User talk:68.129.15.71

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (68.129.15.71) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Flappychappy. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Space Invasion of Lapland— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Flappychappy (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2016

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Jack the Ripper (1959 film), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 December

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 Giant from the Unknown page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello, I'm Keri. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Angry Red Planet ‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Keri (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Keri. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Beyond the Time Barrier ‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Keri (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (68.129.15.71) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! FriyMan (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Not of This Earth (1957 film). Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits

Can you explain your recent edits on Nightmare City and The Manster? From the Manster article, you attributed something that is not in the source (which I have on my desk next to me) and the Nightmare City article began adding biographical information about the director, Umberto Lenzi. This edits are unusual to me. Could you explain them? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't want me contributing to wikipedia at all. It looks like you erased all of the work I did on the Umberto Lenzi filmography, which took me weeks to do in my spare time. I do not know how to add the footnotes/ sources, but that doesn't make my edits invalid. I have never put anything on wikipedia that was not 100% correct. I'm only trying to make the pages more complete, I should think we have that in common. If you want to erase something I added, I don't mind, but wiping out entire sections just for spite is too much for me to cope with. Many of the other people's wiki pages don't have any footnotes or sources on them at all, and you don't erase them. The facts I add to the entries are common knowledge in most cases, they can be verified anywhere, even on imdb. But if you're going to erase all my work and block me from editing, then I guess I might as well stop contributing. Apparently you have a vendetta against me for some reason, and I don't think you persecute the other contributors the way you do me. Isn't there some way you could let me contribute too? Maybe you could just tell me which sites to stay away from? ---frank Hi Frank, I'm glad you have a mutual interest on the topics that I do too. But several of your edits just break several rules on wikipedia. For example, I suggest familiarising yourself with how to use sources. I suggest reading through Help:Referencing for beginners. As for adding incorrect or whatnot material, we do not add material based on "truth" we add information based on Verifiability, which means we need proper sources (see WP:RS). I'm not sure what edits were breaking Common knowledge, but if you can point them out, I'll be happy to correct my ways.

I'd actually like to help you out as we seem to have similar interests, but I also want to enforce the rules of Wikipedia, especially those of WP:RS and MOS:FILM. To keep things short for film articles, We do not use IMDb as a source on Wikipedia because IMDb content is mostly user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation, rumor, and hoaxes. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged. Personally, if you would like to add content, I try to get it from home video bonus features, published books, and certain online film sites (AV Club, Variety) etc. for reviews, and try to avoid fan websites as they are self-published. Just imagine if you were writing an essay on the topic and you have to cite reliable sources.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask me on the talk page. I'll be happy to help! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For more film related sources, also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to El Retorno del Hombre Lobo— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Le avventure di Giacomo Casanova, you may be blocked from editing. WNYY98 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Nightmare City without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to A Quiet Place in the Country has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to La bambola di Satana— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Cross Current. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (68.129.15.71) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! MassiveYR 🌟 (TALK) 22:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate titles

You have been adding alternate release titles to film articles such as at here at Deep Red. While your efforts to add content to articles is appreciated may I refer you to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Foreign-language_films. Including every title the film has ever been released under is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. To summarize the guideline:

If the film was released under the same English title across the English-speaking world, use this as the title of the article, and refer to the film by that title throughout the article. However, the first time it is used, follow it immediately with the original title in brackets, bolded, and with a link to the appropriate native language article.
If the film was released in the English-speaking world under its native title, use that throughout the article, but include an English translation in brackets after the first use.
If the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world – if for example, some English-speaking countries prefer to use the native title, or if different translations are used in different countries – use the most common title throughout, and explain the other titles in the first or second sentence, putting each of them in bold.

In short, only the original native title and the titles used in English-speaking countries should be included. Moreover, alternate titles should be provided in the lead and it is not necessary to create a separate section for them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New messages!

Hello, 68.129.15.71. You have new messages at Talk:Deep Red.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deep Red

I apologize for reverting your edits under the false pretense that the works were not related to the article, as well as not a suitable addition to the article. Kellymoat explained that the edits are fine to be included. She also explained as well as that the edits were edited by herself for capitalization, removed by a third party, and then restored by yourself with incorrect capitalization and grammar. I see that you've made further edits to the article in question, so I will not restore the previous revision with the list added. However, feel free to re-add the list, and please be sure to add correct grammar and punctuation. Again, I apologize for my error. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on wikipedia named "BettyLogan" has been stalking me for days, deleting everything I add to any of the entries. First they did it on the grounds that my additions had no reference sources, then when I fixed that, they erased them on the grounds that they were not interesting to them. But all of the people I know who collect European horror films like to keep track of th different titles the films are distributed under around the world, and it even helps collectors avoid buying the same video twice under 2 different names. It takes me time to research and type the edits, and she (or he) keeps deleting them at the end of each day LIKE CLOCKWORK. It makes people disgusted with wikipedia to have their stuff systematically vandalized and erased at the end of each day. I am one of the people who created the "giallo" page's filmography. When I first came on the page, there were like 25 titles on it. I added almost all of the other ones, and now I'm being prevented from contributing by a cyber stalker BettyLogan. I even receive threats every day that if I re-add the information, I'll be banned from wikipedia,etc. Look back over the past few days of logs and see how she (or he) has been vandalizing all of my additions. Thanks for your time and assistance! Any help you can provide is sincerely appreciated. -Frank

March 2017

Your recent editing history at Deep Red shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2017

Hello, I'm Qzd. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Heroes of the West (1932 film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Qzd (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Giant Robo (tokusatsu), you may be blocked from editing. Jdcomix (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2017

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Nieves Navarro— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Scott is Nieves Navarro's name. What's wrong with adding her stage name?

June 2017

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm L3X1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Beautiful but Dangerous have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 23:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Year of film

Please stop changing the year of film to match the copyright dates as you had done recently on I Vampiri. Per MOS:FILM, the year of the film is dictated by when it first premiered, not what year it was made in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But in some cases, the film is released YEARS after it was made. If you don't list the year it was made, you'll never be able to put the films in chronological order

Yeah, that happens. But let the prose explain that as part of the production. When you add information to infobox where it says a film was released and add (made in 1957), you are not using the infobox properly. For example, on the I Vampiri article, you've last changed the year to 1956 (with no explanation it was made or released, or even giving a source). The film was made in 1956 (which is already stated in the production section) and the release date is also given in the article. If you have a source stating when the films were made, add it to the prose in a production section, don't alter release dates.Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb as a source

Per your edit here, please not on wikipedia we do not consider a IMDb as a reliable source. Please read WP:RS/IMDb. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected a vandalized page, someone wrote Ayla Halls name on every line on the info box. Ayla Hall is not a real person! Now you reverted my edits back to the vandalized version!!

