User talk:DesignDeath

Hi DesignDeath! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kayako Saeki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-social (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) 11:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Reminder regarding the REC page

Hi DesignDeath, just so you know where I am coming from, adjacent Wiki links are discouraged in Wikipedia's MOS: WP:SEAOFBLUE. Cheers, --Soulparadox (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Life On Mars, North America?

So i am somewhat known for pointing out that shows aren't actually as American as they appear to be according to the general assertions often found in American mass-media. In the matter of Life On Mars i however find myself on the other side of the argument, asking you "Why?", because it makes no sense to me. The show wasn't made in Canada. The show wasn't commissioned by a Canadian broadcaster. The show wasn't made by a Canadian production company. The show wasn't created by a Canadian. Replace Canada with Greenland, Mexico, etc. and the statements are all still true. So, why did you move it to Life on Mars (North American TV series)?
If it is because the intro says it was shown on a Canadian channel then let me preëmptively inform you that isn't sufficient. That argument could be said of every American network drama from the past three years that isn't Detroit 1-8-7, and it actually was partially filmed and set in Canada.
The North American disambiguation is used when a disambiguation is required and the show was a co-commissioning or/and co-production that spans at least one border on the continent, such as with Queer As Folk and Being Human and may be appropriate for the American/Mexican The Bridge, but the default remains the single country if such is applicable. Some people don't like it but the alternative is to name all of the countries and then deal with people who insist the USA should be listed first even though its accepted name for disambiguations alphabetically places it last.
This hopefully explains where the disambiguation comes from and where it is used. If you have any questions or there is a reason i have overlooked for using the North American distribution then please do reply. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 15:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Flag icons

Hello DesignDeath. I noticed that you've been adding a lot of flag-and-country templates to film infoboxes. Please don't do that. Our manual of style discourages adding flag icons to infoboxes unless they are about military topics or international competitions. Regards, De728631 (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh shoot, I didn't read that. Embarrassing. --DesignDeath (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of The Grudge characters may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Toshio''' (portrayed by (Yuya Ozeki) was the son of Kayako and Takeo. In life, he enjoyed drawing and owned a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda spin-off

Hi there! Rather than do the back and forth reverting thing, I thought I'd drop you a friendly line to get clarification for my own edification. How is Kung Fu Panda, by definition, a "spin-off" of the movie? They both appear to have many of the same characters: Po, Shifu, Tigress, Mantis, Monkey, Crane, and Viper. They both appear to take place in the Valley of Peace, they involve Kung Fu, etc. It seems to me that it is a simple television adaptation of the movie much the way the M*A*S*H* television series was an adaptation of the film, rather than a spin-off. I appreciate your input. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It's set between the first two movies, focusing on the events that happened in between. Spin-off is yet again more accurate than "based on". Technically it's an interquel but since it's in TV series format, spin-off is a better term to use. --DesignDeath (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Then I yield! I apologize for my mistake and I appreciate the reply. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psycho (film series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bernard Schwartz, Ryan Murphy and Bates Motel (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) 12:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity 2: Tokyo Night

