case in point, as have some of your rather sarcastic replies to people in the subsequent "Crew" discussion. I will repeat what I said in that discussion as it is something that can only help you in your future Wiki discussions:

It's a friendly piece of advice and well-meant: use "Show preview", take a deep breath, count to ten and then read through your responses before posting - you may be able to avoid so much of the grief you seem to attract.

Wiki can be a frustrating place, with constant misunderstandings between editors and if you go into a discussion with all guns blazing then a well-meant but badly phrased point can quickly turn into a nasty slanging match—and I've noticed this happen to you on a number of occasions. Similarly, repeating people's words of exasperation (as you did in your final reply to me on the Crew discussion) is only ever going to annoy and alienate other editors. It then becomes much more difficult to have conversations in the future as even your good points will be ignored or dismissed by others who may label you unfairly. I'm not having a go at you, but I am trying to ensure that your time on Wiki is not spent arguing with others, which is time we could all spend editing and improving the project. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well I apologise. But in my view, I don't see any reason why showing me an edit comparison would be helpful. But how did you think that would help? I'm interested now, not having a go, not being uncivil, I'm generally asking. But as I was repeating words and annoying people, did you really think sending me an edit comparison to show my edit and what it seemed really like trying to prove me wrong wouldn't annoy me, even though I clearly stated that I just found the sources and then put them in next to the original edit. And like I said, I'm actually interested.

You know, if you like, with things such as the comment on Adele, you can delete my comment. Might be some Wikipedia rule like it doesn't add to it, even though I mentioned we need sources. And by the way, you said you moved a substantive part of the discussion to my talk page, but where did you move it to? I can't see anything new. Charlr6 (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In hindsight I shouldn't have left the edit comparison as it didn't really help the situation—and for which I apologise—but sometimes that is what happens when people get riled and wound up, and an intransigent approach to discussions will lead to people trying to point out even the most minor points which they wouldn't otherwise have done.

In terms of the edit summary comment, it'll stay there as it's not a big enough breach of the policies to be deleted entirely. That's another reason to be careful what you say in both talk pages and on the edit summaries: they will always be there and people will draw different (and often erroneous) conclusions from them. Finally, in terms of what I moved to your talk page, it was this new part of the discussion, not any of the text, which has to remain where it is. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's ok. Sorry for being uncivil, I'm not really a douche, honest. I forgive you for pointing out, like you said, minor points which they wouldn't otherwise have done. I hope you can forgive me too?

I noticed on the top of the talk page it will say things will be archived after three months or something. So hopefully the thing with Adele and the Crew will remain silent and in three months be put into an archive and no one will see that I was a bit of a jerk. Haha.

And when you said you moved a "substantive part of the discussion to your own talk page", I just imagined you took like big clunks out and moved it over to hide it from the talk page or something. But you just meant continuing on here. Charlr6 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Popularised

The point of the word "popularised" is that, once those films came out, the genre became popular. Man Bites Dog may or may not be a notable example of the genre, but it did not make the genre popular. If you want evidence, there are 67 films on that list: only five were released before The Blair Witch Project and all but 21 were released in the four years since Cloverfield. Serendi^podous 20:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can it still be mentioned though somewhere in its article? Because even though like you said not many people have seen it, which they haven't, same goes for Cannibal Holocaust, more people would have heard of it than seen it. And if you would like to know, I am happy to keep this civil now. I won't put it back into the article Charlr6 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind it being mentioned somewhere, as long as there was some specific reason to do so, other than, "I like it", of course. I mean yes, it was an early example of the genre (sort of), and yes it was critically acclaimed, but I don't see how those two things alone render it mentionable in a very short intro to a topic. Cannibal Holocaust is mentioned in the lead simply because it is widely regarded as the earliest example of the genre. Of course, if we were to go into a great deal of detail on the history of found footage, then Man Bites Dog would certainly merit a place; however, such a project would require that little devil, reliable sources. Serendi^podous 20:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thats understandable. I remember it put in before, but just remembered it, I know it isn't officially found footage, well isn't before, even I wouldn't class it, but as there isn't a "Horror Mockumentary" page, is there anyway we could include Ghostwatch onto the page? Faux documentary? Faux live TV? What do you think? Charlr6 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ghostwatch, like the 1938 War of the Worlds broadcast, is "mock live", for lack of a better term; it only really works for television and radio, since movies are not broadcast live. It is a different category from "found footage", which is primarily a film genre. I don't know if there's been any academic research on the subject, but the way I see it, different media do this trick in different ways. In literature, you have epistolary format- stories that present themselves as compilations of written manuscripts. Like found footage, it is often employed in horror (Both Dracula and Frankenstein are epistolary, as are many stories by Lovecraft). In theatre, you have the (rarely used) trick of involving the audience. Sarah Connor "breaking into" the T2 3D attraction at Universal Studios is the only one I can think of offhand. In broadcast media, you have mock live; in cinema, found footage. And in interactive media you have ARGs (Alternate Reality Games) that lead players through a maze of fake websites and news reports. Obviously all these genres are related, but I don't know if there's an overarching name that includes all of them. Serendi^podous 21:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I see. I assume then even possibly the original War of the Worlds book could be in this similar genre sort of? Because its written like its a fictional account of actual details, shame there isn't some name for it. Faux non-fiction? Although that would just fictional, haha. And what you said about fake websites in games would be like GTA4 with the fake websites, and those wouldn't class as real websites. So I see what you mean.