Then stop adding information without a source and explain your edits. If my information is wrong, correct it with a reliable source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Literal translation format

Please do not put the films literal translations in Italics. It implies that the translation is a film title. Unless the film has been released under this title, and you can prove it with a source, do not place them in italics. Thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing this as you continue to do so on the article Double Face. If you continue to do this, you'll be blocked for disruption. You should raise this issue on the article's talkpage before making another edit to it. Please reply here to state you understand. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop doing what? I just added the translation of the German title. I put it in regular font as was requested, but you deleted it anyway. Maybe the readers are interested in reading about these movies in English? Not everyone speaks German. -Frank

Okay, you've also already stated that your source for these title translations is Google Translate, so this fails WP:RS and WP:OR. Please, read WP:RS and WP:OR before adding further content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Zombi 3. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Mattei filmography

If you want add items to his filmography, add sources. Accurate or not, you are going to have to find sources for these items. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why can't you just leave it up until you find the sources? It will take years to find references on all those Mattei titles. I collect the films, and I can vouch for the info because I actually have the dvd's and videos, so I know the list was accurate. - Frank

Do the DVD and other information have the dates these films premiered in? If so, you could potentially add some if they can confirm these details. Outside this, the page has been tagged for years for being unsourced. No effort was made to find them, so I tried to clean it up best I could with the information available. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But in the meantime, most of the filmography info is no longer available on the page at all.Most of his films weren't well known enough to even be mentioned in a reference source on Mattei, even if you found one.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure information could be found. The book "Italian horror film Directors" by Louis Paul goes through large bits of his filmography. Not to mention in the past month I've found several other bits and pieces of his film credits both online and in published books. If it can't be found, we shouldn't add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The info can be found on imdb. Why can't you just leave the imdb related titles on the page until other more reliable sources turn up to disprove their data? 99.9 % of their info is accurate.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as mentioned above, we don't do this because we do not use IMDb as a source. (Please read WP:RS/IMDb), which states "IMDb content is mostly user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation, rumor, and hoaxes. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged. It should also be noted that its romanization of Chinese titles does not follow the standard. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally unacceptable. So, while itself discouraged as a source, IMDB might provide information leading editors to the preferable reliable sites.". This argument is going beyond of what you want included on this page. If you want to use IMDb as a source, bring it up on the talk page of WP:FILM. Otherwise, I feel like you may not be getting it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Warriors of the Year 2072. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

A lot of your recent edits seem to conflict with other sources. I'm doing my best (as are you) to find the release dates and other information. However, trivial information such as multiple titles are not really useful to our readers without context. Just as you had found that Rats, Night of Terror release date, I've found about two other ones that say different dates. Which is correct? How do you know for sure? We need to find better sources. Lets discuss these items on the respective films talk pages before jumping to Rotten Tomatoes or any other first page google source on what we have found. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the only way to source Mattei is to buy that new Italian biography/filmography on him that just came out a year or so ago. It's all in Italian unfortunately, but it's supposed to be the best official reference work done on his work. The release dates, cast members and alternate titles should be easily understandable however in any language. It seems futile however if any material I get from it is maliciously deleted.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's only removed because you a) keep adding original research and b) add sources without checking if they pass the rules on WP:RS, and WP:OR. Have you read those pages? Have you verified if anything you are sourcing follows those rules? Because from what I've seen, you have continuously added items, sourced them, and when I check the sources it does not even state what they claim, let alone follow the rules I previously mentioned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One necessary alternate title

You listed S.S. EXTERMINATION LOVE CAMP on the Mattei filmography and it doesn't have a wikipedia page attached to it. This film is available on DVD under the title WOMEN'S CAMP 119. Unless you list that either as the primary title, or as an aka, on the filmography, no one will know what the dvd release title is. It's only known as WOMEN'S CAMP 119 now.68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Films with this many titles is tricky. We try to use the most commonly used name for these types of films, but as stated previously, this is not always easy with Mattei's films. However, we can not just list every alternative title of these films as it will become an unruly mess. If you can suggest that one title is more common than the other, we can move the page around. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean....If you had a separate wikipage on this film, you could write there that the dvd title is Women's Camp 119. But there's no wikipage in this case, so there's nowhere to include that info. The film is marketed only as Women's Camp 119. So I would either put it on as an aka, or else make that the main title.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should cram every alternative English title though, because the page will become a an unruly mess. If you think that the Women's Camp 119 is the more common title, even amongst fan reviews. we can probably change the title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the dvd for sale under the title Women's Camp 119....https://www.amazon.com/Womans-Camp-119-Staccioli/dp/B007BOCCFO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498429186&sr=8-1&keywords=women%27s+camp+119. That has become the main title for this movie. (also, why not put the alternate titles under the "Notes" column?68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See thats where it gets tricky. For other Italian films like I Vampiri which I worked on, it had been released under other titles in the United Kingdom and USA with different running times. Currently, most research on it calls it I Vampiri, but with your current DVD, the film has not reached a significant exposure under that title. I'm not saying the alternative title is wrong, nor am I suggesting one is more common than the other, but I definitely do not think we should just be listing every alternative title under the sun. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even tried to include things like Hungarian, Pakistani or Argentinian release titles, but I do think that most of the people reading the English language version of wiki would probably be interested in what titles the films were released in the UK and USA at the very least, and since most of the Eurofilms are co-productions, probably Germnany & France as well. But to list only the Italian title (as in the case of The Psychic and One on Top of the Other, etc.) seems strange, especially since these films were dubbed in English and were very definitely distributed under English titles. Interested fans can't even order The Psychic or One on Top on dvd under the Italian names, so I think the English titles should at least be mentioned, in case someone would like to try to get these films on dvd.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, great if you have them, but I'd include them in a section called "Release", opposed to the lead. Again, try to find them based on WP:RS and WP:OR rules. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWand and Blogspot

Please do not use WikiWand as a source, its just mirroring wikipedia. So it fails WP:RS and WP:OR. Ditto for the majority of sites hosted by blogspot, which are blogs and self-published sources. You need to find better ones. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mattei's Madness