Dear sir, I work in the entrtainment industry and thus know fully well what a "spin-off" is. I am additionally mystified at your claims that Paranormal Activity 2: Tokyo Night is an "unofficial, uncanonical sequel"... Is it just because you don't like the film and you believe it shouldn't be considered "official and canonical"? This is not a Paranormal Entity-type situation. Paranormal Activity 2: Tokyo Night involved the some of the same companies as Paranormal Activity and is "the officially sanctioned Japanese sequel to 2009’s hugely successful Paranormal Activity, as directed by Oren Peli", as stated by press releases. See for yourself: [1] [2] [3] [4] You are wrong sir, and your changes shall be reversed. Thank you and have a nice day. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well someone's upset. I do not dislike the film, I don't have a problem with the film at all. I am actually fully aware the film's production was given permission and had the one of the same production companies involved, otherwise they would get sued for using the PA title. However, it's not an ACTUAL (or official, whichever you like) entry in the series and that's not really my opinion. "Officially sanctioned Japanese sequel" basically means that the filmmakers were given permission to shoot the film, but again this doesn't make the film an installment in the franchise. And no it is not a "spin-off". It's a sequel, there's even a "2" in the title. However, it isn't an OFFICIAL sequel to Paranormal Activity and doesn't even fit into the film series' continuity since in it Katie died in a car crash and clearly that's not the case in the canonical films' timeline. Unofficial sequels are "...produced without the consent of the creator of the original work. These may be dubbed unofficial, informal, unauthorized, or illegitimate sequels." That's what an unofficial sequel is. It doesn't matter what production company the film had, it's still unofficial if the filmmakers or further films ignore it/state it's illegitimate. And this sure as hell doesn't make the unofficial sequel a "spin-off" all of a sudden; and since this film IS a sequel, and you said it is yourself, it can't be a spin-off. Nobody has ever called that film a spin-off. So to put it together more bluntly: Paranormal Activity 2 is the official sequel, Paranormal Activity 2: Tokyo Night is the unofficial sequel. It has nothing to do with me disliking either of the films, so calm down.--DesignDeath (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

ALSO, it may have not been a very good idea to undo my edits before I responded to the message you left on my talk page, because really then what's the point of you leaving a message on my talk page? For this reason I will now be doing the same and revert your edits back until a consensus is reached. Let's not act like children.--DesignDeath (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that is isn't "an ACTUAL (or official, whichever you like) entry in the series" as you say is entirely your opinion. The fact that it is an "officially sanctioned" sequel and that they had "permission to shoot the film" absolutely makes the film an installment in the franchise, in the same way that The Marked Ones will be. It is easiest to label it a spin-off in the main franchise article because rather than following the characters and locations of the previous film, which the American sequels did, it "spins off" in another direction with new characters and a new locale. Much like Planes with the Cars franchise and your argument about there being a "2" in the title is meaningless (how can there be a Rambo 3? There was no Rambo 2!). There is indeed continuity problems with the rest of the franchise due to Katie's fate (but then again, who's to say, this takes place directly after PA1 and not after the whole American PA saga?), but this wouldn't be the first time events in a franchise have been retconned, which does not make the retconned works suddenly "unofficial". Take for example Rasen, the first sequel to Ring. It was a commercial flop and thus an alternate Ring 2 was produced. Rasen did not however suddenly become "unofficial". Just retconned. You describe what you call "unofficial sequels" as "produced without the consent of the creator of the original work", "unauthorized" and/or "illegitimate". I have established clearly that this isn't the case. Films like Terminator II, Cruel Jaws or Zombi 2are unofficial sequels. Tokyo Night however, is an official, possibly retconned, parallel sequel/spin-off to Oren Peli's spin-off. You are wrong sir and nothing you say can make you right. Thank you and have a nice day.