I'd like to apologise for my behaviour, I probably don't need to say when. As the Found Footage isn't hugely popular, would it be possible if the discussion was deleted? Or just archived? Well not just that, maybe even all of them unless the talk page has been active recently? Charlr6 (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

re:behaviour. Don't worry. Just read up on WP:BRD. Serendi^podous 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall

Hi Charlr6, Just a quiet word away from the Skyfall talk page. Don't start ad hominem attacks, particularly against me, as I'll bite back. Please keep your comments civil and do not revert to insulting other editors ever - it gets people annoyed and it gets you a bad name. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't insulted anyone. What part do you think I insulted someone at? Charlr6 (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"any editors who want to keep it in at the beginning are just being, no offence, but awkward". Yes you have: it's an uncivil attack on another editor, regardless of the "no offence". Please do not do it again. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean any offence by that. And I've replied back to your comment on what I made. And like I've said on there. Imagine it from mine and other editors perspective if you were editing on some page and an editor wasn't letting you add anything in, no matter how many times you tried to edit it in, or ask for it to be edited in. Imagine it like being fair. You wrote the entire plot, no one so far wants to re-write all of it and scrap your one from scratch.

If you would like, shall we continue this discussion on here?Charlr6 (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not heqard a single good argument from anyone that suggests why we should ignore WP:FILMPLOT and WP:SPOILER in this instance. Her character should be linked at the beginning, where she is introduced into the film and - for the sake of consistency - her name should be like the names of all the others: a surname. I reject the fact that I am "not allowing" other editors to undertake edits: a number have done so and, where they have improved the article, they still stand. Where they have not improved the article I have reverted: it's fairly straightforward. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

And it's pretty straight forward that most of the other Bond girls names are referred to by their first name, not their last. There is the consistency, especially the last two Bond films Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.

And it would be improving the article if her full name was revealed last, because it reflect the movie closer. Charlr6 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The other pages are neither here nor there: their inconsistency means they are flawed articles, and there is no need to follow second rate practices from one article to another. Scondly, it doesn't make one jot of difference to the film's narrative structure if her character is identified up front or not. We are not constrained on Wiki to slavishly follow the path of a film: I'll refer you again to WP:FILMPLOT. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

"Lastly, events in the film do not have to be written in the order in which they appear on screen. If necessary, reorder the film's events to improve understanding of the plot."

There was still no need to change it around, because readers reading the plot weren't going to not understand that Eve was actually Moneypenny in the end.

And also,

* there is no mention on there for characters being called by their last names.

* She is referred to as 'Eve' in the end credits. There is no reference to 'Moneypenny' in the end credits.

* It hasn't been officially confirmed she is Moneypenny. Doesn't even look like there is an official reliable source with her being Moneypenny yet at all. There is a link to The Sun. But that has been called unreliable several times on Wiki.

And the other Bond pages are flawed by your eyes. There is also no mention of things needing consistency on Film Plot. Charlr6 (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Your "vote". I've removed most of the part about the vote, as that's not really the way Wiki works and does nothing but duplicate most of the info in the preceeding sections. I've replaced it with an RfC which will be able to open out the arguments more fully. I've left your comment in there about wanting the name revealed at the end, although you may want to tweak your response accordingly to make it more appropriate, given the context of the statement. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How dare you change what I did? You were offended by saying 'awkward', but you change everything what I say, and then change it so it reflects what you want more.

And I've seen that on Wikipedia loads of times, and even main big editors that names you'd probably recognise have done the same thing.