So the book I have by Roberto Curti states that all the films are released by the initial release date in Italy for things like Madness. Does the Mattei book you have go by specific dates or state anything like that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The text reviews all the films in the order in which they were made, and it refers (several times) to MADNESS" (1994). It shows it coming out the year after "DANGEROUS ATTRACTION" (1993). I have a copy of the film on dvd-r, I can check the copyright date on the credits. (I hate to bring up imdb, but they have it listed as 1994 as well.)68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey. I've replied on the Madness page. I know this is an annoying situation but the copyright date does not always attribute to when the film was released. The Franju Eyes Without a Face for example has a copyright notice for 1959, but was not shown publicly until 1960. I've expanded the discussion on the Madness talk page. We should probably stick to it there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THat's exactly my point. The Franju film has a copyright date 1959 because that's when it was made, and it was first shown in 1960. The same is true with the Mattei film MADNESS; it has a copyright date on the dvd of 1993 because that's when it was made, but it was first shown in 1994 (according to every source but one). So why do you keep listing MADNESS as 1992? That's like as if you listed the Franju film as 1958!!! It makes no sense. I'm sorry to be annoying on this, but we have the oppportunity of fixing Curti's error here and you're not taking advantage of it.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Co-directing and first time working with credits

So if we are adding information like "last time working with ____" and "first time working with _____" for his work with Claudio and the producer, you have to find reasons why that's important. He's worked with several people through his career continiously. It would be good to find information related to that and adding it to the prose, not adding it to his filmography. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are really only 2 collaborators that meant anything to Mattei's career....Claudio Fragasso, who wrote most of his films from 1980--1990 (and happened to co-direct a few too) but his main contribution was that they were a team throughout that decade and all Mattei's best films were made then! The other collaborator Giovanni Paolucci came along at the very end of Mattei's career and he became his producer for the last ten films or so that he made. So those aren't just collaborators, they are the two people who kept him going in all likelihood. A lot of fans would be interested to know the exact span of films on which they collaborated.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that, but you have to back up the important of these collaborations to a general reader who is not familiar with Mattei. Otherwise it will come off as fancruft or trivia, which is information we try to avoid on Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again...

Again, do not use other wiki's as sources for content (as you did using the Italian wiki on Bruno Mattei's page). Do not add every single alternative title in the world as that is fancruft. If you have enough content to satisy MOS:FILM, use it there. Otherwise, stick with the most common title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't just change dates of titles like Madness in his filmography and leave the original source which states a different date. Discuss it on a talk page. If you aren't going to discuss items, your edits will be considered vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every source shows MADNESS was only directed in late 1993 and released in 1994. The Curti source is the only one that mentions 1992, which is plainly incorrect. If you want to leave it 1992, then do so, but it is incorrect. The Italiuan biography lists 1994, and the copyright on the dvd print's end titles state 1993.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Italian book you mention. Does it, or does it specifically say it was released in 1994. Is it just listed as "Madness (1994)", or do you actually have statements of when/where/date it was released? The Curti book does. In fact, it mentions it twice in the book. And your other sources contradict each other and do not give finer details. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Bruno Mattei. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's this in reference to? What did I write?? 68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically adding alternative titles such as German-language titles. The filmography is not an endless list of titles. I think the Italian one is ok, but do not start addding production info (i.e: "First time working with ____) etc. It's a simple chart. You wouldn't have a multiplication table that points out extra trivial detail outside the math. So keep it simple as possible. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTGETTINGIT

I don't think you are getting it. Having a book or source that just says "Madness (1993)" or "Madness (1992)" is not a source stating that the film was released or premiered on that date. Per WP:NOTGETTINGIT, this is approaching vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Battle of the Commandos, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verify source

I have the book available. Right above on it page on the previous page is the film DiaboliX which states the year 1992. (pg. 194 and 195 respectively). Curti also brings up the film on page 37 of the book where he states ""Meanwhile, history was cyclically repeating itself , with a heated controversy regarding hyper-violent horror comics that exploded at the turn of the decade. Filmmakers did little to exploit it though. Traces can be found in Bruno Mattei's low-budget giallo Madness, aka Eyes Without a Face (1992)". Curti also states on page 9 of the Diabolika book that "The entries are arranged in chronological order-based on the release dates in Italy-and under their English language title." he also states on page 9 "The information bits provided throughout the text are the result of a thorough research from a variety of sources such as academic texts and essays and other assorted material-interviews with filmmakers and actors, newspaper reviews, etc.-which are listed in the bibliography." If there are no further questions, I'll remove the "verify statement" on the Mattie filmography. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Curti claims he researched his material carefully doesn't mean he couldn't make an error somewhere in the book. The book on Mattei clearly states that "Madness" was the 2nd film he made with that particular producer, which clearly places the filming in the latter part of 1993. So the film didn't even exist in '92, it's clearly an error. Every other source on the internet lists it as 1994 except for the Curti book. It's obviously an error, the copyright on the dvd's end titles says 1993, because it was trademarked in '93, and released theatrically in '94. But if you want to remove the verify statement, it's up to you. You are clearly putting erroneous data on the page though.68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"which clearly places the filming in the latter part of 1993". Stop making assumptions on things you have yet or provide a source for. So far my source is the only one that states a release year specifically. I've clarified my sources, I've asked you several times to state whether or not your sources are actually stating release dates, and you are remaining vague. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I don't doubt that it could be an error. But so far its the only one confident to give an Italian release date. I've asked you a dozen times, does your book state where/when/at all if your films were released in the year they were in? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lamberto Bava

Please do not add things were "critically praised" as you did on the Lamberto Bava page. Without a source, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translated titles

When adding translated titles of foreign language films, do not place them in italics, as that suggests the film was released under that title in English. Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Images in a Convent, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic rules