PS: the point of leaving a message on your talk page is to explain to you why your edits were wrong and were reverted so as to avoid you reverting them again. You complain but did you come to my talk page before/after having reverted my initial edits to explain yourself/attempt to reach a consensus? I'm pretty sure you didn't so please don't lecture me about "acting like children". Out of courtesy however, I will refrain from re-reverting your edits once again for now. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you personally fund that film or something? I've honestly never seen anyone go all out there and contradict themselves so many times while trying to make a point. "It is easiest to label it a spin-off in the main franchise article because rather than following the characters and locations of the previous film, which the American sequels did, it "spins off" in another direction with new characters and a new locale." Well this is yet again entirely your opinion. So in that case is Final Destination 2 a spin-off? Is Whispering Corridors 2 a spin-off? No, they're sequels. It's the same with Tokyo Night, and the fact that there's a "2" in the title pretty much confirms that it is was in fact intended to be a sequel. A spin-off of the Paranormal Activity franchise is the upcoming Latino film. That is the only spin-off. That is the only film the creators of the franchise hold legitimate. And yes, by definition, if filmmakers state that the film is unofficial, it is automatically unofficial and not a part of the series. Because really, who else has a right to say what is or isn't a part of a film series other than the person who created it? Look at Creepshow III, the movie was legally "sanctioned" but it is still referred to as an unofficial film because Stephen King and Tom Savini said so. And it's a completely different situation with Rasen & Ringu 2. Rasen was an adaptation of the novel that was a sequel to the novel the original film was based on. It was filmed back-to-back with Ringu and released concurrently. And since it was unsuccessful it is now labeled as a "Forgotten Sequel", which is sort of another way of saying "unofficial" but less encyclopedic. And about the whole retcon thing, if a Paranormal Activity 3 was released and the American PA2 didn't exist, then Tokyo Night might have been an actual, official sequel that was retconned. However this isn't the case since an actual, official Paranormal Activity 2 already exists. Tokyo Night wasn't retconned, it was never a part of the series or it's continuity to begin with. "Who's to say, this takes place directly after PA1 and not after the whole American PA saga." Several dates that appear in the film that confirm it takes place 6 years ago and the fact that Katie was killed immediately after leaving her boyfriend's house after she killed him (events of PA1). So anyways, technically this film isn't a part of the series and neither is the Latino spin-off. Look at Prometheus, it's a spin-off of the Alien franchise but it's still not an installment, and unlike this film, it's even canonical. Oh and PS, about the Rambo 3 thing, the second film of the series was titled Rambo: First Blood Part 2, so yes there is a Rambo 2.--DesignDeath (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I have not contradicted myself a single time (you however, that's another story) and no I have no professional relationship to the film, thanks for implying. Final Destination 2 is not a spin-off because it does "follow the characters and locations of the previous film", adressing itself to the same market. Perhaps I was unclear in that statement yesterday so let me try again. It is easiest to label PA2TN a spin-off since, unlike PA2 and the other installments of the franchise it PA2TN departs from the main storyline of the rest of the franchise, follows a different set of characters, was shot in another language and destined for a specific, different market (even though it did make its way internationally eventually through DVD). Notice how the High School Musical: El Desafio films aimed at the Latin American market aren't dubbed "unofficial" on the series' page.

2. You seem baffled by the fact there's a "2" in the title (and no "Rambo: First Blood Part 2", does not equal "Rambo 2" in terms of titling) and one of your main arguments seems to be that (paraphrasing) "well since there's another' Paranormal Activity 2 that came out it supercedes this one" while somehow ignoring the fact that the films were produced at the same time, which is why all publications at the time of its release referred to it as a "parallel sequel". Please not the term "parallel" rather than "unofficial". You say it is "a completely different situation" with Rasen and Ring 2 yet seem to argue that it isn't. And if you think a spin-off can't have a number in the title, well...

3. "if filmmakers state that the film is unofficial". Then please give a source to a statement where such a person states such a fact. Claims of the film being "official" are sourced. Claims that it isn't currently aren't.

4. You seem particularly offended that I should say a film can be both a spin-off and a sequel, which you seem to find contradictory. Since you got your definition of an "unofficial sequel" from Wikipedia itself (where, hilariously, none of the examples given are close to being in the same situation as Tokyo Night), you must have seen that "spin-off" is listed in that page. Like all those terms, "spin-off" is a type of sequel invented for people to better categorize films. Prometheus is a prequel and a spin-off to the Alien franchise. Sharpay's Fabulous Adventure is a sequel and a spin-off to the High School Musical franchise. The Scorpion King films are a prequel and a spin-off to the Mummy franchise. The Young Indiana Jones TV show is a prequel and a spin-off to the film franchise. Supergirl is a sequel and a spin-off of Superman III.