Charlr6 If I had added the RfC after your "vote" then it would look ridiculous, with an "unofficial Rfc" section, your "vote" section and then a full RfC section. I apologise if you think what I have done is inappropriate and I will happily self-revert, but it just means adding another section to discuss what the previous ones are also arguing about, but in a way that falls outside the recognised guideline. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I will point out that I wasn't changing everything you say: I was opening an RfC, which is a much better way of gaining a consensus: Wiki doesn't really do voting in the sense in which you had started. An RfC is not a vote, it's a discussion to get to a consensus. As I've already offered, I'll happily self revert and re-issue the RfC in a separate section if you'd prefer. - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You deleted what I said in the 'heading' if you will. The first paragraph and reason for the new discussion. But like I said before, there have been 'votes' loads of times on Wikipedia, involving big editors, for example DarkWarrierBlake who is a big editor and I'm sure you have seen his name in places before has been involved in 'for' or 'against' Charlr6 (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right: I did delete what you said in the heading, but only because an RfC has to be neutrally worded, which I hope mine is. It's also the reason I explained on here why I'd done what I'd done and said that you should tweak your response to be more appropriate to the context. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tweaked my response. Don't know if you saw. Does it fit into RfC? It doesn't look out of place? Charlr6 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw: it looks just fine as it is. Some go longer, some go shorter: it's all about personal preference. You can always add comments later on in the discussion too, if you want to pick up on something that somone else says, just as long as you don't replicated your "Support" at the begining (just do the indent and asterisk to separate it from the initial comments). Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have already addressed why I changed the name. Do not accuse me of cheating: I edited openly and in accordance with all known policies and guidelines. I was open about it and have never denied it and I think you should retract the accusation. I undertake my edits in WP:GOOD FAITH and you should take them as such. And I really do not know why you have decided to parrot the accusations for a third (or fourth?) time when I have already discussed them openly on the talk page. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Because you never commented back on them, as if avoiding them. But you haven't told me if it was a coincidence or deliberate that you changed Honey's name on Dr. No's plot to Ryder, the day after I posted about how most of the Bond girls names are the surname. Charlr6 (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Bond character

You asked previously about an article about the Bond film caracter. I've now finished it and transferred it to the article space at James Bond (film character). Happy reading! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That's good. It's got information readers would need to know about the film character.

Should it mention the Bob Simmons (think it was him) character? Probably be hard to find some information though.Charlr6 (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, Simmons was the stuntman, rather than playing the character in any meaningful way. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Wrong guy. I meant the guy from the Climax! hour-long special who played Bond. Can't remember what his name was. Charlr6 (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

OK - Barry Nelson. It's not a film, so it doesn't classify for the film character page. - SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Nadolig hapus

Martinevans123^{Santas Grotto} wishes you and yours

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

---

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....

Wikipedia:BRD

In your future dealings with editors on articles please be aware of the above policy that says you should discuss any changes after your bold change has been reverted on the article talk page. In other words:

• You being bold. (which is great).
• Me Reverting because unless they are resurrected by magic zombies are not paranormal creatures in the traditional sense.
• You should of Discussed.

Please bear this in mind in future. This is so that you can fully justify your reasoning behind the changes, and are not caught up in pointless edit wars going back and forth and then you yourself cannot be accused of edit warring. Look forward to working with you. MisterShiney ✉ 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read other rules where they say if it is done multiple times, then be discussed. And I have seen several main editors, who I'm sure you would know if named, who dodn't follow BRD at all.

And I wasn't going to discuss my edit on Warm Bodies the second time round because I put it back with sources I found for it. If you weren't happy with that, then I would have discussed it.

But as you seem happy with it now, as you haven't reverted it, then there isn't any problem. Charlr6 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because they don't, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Old saying, "do as I say not as I do" comes to mind. In other words, do as Wikipedia says, not as other editors do, and you can't really go wrong.

It's not a case of being happy with it, I just don't want to edit war over it. I do not believe that it is classed as "paranormal" the lead needs sorting anyway as there are far too many genre's listed in the opening lead. MisterShiney ✉ 22:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea of free will also comes to mind. Like I said, if it was reverted a second time I would have said why it should have been included on the talk page. I'm not going to waste my time. I added an edit in and then later found a source for it. Paranormal romance is currently the only genre there with a source. As we are using our own opinions on the page, you don't believe paranormal romance should be included as there are too many genres, l well I personally think "fantasy" could go. The story is focusing more on paranormal romance than it is on the fantasy, it is inspired by the love story Romeo and Juliet. Charlr6 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BRD

In your future dealings with editors on articles please be aware of the above policy that says you should discuss any changes after your bold change has been reverted on the article talk page. In other words:

• You being bold. (which is great).
• Me Reverting because unless they are resurrected by magic zombies are not paranormal creatures in the traditional sense.
• You should of Discussed.

Please bear this in mind in future. This is so that you can fully justify your reasoning behind the changes, and are not caught up in pointless edit wars going back and forth and then you yourself cannot be accused of edit warring. Look forward to working with you. MisterShiney ✉ 21:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read other rules where they say if it is done multiple times, then be discussed. And I have seen several main editors, who I'm sure you would know if named, who dodn't follow BRD at all.

And I wasn't going to discuss my edit on Warm Bodies the second time round because I put it back with sources I found for it. If you weren't happy with that, then I would have discussed it.

But as you seem happy with it now, as you haven't reverted it, then there isn't any problem. Charlr6 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because they don't, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Old saying, "do as I say not as I do" comes to mind. In other words, do as Wikipedia says, not as other editors do, and you can't really go wrong.