If you want to improve articles, I'd suggest reading the following: WP:BAREURLS, WP:PROVEIT, and such. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Joe D'Amato, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Your sources you added state a year. Its not clear whether this year is the actual release date or a copyright date. Your sources do not state that. Find ones that are more specific. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am only listing information that have sources stating a specific year of origin next to the title. If you can find a more specific (precise) release date, that would be good, but in most cases, that information is not available at all. Some of the release dates you have listed are later release dates outside of Italy, not the actual date of release in Italy. Emanuelle's Revenge is listed everywhere online as a 1975 film, even in Italian reference books. 68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If its not available, do not add it. I don't care if you have a date but your sources are not actually stating the film was released in that year. If some of the things I'm adding are not correct, then by all means find a source that corrects one, but your addition of content stating "Eva nera (1975)" or whatever, is not an indication that the film was released then. I'm glad you care about these filmmakers, but you are deliberately interpreting sources. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." Do you understand? If so, find the sources that specifically state release dates, as I we should not be accepting things like Night of the Living Dead' (1968) as release year. Sound good @68.129.15.71:?Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the films' precise release dates are no longer available, or have been lost in the haze of time. All that remains on many of these films is the year of release, not the date and the time it was released. In the absence of more precise info, you have to use the next most precise source, which in most cases is the title of the film and the year of release in parentheses. If you can find a precise release date, in many cases, it's not the first release date of the film anyway. It could be a later release date in some other country like the UK or the US. In most cases, the films were released many years later in those other countries. Most of the release date info in reference books is all incorrect anyway.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In the absence of more precise info, you have to use the next most precise source,". No no, and no. You are over the top with original research here dude. If you don't have the content, do not add it. That is against the rules of WP:STICKTOSOURCE. If you do not have that content, do not add it. You've accused me of being a vandal before, but you are trying to fill information you just do not have. Not obeying the (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) rule, is vandalism. If you do it again, you will be reverted. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I'm not about to waste my time contributing to this page, when everything I add is erased or deleted. I'm sure you wouldn't either, if you were in my place. Determining the date of origin of a film is hard enough, without obsessing over the exact day of the week or what month it was released, when these films had many different release dates in many different countries. It's not the same as researching the release dates of Hollywood films, which are easily available. You've turned this into a horribly annoying experience, and I wish you well in your attempts to track down all of the precise release dates you're looking for. Half of them are going to be incorrect anyway. Maybe the page will be readable in a few years (as it was a week ago).68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have mixed lines here. You do not need an exact date, but you do need to have a source with states what you are saying. If it says "Released in 1975", that is good enough for the charts. Obviously a more specific date is preferred, but if you have a year and you are not interpreting a source to say what it states. Then please do add it. If you do not, then lets not go down that path. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{ Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Amanda Abbington. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constant harassment deters users as well. 68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To back up to separate comments, your "Most of the release date info in reference books is all incorrect anyway.", where are the correct ones you are comparing it too? This is a pretty grand statement with little to back up. As for constant harassment, you add content without sources or references, they will be removed. Not sure what more there is to add in that area. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Invisible Avenger. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Manster

I've edited some notes you've left on the The Manster. For one, the AllMovie source says nothing of when it was filmed. Second, the AllMovie source contradicts other sources. We need to clarify on the talk page instead of just tossing in bare URL references. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss before making bold edits to the release date and other information on The Manster. Your edits made the article contradict itself (i.e: you added a release date in the infobox when its not clarified here yet, you stated Stars and Stripes (which has no source) claimed a certain release date (even from the images above, it has a date discussing the films content, but has no statement relating to a release)) Before trying to solve the problem, try to bring new sources or content to the table. I've reverted these for that specific reason. If there any edits I made in error, let me know.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who brought in the Star and Stripes magazine from 1959, which stated the film was released in 1959. At the very least, that proves the film existed in 1959. Perhaps the release date was delayed a bit, but the fact that the 1959 article is discussing the Manster as a finished film in 1959 proves that it was made in 1959 and not 1961. AllMovie also states a specific release date in 1959 (the actual date!) which can't get any more precise than that. Everything that comes up on the internet regarding the Manster lists it as being released in Japan in 1959. The only source that contradicts it is the Galbraith book, which is loaded with innacuracies throughout, since it was written about 25 years ago when there was very little info available on these films (pre-internet). But the key piece of evidence is the S&S magazine reviewing it in a 1959 issue, that is irrefutable! Why not just list it as a 1959 film and put the references in for now, and if something turns up to contradict it, then change it later? (But nothing will come up, because the film was released in 1959!)68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AllMovie claims it was released in the United States in 1959, which no other source states. Your "everything that comes up on the internet" argument does not hold up well as you'll have to provide better sources than that. I'm not going to link you to the rules for that (see several relies above where I have already). Not sure what you mean by the Sight & Sound article as I have not seen any reference to it. Did you Mean Monthly Film Bulletin? Because that's from 1961. So in short, no, we don't list things "for now", no source, no go. Its not even me arguing, its the rules on Wikipedia, which I've reminded you quite a few times before. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

I meant Stars and Stripes magazine, not Sight and Sound68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue any further discussion on The Manster and its release date and other content on the articles talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Your previous edit was removed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which states ". A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." and "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In other words, just because you found something, does not mean it merits it. I.e: sure, some one was in the ape suit. Add it to the cast section. What makes it worth specific merit? Does the source explain why this is relevant? For the specific source you cited, I know it does not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allcinema.net

As a note, I removed the sources linking to Allcinema.net, as on their disclaimer (here) that they can not promise the content on the site is accurate. So y'know, we should not use it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to contribute

If you do not want your edits to be continuously removed, and since you do not want to read the rules page (or just ignore it), please consider the following.

Check the reliability of your source. Does it have an author credited, does the site contain a section stating how they contain their information? This should clarify the difference between a fan site and reliable source.
Do not add trivial information. Things have to have context. Was the film shot in widescreen? Maybe, but what's the importance? (i.e: was it the first film of its kind to do this? did the director or production crew or staff state why it was filmed this way? Otherwise, this information will be trivial and should not be included. It's been brought up before on WP:FILMS. Feel free to bring it up there if you think it should still be included.
Do make an effort to stick to what sources are saying. If the source does not mention two people being the same person as being anything important or relevant, do not add it.
Please read over MOS:FILM so you know what content belongs in film articles. Ask a question there if you think things should change.

That's all. I admire your dedication to films I am equally interested in, but I wish you were as dedicated as finding strong sources for what you want to state as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of the Japanese films are very important to collectors.