5. "dates that appear in the film"? You think filmmakers or book writers never went back and said, "yeah it states year X but I've really decided it's year Y instead". If they wanted to, the filmmakers could very well state that Tokyo Night takes place at a different time. But if it didn't, once again, it would just make the film uncanonical, not unofficial. Is Manhunter suddenly unofficial because Red Dragon exists? What about The Exorcist 4? There are two films that tell basically the same story. Is one of them "official" and the other one not? The series' article just lists both as installments even though they can't possibly co-exist. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well alright then, I challenge you to find one reliable source that claims PA2TN is a spin-off and not either a "Japanese" sequel or an "unofficial" sequel. The company never once labeled it as a "spin-off" nor did the filmmakers. Find one reliable source that claims a spin-off and a sequel is the same thing. The Spin-off (media) article on this website does not claim that a spin-off is a form of a sequel. A spin-off may take place after or before the work of fiction it was spun off of but that does not mean that spin-off is a "sequel" or a "prequel". It technically cannot be both. It contradicts itself. If a spin-off were a sequel it would be referred to as an installment in that series, and in all of these cases it clearly is not. "FD2 does follow the characters and locations of the previous film" Does it really though? The cast is entirely different except for one character and it takes place in a different town. The fate of the protagonists of the previous films is mentioned by a character. Final Destination 2 is then a spin-off by your definition. "You think filmmakers or book writers never went back and said, "yeah it states year X but I've really decided it's year Y instead". If they wanted to, the filmmakers could very well state that Tokyo Night takes place at a different time." Wow talk about grasping at straws. Did you not see the part when I said that Katie was killed immediately after leaving her boyfriend's house after she killed him (immediately after the events of PA1). "Is Manhunter suddenly unofficial because Red Dragon exists?" Yes it is if you were to create an article about the Silence of The Lambs film series (or Hannibal film series, regardless), since Red Dragon is the actual follow-up to Silence and an installment in the film series while Manhunter is just a film based on the same novel. It has nothing to do with Silence of The Lambs. "Rambo: First Blood Part 2, does not equal Rambo 2" Oh? The first installment was called Rambo: First Blood, the second one was called Rambo: First Blood 2 and the third one was called Rambo 3 for short. The Exorcist 4 & 5 are both prequels and installments in the series and are both thought of as official by the creators despite being uncanonical to each other. It's not like the series continued and the following entries ignored the existence of one of the films both canonically and numerically (see: PA). If that were to happen one of the prequels would definitely be unofficial. Oh and also, try to find a single spin-off with "2" or any numeral in it's title. Just try to find a single one. Because, you know, if a film has a numeral in it's title it's a sequel; never a spin-off. And that sequel may or may not be unofficial, and neither of this suddenly turns the sequel into a "spin-off". --DesignDeath (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Your posting to the Administrator's Vandalism Noticeboard