It's not a case of being happy with it, I just don't want to edit war over it. I do not believe that it is classed as "paranormal" the lead needs sorting anyway as there are far too many genre's listed in the opening lead. MisterShiney ✉ 22:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The idea of free will also comes to mind. Like I said, if it was reverted a second time I would have said why it should have been included on the talk page. I'm not going to waste my time. I added an edit in and then later found a source for it. Paranormal romance is currently the only genre there with a source. As we are using our own opinions on the page, you don't believe paranormal romance should be included as there are too many genres, l well I personally think "fantasy" could go. The story is focusing more on paranormal romance than it is on the fantasy, it is inspired by the love story Romeo and Juliet. Charlr6 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll get rid of it. A source isn't usually needed for every genre. I will also transfer a copy of this conversation to the article talk page. Just so other involved can par take. MisterShiney ✉ 23:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Woops, just realised I moved this over to my archive. Meant to only move the two dormant posts. Charlr6 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's cool. I thought it was something like that so I replaced it. MisterShiney ✉ 23:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thor

Yes, I saw the film almost two weeks ago. The walk-and-talk corridor scene where Loki shape-shifts several times. But we all need to cite our sources, and they can't be personal viewing until after the film comes out. You did cite it the second time, so all's well. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Humans (TV series)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Humans (TV series). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. I request that you attempt to bother to read the documentation for Episode list and Infobox television. Then you'll see what the issue is. Alex|The|Whovian 15:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Simply another contradictory wiki rule. Why can't put on the confirmed actual air date, but can put on the air date for the first episode, both dates are the exact same for start of the show. If one can't on until episode has aired, then why can the other be there? Charlr6 (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Because one is an episode table, one is a summarizing infobox. Perhaps you should learn Wikipedia policies and how to edit properly first. Alex|The|Whovian 16:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is still contradictory. If you know it all, then answer other than episode table and info box, why can't the date be put on the info box? Is it because of fear they might change the air date, so then it might become invalid? But then also putting it in the episode table could become invalid if that is the case. There is literally nothing else to be worried about for, other than air date changing and it becoming invalid, but the point of Wikipedia is keeping things up to date and can easily be changed. Charlr6 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_television : first_aired : Date the show first aired on its original channel or network, (first_aired) or was released on streaming media sites such as Netflix. (released) Only insert the date after it has happened. Parameter is not restricted to a "premiere" date. In the event a program airs a full "preview" episode on TV in advance of a premiere, that date should be used instead. Use {{Start date}}(e.g. {{start date|1981|02|26}}) so that the date is included the template's hCalendar microformat, and is properly formatted according to a reader's Wikipedia date and time preferences. Add |df=y if the article uses the dmy date format. Alex|The|Whovian 16:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Avoiding the simple question, or not bothering to answer it? That, does not constitute as an answer. Charlr6 (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

File:GoT-S05E10-Cersei'sWalk.png

Concerning the image you uploaded - File:GoT-S05E10-Cersei'sWalk.png - when it comes to uploading copyrighted images such as screenshots, please ready Wikipedia policies and upload them in low resolution (i.e. smaller file) to prevent further use due to copyright. Such a copy has been uploaded, and a notice added to the file to have the larger file removed. To further your knowledge on such topics, please follow the links and read the content provided in the template below. Alex|The|Whovian 13:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tom Holland actor.png

Thanks for uploading File:Tom Holland actor.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Whpq.

Where do I add the {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}? Exactly on the original file? Where is the exact place so it can stay? Charlr6 (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

At the top of that page should work fine. But you're likely not to have much luck, as free images of him are available. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 17:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Whpq. I added it on the top of the page. Care to have a look?

The tag shows up fine, but as Ebayabe said, there's almost no chance the image will be kept because free images for the actor exist; the image fails to meet the criteria for non-free content. -- Whpq (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Whpq Ebyabe. I've had a look though, and all pictures on Google images, link back to articles. Some use the same picture but are completely different websites with no relation. All are copyrighted websites, and they don't source their pictures so I can't find their origin and whether that image is free or not. Where do you suggest I go? Charlr6 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to do. The article already has a free image of the actor. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a picture of him yourself. Otherwise, live with what we've got until someone else posts a more recent picture that can be used. It'll probably happen sooner or later. Next year's SDCC seems likely. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 22:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It is an older photograph, that was why I was trying to change it. And how do we know it's free, other than whoever uploading it, listed it as free? Charlr6 (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tom Holland actor.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A Trip to the Dentist

Sorry, but I believe that the content you deleted is actually relevant to the article as well. It is already included in the second season finale article, but because this episode is mentioned by name in the source, it's very clearly relevant in this article as well. This is important to the episode's impact on future episodes, thus making it important for this article as well. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 19:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)