Per WP:RAWDATA, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. [...] merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In other words, information that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing. I have explained these elements to you several times and you break the rules or get fed up because you can't back up your sources. I'll be ignoring your statements stating that "its says this all over the internet!" or "fans find it interesting!" are never going to have your content stick. Back up your reasons, like if the director wanted to have the film in a certain format then you can discuss it. If you or I personally find it interesting, then it's not enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more time here, you can't just combine your research and assume information. We do not post original research on wikipedia. So just because things seem likely (with a few exceptions) we can't predict. This is especially true of low budget films. How many Italian films use fake names, fake authors, alternative names for directing credits? I know you know that as well as I do. This is why its so important to get good sources for these and not leave the articles in a crappy cruddy mess. More high quality sources, the better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to change the rules

You've often stated in your arguments that the films year should be the copyright date. I would highly suggest bringing it up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film's talk page if you feel strongly about it. Going back and forth with me about what should/shouldn't be the rules is not going to change them, because I don't make the rules. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Manster, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Goke, Body Snatcher from Hell, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Manster. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your additions are taking what the source say out of context. (US release dates, notable or non-notable colour release, etc.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Why has my content been erased?"

"Why has all of my contributions been reverted without explanation? Every one of my additions have a reference source as requested. You invited people to edit the page, then you delete all oif their work? How is this not vandalism?) (undo)". To explain it on your Daiei list page, refer to WP:CITEKILL, where it states its better to have a one great source and not over-do it. Keep the list simple. It's a list of Daiei productions, we don't need too much extra information other than when the film was released and major titles (i.e: most common English title, and perhaps the Japanese title). As for your Manster edit, you are not actually applying what is said in the source and are taking it out of context, which goes against WP:STICKTOSOURCE. This has been explained to you dozens of times. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to write exactly what the source says (about the film being made in B&W), but you told me I had to add a reason why that made it different from most of the other films of that period. When I add the explanation, you delete it because you said i'm adding to the reference source. As for Daiei, you left the Japanese titles on the grid, I just added the English translation of the Japanese title if it was different from the English title, and even then I only did it on the important titles like Warning From Space, etc. that fans might like to know how the Japanese title translates. If you consider the Japanese title worthy of inclusion, you should'nt mind my putting in the translation of the Japanese title if it's different from the english title68.129.15.71 (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't add information, you need to find a source that says that information. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, you can't just add information that is not the source. For example, you stated "unlike many other genre films of the era" (or something like this). That is not in your source at all. The source just says the film is black and white. So unless the source also has context, do not add your own because this is original research which is not allowed. Regardless, this information is also incorrect as a) it's not a Japanese production and b) several early Japanese science fiction films were in black and white, such as Gamera, Godzilla, Godzilla Raids Again and so forth. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Manster's Japanese release date

You know the drill. Per Wikipedia:Inaccuracy, "There are few situations in life in which we have total knowledge, or in which we have language that is not subject to re-interpretation. From a practical viewpoint, there will always be a level of uncertainty in concluding that material is inaccurate." In other words, we have yet to find specific information regarding this information as being wrong. Read the rules there please before removing information. There's also Wikipedia:Verifiability. Could you tell me if you read these or not? A simple yes or no would do. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daiei again

Lets make it quick.

Per WP:BURDEN, if you want to create a page, its up to you to create it.
Per consensus on the talk page, we won't be adding translations as I have added text to address your concerns which was not responded to. Consensus was assumed.
Do not use sites that just mirror wikipedia or sites which are wikis as sources. They are fail WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SPS. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Invisible Avenger. KylieTastic (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have this film listed under the wrong title. It was called "Tomei Ningen" in Japan, and it never had an English language title. The title translates as "Invisible Man", but the film was never released under that title. It was never dubbed in English nor was it subtitled. So how in the world did this film end up being called "Invisible Avenger"???? "Invisible Avenger" was actually a 1958 American crime drama that featured the Shadow and starred Richard Derr. Why don't you correct this?68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan (and other Asian countries) films often have a secondary English-language title. This is the case with The Invisible Avenger, per Galbraith's book The Toho Filmography. And for someone as versed in film as you, its more than possible for two films to two films to have the same title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A film can have 5 or 6 different titles, but they are usually titles that the film was distributed under. In the case of Tomei Ningen, Toho planned to release the film in English but obviously they never did it. "Invisible Avenger" was just a planned title, but the film was never dubbed in English, hence how can prints exist that are titled "Invisible Avenger"? It's not possible! Therefore the title of the wiki page should be "Tomei Ningen". That Galbraith book is just wrong. You don't believe a book can have an error in it?68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can even see the book here. Its explained in earlier pages of the book how the formatting of bold titles work. It is not very complicated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring this conversation per WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I've explained it to you a dozen times. Is English your first language? I'm not trying to ask an insulting question, just not sure if you are reading the rules or not. You seem to disagree with them but taking them up with me individually is not going to get you anywhere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Umberto Lenzi. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

Per WP:DEMOCRACY, Wikipedia's "primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting ". In short, trying to vote back your unsourced Lenzi filmography is not going to go over about as well as a the good year blimp. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming it would'nt be a real vote anyway, just a sham of some sort.68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC) I'm assuming you see now how what you've done to the Lenzi page is seen as vandalism to the Lenzi fans who are going there for helpful info, not an empty table with a bunch of titles and footnotes in it. The bullet list was perfectly adequate.68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding souces is not vandalism and from conversations on the page, the discussion tends to be leading towards wanting sources. I'd suggest keeping the discussion on that page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Invisible Avenger. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Umberto Lenzi. Please make sure your sources actually state what you are claiming and consider context for the reader. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Umberto Lenzi. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me and stalking me online. You give wikipedia a bad name. I don't know why anyone would even bother to contribute to wiki when they are harassed continuously. My online history will show wikipedia hundreds of instances of harassment from you if they look at my past record of contributions. You are more of a stalker than an editor. I have done nothing but contribute to wikipedia for over ten years, and all my edits are in good faith and have been verified.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping a track of your edits because you are continuously adding unsourced information to articles, or state sources that do not claim what they say. I have suggested time and time again that you read up on WP:RS, WP:OR and familiarize yourself with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These are the rules for contributing. If you do not follow them, your edits will be removed. I want you to keep editing, but I also note that you should be following the rules and guidelines I've stated above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming my sources are the best in the world, but you erase perfectly legitimate sources on a whim, it's just your personal opinion how good a source it is in your opinion. In the absence of other better sources, any source should be acceptable, and if a better source turns up later, the article can always be edited. I see hundreds of other wiki pages that have no footnotes or sources at all, why aren't you deleting them? I've seen dozens of people linking their articles to imdb, but you don't remove their pages. You seem to stalk me on wiki and spitefully try to delete everything I add to an article. Why don't you do this to other wiki editors? I would think you'd have so much to do trying to fix the Lenzi page that you wouldnt have time to follow me online and harass me. I don't mind if I put erroneous info on a page and you delete it, that's fine. But if I list a source and you don't have a better one to contribute, then why can't you just leave my info on the page until you find a better source? It's not like i'm not listing a source. Sources on these 50 year old films are very hard to find. Very few of them meet your approval. Too few, in my opinion.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a blog or personal webiste. We do not use poor sources if good sources are not available. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