Please do not abuse this noticeboard by posting reports of users that are correctly implementing Wikipedia policy. Per WP:NFCC#9, no non-free images are allowed in anything except articles (i.e. not userspace, sandboxes, etc.). In fact, you probably need to acquaint yourself with the non-free policy as a whole. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But can somebody actually explain to me why this image keeps getting removed? It was uploaded almost three years ago and nobody's ever had an issue with it. Are advertising material/promotional photos not allowed on Wikipedia? I kept asking Werieth what the issue was and the only time he wrote anything was when he said "Images are used elsewhere or fail". It's very hard not to mistake him as a troll. Could somebody clear up what that means for me? Are non-free images like these only allowed to be used in one article? Are they not allowed at all? If so, since when and why hasn't the image gotten removed years ago? I have read the NFC article and I haven't found anything about this. And I've seen the page has been locked now as well, so can somebody at least give a proper explanation for once?--DesignDeath (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Usage of non-free media is highly restricted, its usage must comply with all 10 points of WP:NFC #1,3,&8 are the most common issues with an image. Replacabilty, Minimal usage, and Contextual significance. Just because something has gone un-noticed doesnt mean that it is acceptable. An example of how things can slip through the cracks is This article that existed for just over 8 years that was a complete hoax. Werieth (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Example File:Scream DVD collection.jpg is just eye candy. Werieth (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Scream DVD collection.jpg Is an image of a box set, regardless whether you think it's "eye candy" or not. These are some articles that use images of box sets: Alien (franchise), Predator (franchise), Pirates of the Caribbean (film series), Toy Story (franchise), Saw (franchise)... Just to name a few. So just because you think a file is unecessary doesn't give you the right to remove it without discussing it on the uploader's talk page and it doesn't give you the right to pretend you're a Wikipedia administrator just so you could get away with doing and removing anything you want. And could you finally explain what the issue with that Scream promo image is specifically? I mean, I've noticed that pretty much all you do on this website + Wikimeda Commons is remove images without ever giving a proper reason for doing so, but could you please make an exception this time? There is no free equivalent of that file, there isn't a free image showing the three main castd members together, and the image itself is highly presentable. The image is contextually significant. The section in which the file was placed discussed the cast and characters of the Scream series - the image showed the main three cast members of the Scream series. And about the minimal usage, can you explain how the image isn't used minimally? If the image is overly HQ or used in too many articles something should have been said instead of removing the image and the issue would've been fixed easily. In fact, here is a quite long list of publicity photographs on Wikipedia. Why haven't all thousands of those been removed?--DesignDeath (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if either of you responded, or else I might take this as the end of the discussion and that a consensus has been reached due to my valid arguments.--DesignDeath (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Ive removed the files again. Do not re-insert them. Alien (franchise) does use a cover, but Scream has its own logo File:Scream franchise logo.png that is being used for the same purpose. Werieth (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Do not re-insert them." I'm sorry? How about you at least try to prove your point once before making such orders? Files will not be removed just because you say so, you are not in that kind of position. Again, how about Toy Story, Saw, Pirates of The Carribean and other ones you ignored... You should go ahead and remove files on those pages and see how it goes. I honestly don't know why you haven't already, since you try so hard to remove files of the same type on the Scream page for some obscure reason. I have returned the cast image, I will refrain from re-adding the box set image for now. You haven't responded to the replies I posted days ago on here, you did not say what is wrong with any of the files specifically, you have not proven any of your points, the image does not violate the non-free policy especially now that I've removed it from another article, your behavior on this site is very strange and you keep ignoring most of the things I or anybody else says. If you want to remove long-stable files from now on, a discussion needs to be held although you don't seem to be able to do such things. Stop removing files for no valid reason (you don't even revert the changes so the person wouldn't receive a notification and revert it back; this is another thing that is against the rules). If you keep on doing this more administrators should get involved because this is borderline vandalism. Stop it.--DesignDeath (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I've noticed it has been removed yet again. If the image does violate the non-free policy, even though I can't see how, I am returning the box set image instead so the article doesn't look like a blank wall of text. That file doesn't violate the non-free policy. You should also start removing logos from Star Trek since there's too many of them clearly. --DesignDeath (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to make yourself better acquainted with the WP:NFC policy regarding inclusion of rationales, etc., etc. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

doesn't look like a blank wall of text is a complete violation of NFC. Yes Star Trek has a lot of images, however only 2 of them are non-free. Werieth (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Files issue

Well I hope you removed the second non-free file since the Scream article clearly can't have two.--DesignDeath (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Given how the second image is being used, both images are justified. Just because one article can justify the usage of X non-free files, its not an automatic that article B can also use X images. there needs to be justification for said usages. In the case of scream those have not been created. Werieth (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