I've seen dozens of wiki pages that don't have any sources at all, and tons that use imdb, and nobody harasses them.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Betty said. Just because other articles are using IMDb or other sites that we have deemed not recommended to use, I do not suggest to think its ok. I obviously have not found every article on this site, but eventually these will be removed too. Just because content is difficult to find, does not mean we start posting original research. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the rules only facts that might be challenged should have impeccable sources. "For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Any facts that I put on the Lenzi page, if someone objects to it, can be easily edited if the person has found a better reference source than the one I used. In the event of a factual error, it can be easily corrected in seconds. And in the meantime, the readers can have an informative wikipage they can read, instead of a blank page waiting to be filled hopefully some day if we happen to find an impeccable reference source.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paris being the capital of France is general knowledge. Any fact that is not part of general knowledge is a questionable fact, and open to challenge. This applies especially to filmographies of obscure filmmakers. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what Betty said. The only thing that would go without saying on the Lenzi page is that he was a filmmaker. He is not really known for anything else. The details about his films and what he has made or when they were made are not obvious. Giving users information without providing a source is the opposite of what wikipedia is used for. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at Umberto Lenzi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well why aren't you blocked every day then? Because you spend more time deleting other people's work than adding constructive pages of your own to wikipedia. Can you be blocked for online stalking? 68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I often have to play clean-up for your edits because you are not following the guidelines and rules. That's why I check your edit history. Some are okay, most are not. If you genuinely feel I am harassing you, I suggest you take it to the appropriate administrator page. I promise you I wish we did not have to deal with it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Umberto Lenzi. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm being stalked online and harassed by this "editor"/ stalker. He obviously has a personal vendetta against me as you can see if you look back over my editing history. No one else would've continued trying to improve the wikipedia pages in the face of such harassment. Even when I listed references and footnotes, my material was still deleted. It was almost impossible for me to get even one edit through onto a page, but I persisted because I want so badly to improve the wikipages. I'd venture to say this harassing editor has scared off hundreds of potential contributors. Anyway I'll gladly accept any help you can offer me.68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Umberto Lenzi and adding unsourced information to articles

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. The other problem is your addition of unsourced information to articles. This was explained in a complaint at ANI. You were notified of the ANI discussion but did not choose to respond, so it's logical for me to assume the statements about you are true. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

68.129.15.71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am stunned that I have been blocked for trying to contribute to wikipedia in good faith. This one "editor" has been stalking me on wikipedia for abut 2 years now, deleting everything I add to the pages. After I complied with his instructions regarding reference sources, he still continued to spitefully delete everything I added to wikipedia. If you look at my editing history, you will see him following me from page to page for 2 years relentlessly deleting all of my contributions, regardless of whether I added sources or not. If you look at my editing history, you will see I have always edited in good faith and never vandalized a site. Many of the wikipages that are online were written almost entirely by me 5 or 6 years ago. Now I get threatened and harassed whenever I try to improve one of the pages. Only this one individual harasses me, all of the other editors have never bothered me (with the exception of a few he got to harass me a few times.) Why am I being blocked? If this is the way you treat editors, I think you're going to chase away most of the people who aspire to edit wikipedia. Please look over my massive editing history that goes back over 8 years and you'll see I am a serious editor. Thank you for your time.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking at your last edit war, the sources you used were beyond poor. One was an obvious trash "user editable" celebrity "database", the other was a site that publishes "user submitted" stories. There are dozens of warnings related to just this type of issue on your talk page. Unless you can address how you're going to change your problematic sourcing, or the lack of sourcing, and how will avoid edit warring in the future, I don't see any reason to even consider an unblock. Kuru (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

68.129.15.71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand what you are saying about the reference sources being untrustworthy because they were fan sites. I thought any reference source could be used in the absence of a more reliable one. If you remove the block, I will not use any more weak reference sources. I just want to improve the wikipedia entries because I have been an avid fan & collector of European & Asian horror films for 40 years and I only want to try to improve the information on the sites. Please remove the block and I will be more careful in the future regarding my sources.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been told, a significant number of times and in various forms of wording, that references must be reliable external third party source (occasionally second party in certain circumstances) and appear to have ignored this advice. You have also been advised that in the absence of appropriate sources the source-less data should not be posted here. In view of the amazing length of this thread, I would like you, in your next unblock request, to give a detailed statement telling us your understanding of what an acceptable source is. IMHO this is an absolute prerequisite to an unblock. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

November 2017

Hello, I'm Mahveotm. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Planet Prince— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mahveotm (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Create new pages and rename pages
Edit semi-protected pages
Upload images
Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (68.129.15.71) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Mahveotm (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Daiei Films, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, you seem to be replacing published sources with online databases. I wouldn't do that unless there is some grave error. But swapping a published book with a letterboxed website source suggest you have not changed much since your previous edit. I want you to edit, but you have to find better sources, do not fill in the blanks with weak ones.Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked again from editing for 6 months. I was trying to follow the rules, I added what I thought were perfectly good reference sources. If I made an error, you could've just deleted my edits. Why did you have me blocked again? Do you think that's fair? Please help me get unblocked and I assure you I won't edit war with you any more. You know any errors that I made this week were not vandalism or disruptive editing. You know I'm a big fan of these topics and I was only trying to contribute what I could to make the page better. Can you help me get unblocked?68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think you are trying to edit better, but you still keep adding any google search you can find to add content. I've said it before, you have to follow WP:RS and WP:OR. The rules are stated there. If you had questions about the notability of some sources, I'd be happy to help you, but if unsure about rules, there are several editors at WP:FILM who would be happy to explain them to you as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with the unsourced information