How is the image of Star Trek cast members ANY different than an image of Scream cast members? Please extrapolate. --DesignDeath (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The impact that Star Trek has had both culturally and in technology is almost unheard of in any other situation. Kirk and Spock are hallmark iconic figures in that case, and their impact is still being observed almost 50 years after the fact. Their character recognition and association is part of what defines Star Trek. Scream's impact and influences cannot compare to that. Werieth (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is quite possibly the most most ridiculous thing I've read on this website. Scream reinvented a genre. It grossed over $6 million with just four movies. It won countless awards. The character of Ghostface is a cultural icon, there isn't a single Halloween where people don't dress up as him, and Sidney Prescott may as well be more iconic than Kirk or whoever idk I'm not a nerd. The impact of Scream though >>>>. So, either the Star Trek cast picture goes down, or the Scream cast picture goes up. It's that simple. Just because you clearly favorise Star Trek over Scream doesn't give you the right to vandalize the Scream page. I'm giving you a day or I'm putting the Scream image back up and if it gets taken down once again I'm removing Star Trek. --DesignDeath (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you just dont realize the impact Star Trek has had, everything from cell phones, table computers, 3D printing, Medical research, and a whole host of other things including getting a space shuttle named after them (iPad, vs PADD). Yes Scream is notable in their sub-culture. But Star Trek has had world wide impact in countless fields for the last 50 years, How can a slasher flick compare to that? Also Star Trek has made almost 600 million in just there last two films film. The Star Trek related income is in the Billions of dollars. Werieth (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok now it's pretty obvious you have some weird obsession with removing files from articles you don't like. How sad is that? Scream films are not just "slasher films", they're cultural phenomenons albeit not as big as Star Trek because of it's non-PG13 genre. Regardless of how many geeks fans Star Trek fans, it's still a film franchise, and so is Scream. There is absolutely no difference. So it's absolutely moronic that Scream can't have 3 files on it's page (2 of them non-free) and Star Trek can have 14 (2 of them non-free).--DesignDeath (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks, I have removed non-free files from articles that I like on multiple occasions. What you are trying to compare is a little league pitcher to Babe Ruth. Star Trek has had significant impacts on our day to day life, whether or not you realize it. Has Scream changed either our culture or technology on anywhere near the same scale? There are people who have never watched Star Trek that are affected by it. 87% of the world population uses just one of the items that Star Trek helped push (Mobile Phones). Scream might have a small fan base but it cannot compare to the sheer impact of Star Trek. Kirk and Spock are the hallmark iconic figures tied to that movement. Star Trek has been referenced, parodied and linked to in thousands of movies. Scream just doesnt have the same impact, I know as a Scream fan you cannot realize that, as you are too close to the subject. Keep in mind you where the one who brought up Star Trek along with several other examples. (some of which I did remove DVD covers from). Werieth (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

"You cannot realize that, as you are too close to the subject." Yeah I think that's exactly the case with you. I barely hear anyone talk about Star Trek nowdays, even with the new films coming out it's nowhere near that culturally relevant. But then again, REGARDLESS whether it is or not, Scream is one of the most iconic franchises of it's genre and it deserves to have a single cast picture on it's article. I mean dear God, the Scream article is even longer than the Star Trek article and Star Trek has nearly 20 images while Scream has 2. It doesn't matter if Star trek is more popular, they are both fictional franchises. It's astonishingly unfair that Scream can't have 2 non-free files on it's article.--DesignDeath (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Also that cast photo is replaceable, just do what Trek did and use free shots of the three characters. Werieth (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Aren't screencaps of copyrighted material non-free as well? --DesignDeath (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You dont need to use screenshots, Take File:David Arquette 2010.jpg for example its him on set of the 4th movie. Just use three separate pics, and it will make the cast photo obsolete. (take a look at the Trek article and the lower sections where they use free shots of the actors who played the different captains.) Werieth (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of talk page comments

Please stop removing the comments of others on article talk pages like here. The comments you removed were about the article concerned, when they were written. Please see WP:TPO "The basic rule....is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". Martin451 20:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

recommendation

Since Marvel and DC universe all originated in comics. You can go here for opinions. Buffyverse originated in film so I recommend here for opinions on that. (It's also the busiest WikiProject that I am linking). Middle-earth has their own WikiProject. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, DesignDeath, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Hope this makes you feel better. Barnstars are like Christmas presents to us, Wikipedia editors. Jhenderson 777 22:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HÊÚL., where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Martin451 00:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Poster for Ju-on 5 & 6.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Poster for Ju-on 5 & 6.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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sam - Trick 'r Treat.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sam - Trick 'r Treat.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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Final Destination series set.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Final Destination series set.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. Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:REC 4 Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:REC 4 Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Saw official poster.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Saw official poster.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Saw official poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Saw Blu-ray Collection.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Saw Blu-ray Collection.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sarah Michelle Gellar in The Grudge.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ju-on The Curse 2 poster.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Exorcist anthology DVD.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tristana Medeiros REC.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)