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for Disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You are continuing with the long-term pattern of adding unsourced information to articles. See Special:Diff/807424079 where a number of admins declined to lift your last block. If you change your mind and decide to start following our policies, let us know and this block can be reconsidered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I listed a reference source for everything I added to the articles this week. Please tell me what disruptive editing I did? I was only trying to improve the pages, and most of my edits were correcting grammatical errors and trying to fix up sentence structure, etc. Please tell me what disruptive editing I did? I was very careful this time to add reference sources to all my edits. If I made an error, please tell me what I did wrong? I assure you I was trying to follow the rules.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if its the edit I corrected, but looking at your edit history, you casually added in dates to the list of Daiei films here, you used japanese film database as a source here, which I've shown you before are not reliable sources as early as October here, and you replaced published sources with online film database sources without explaining your edits at all here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing....I thought the published source I replaced was a source I had put on the page earlier, so I thought when I found the Japanese source (which seemed authentic to me), I could replace the other source because I had put it on the page earlier myself if I found a better one. I wasn't trying to delete a source that you or someone else put on the page. I was just trying to fix up something I had put on the page earlier. (Actually I wanted to leave both sources on, but I must have deleted my earlier one when I did it by error.) But how can you call that disruptive editing? I wasn't trying to disrupt the page maliciously.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly did not recall your saying that Japanese database source was not valid, or I wouldn't have used it. Do you think I'm trying to get blocked from editing? I know edit warring is futile, and I was honestly trying to improve the page by adding the release dates. How about this? If you get me unblocked, I'll check with you first on a source before I change the articles. That way I wouldn't use an invalid source accidentally. But blocking me from editing when I was only trying to improve the articles and accusing me of "disruptive editing" is very unfair, since you know I'm not purposely trying to get myself blocked. Any mistakes I made was just errors.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would basically suggest in your official unblocking proposal that you will avoid the articles for a while that have caused you issues in the past. When returning from an unblock, its best to play it as safe as you can. As you were blocked from using weak sources before after me trying to persuade you otherwise, I'd suggest thinking up a guide plan that will prevent you from doing this again. I.e: add content only sourced from published books or notable film websites. Very few online databases are usually good to go for wikipedia, as a peer reviewed source is better, but stick with things like BFI, AFI and Filmportal.de etc. Make sure your source is explicitly stating what you say too. But yeah, I don't think the editor above you is going to unblock you unless you make your official statement with a set plan. For more information, read through Wikipedia:Appealing a block. As for me, I can not unblock or request it for you, as I do not have the powers to do that with my user status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your other post. To help clarify your edits, try to always write what you are doing in the edit summary section. That way, people will know what you were trying to do with an edit. We all make mistakes or maybe do a few edits in a row that make up one big change, but its good practice to place what you are doing in the edit summary. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an error on the Shintoho filmography that you might want to fix. At the bottom of the filmography, one of the titles is listed twice..."Ghost Cat of Otamange-Ike" is also listed as "The Ghost of Otoma Pond" right below it. Otoma Pond is the right listing, the other one is the duplicated one. Also, Ghost Story of a Woman Diver (1960) aka Kaidan ama yurei is a sequel to "The Girl Diver of Spook Mansion" (1959). There were actually 2 separate films made about the "Girl Diver". The 2 films had different casts even! You might want to fix that? I obviously can't. thanks68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll double check my sources at home later. By the way, I can not make edits on behalf of editors who are currently blocked as that would get me blocked as well. I would suggest officially appealing your block if you want to continue editing wikipedia.Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I just thought you might want to fix those 2 errors on the Shintoho page because the info got messed up when you deleted my edits on that page. I tried to make the page better but it resulted in getting messed up instead. i'm sure they wouldn't mind you deleting the duplicated title, as it's obviously an error. Regarding the girl diver, I was shocked to learn there were 2 films made about her, as not even Galbraith knew about the sequel in 1960.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Shintoho, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. And welcome back by the way.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I corrected the source address. It says Shintoho on the right side of the screen and the film's actual release date 7/8/6068.129.15.71 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the site states here that their database can't not be confirmed for accuracy as its user-generated. We don't use user generated sites on Wikipeda (see WP:SPS and WP:RS). Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==Formatting book source==

Quick suggestion. When adding book sources, try to match the current way the article cites books. I.e: on the Gappa: The Triphibian Monster page and the List of Daiei films pages, we use a different format. You should also include the ISBN number when citing books. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks, I have included the ISBN. Regarding Walt Lee reference book, the date he lists is the year of theatrical release, which in most cases was the date the film was also completed, since he deals only with pre-1972 movies. If the film was released a different year than it was made, then he lists the both dates, like so....1961 (1962). That means it was made in 1961, but only released in 1962. He is very specific in listing the original theatrical release date of each film.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me an example? I'd be curious in buying this book if it had such details. But I'd like to see it. Would you be able to upload a snapshot of a page with states these things? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I photographed the page. How do I send it, as an attachment to an email?68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways to do it through Wikipedia, but i'm not exactly sure how its done (I haven't had to do it!). I would recommend uploading it to Flickr. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on as a picture on one of my friend's ebay auctions. go to https://www.ebay.com/itm/123166427938. It's on there as one of the scans. Let me know after you copy it and i'll have him delete it. lol68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. From the page information, it seems that the years in his source are not specifically related to release dates. He says they usually are but can't confirm these as release dates. I'm not sure if we should use him as a source for a year of release. Alternative titles and such should be fine when used appropriately, but I don't think its appropriate for a year of release. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says "for films not released in the US, the date in parentheses indicates a delayed release in the country of origin". In other words, the first date is the release date in the country of origin, and the date in parentheses is the US release date ONLY if it's different. If the film had a delayed release date in its country of origin, he says it's reflected in the date in the parentheses. So it's very clear, I think. He doesn't have the month/day, but it's clear that the release dates he has listed reflect the films' earliest theatrical release. You must remember that most pre-1972 movies were always released a month or two after they were completed, especially the Japanese movies which were shown very soon after they were completed.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the page said that the films are usually released in the year they said. Its not specific. And pre 1972 films? Thats not the case. I've created articles for several Italian films that were held off. Or even Bava's Rabid Dogs. So if we don't have specifics, we shouldn't use it per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're interpreting what he wrote backwards (like the glass being 1/2 empty or 1/2 full.) He's not saying the films are usually released in the year he notes. He's saying "the date given IS the first theatrical release date, but it can also be INFERRED that the film was completed that same year." In other words, if he lists 1961 as the date, he means "the film was first released in 1961, and it can be inferred that the film was probably completed that same year in 1961." You're interpreting it backwards. He's giving the first theatrical release dates in those entries, and he's saying "in most cases, that's also the date the film was completed." Also it's true Italian films in the 60's were held up by distributors, but we're doing Japanese films here, not Italian films. When Toho or Daiei made a film, that film was distributed to theatres in Japan very soon after the film was made (maybe even a couple of months later). The Japanese distribution was very different from the Italian film industry, don't you agree? They had their own distribution networks in Japan, so the film was guaranteed to be theatrically shown as soon as it was finished.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were different, and he says most, and not all, and does not (or can not) specify which ones were released when. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He also writes "For films not released in the US,the date in parentheses indicates a delayed release in the country of origin." So if the film just states a date 1961, that means it was first released in its country of origin in 1961. But if it says 1961 (1962), that means the film was made in 1961 but only released in its country of origin in 1962. So in a case like that, we're supposed to go by the date in parentheses as the release date. Most of the Japanese films that I'm dealing with here were never distributed to the US, and were never dubbed in English.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary part is only if he has access to a US one. The original release date he says is assumed base on the date. Its not concrete information and the author admits it. Again stick to source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The underline date given is the completion date of the film, which is usually the same as the first public release. If the film was released in the United States at a later date than the production date, that release date is given in parenthesis following the underlined date. For films not released in the U.S., the date in parentheses indicates a delayed relase in the country of origin. A second date in the parentehses indicates a major re-release. (In many reference works, the date given for a film is the release date.)

. This is what the source says. It does not indicate that year is the release date, it just says it generally is. There is no confirmation. What part am I being confused about? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It says "It does not indicate that year is the release date, it just says it generally is." Yes, it generally is the same, unless there is a date in parentheses next to it, in which case he's saying the release date was delayed and that delayed release date would be the number in the parentheses! 68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really convinced. He doesn't state what you are saying, so we'll have to find stronger sources for these films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bruno Mattei, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.. You added two sources saying films were shot back to back and that one was shot for compesnation for another works. I have the sources handy, they do not say this at all! You are repeating the mistakes you said you would not. C'mon. I don't know what I have to say to make it that you can't just build upon sources like this. That is Original research, (see that link, read it, apply it!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was reading the book Spaghetti Nightmares while I was doing this, and I forgot to list that book too as the source for that "back-to-back" comment. That must've been in the Spaghetti Nightmares book I was reading. 68.129.15.71 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Violence in a Women's Prison. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . Again, you added sources (the Rotten Tomatoes source, etc.) that had content that was unsourced (here). Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the literal translation of the German title, "Face in the Dark", which is entirely different from the English title "Double Face". It was already in the article, I just moved it up to a higher paragraph. How is that adding unsourced information?68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it was for moving information without moving its source on other content and adding the cameo content. I would suggest trying to find information about articles instead of adding trivial content. Also per WP:SLASH, don't use a slash to give alternative titles/translations in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at House of Terror (film). Why do you keep adding unsourced material man. which you just did here. We've been through this.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"La Casa del Terror" was never dubbed in English. Only the few sequences Jerry Warren used for his "Face of the Screaming Werewolf" was ever dubbed in English. I thought listing this could prevents readers from wasting their time searching for an English-dubbed print of the entire Tin Tan movie. I thought the article inferred these facts, I just clarified it more. Can't you just delete the offending sentences if you feel what I write is unsubstantiated? If you delete a particular thing that I write, I won't add it on again, I don't want to be involved in an editing war. But by adding all these Stop Hands warnings to my talk page, it seems like you're setting me up to be blocked from editing wikipedia again. Do you want me gone? I know my ignorance of wikipedia rules is probably annoying to you, but I'm not trying to cause problems. Can't we be friends and work toward a common goal? We both share so many interests. Please try to be patient? I'm just so eager to contribute, but I'm trying to follow the rules. I keep making the mistake that things that are common knowledge to me must still be verified. Sorry68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove unsourced things, but after endless trials of me explaining to rules, showing you where you can read them. Have you read them? I never get a solid yes or no. What don't you understand about them? I want to help, but its frustrating that after I make suggetions, you keep just adding information without sources. That would be my first big one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to get used to the idea that no fact can be considered "common knowledge". Like for example, if an entry mentioned a film was made in Rome, and I added the word "Italy" after it, that I would need to refer to a source showing that Rome is in Italy. Thats the kind of thing i'm talking about. I will just have to keep rmembering that there is no such thing as common knowledge. It's difficult, because there are certain things you take for granted, just from my years of life experience. And I assume other people take these facts for granted, i.e. they just assume they are true. But I'm not arguing with you, I definitely get it that just because I believe something's a given, doesn't absolve me of the burden of having to find a source to prove it. It's just that this strict adherence to the reliable source rule could be paralyzing to wannabe editors. But I'll try to do it right from now on.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at House of Terror (film). Your sources you added mention the year 1959, but they do not state the film was released then. Neither of the sources do. One mentions a year without clear meaning (copyright? release? Not known from the page given). The Lon Chaney book only mentions that Chaney went to Mexico in 1959 to film the project. You have to stick to the source. If your source is not explicitly stating what you claim, do not add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about a premiere date. I was just quoting the two sources I listed verbatim. They both refer to Casa del Terror as "a 1959 film". Every internet source I see calls it a 1959 film. The source said specifically Chaney went to Mexico to make the film in 1959. You are twisting my intentions. I just wrote EXACTLY what the sources stated. I didn't say anything about a premiere date. You just keep posting notices on me like I'm vandalizing wikipedia, while I'm actually spending all my time trying to improve the pages. It looks like you just don't want me editing wikipedia.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But if you have read MOS:FILM, you would know we use the year of release as the premiere date of the film. I've shown it to you several times. I want you to edit, but I'm leaning towards you don't want to learn how make Wikipedia better. I know sources for obscure films are hard to come by, but if you don't have a source, don't fidgit in information either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously true"

Just because a page re-directs from one page to another should not be consider validation of a title. Several re-directs do not authenticate things. If you want a source, you have to dig one up. I know you want to improve specific articles, but some just don't have the easy to find sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

As I'm still under the impression you want to improve wikipedia, I'd like to make the following suggestions:

Keep going forward fixing sentence structure, just try not to move content without matching its source.
Create a log-in, there are numerous benefits for you here (Wikipedia:Why create an account?). Specifically for you, you could get a sandbox, where you can start testing edits and create drafts of pages. I think this would benefit you a lot.
I would avoid adding trivia to articles now. Small bits and bobs like alternative titles and translation are ok, but we don't need to go overboard and it would greater if we could expand on the plots of these films, prose, production, reception, etc.

Just a few suggestions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe but I do have a sandbox function I've been using. Otherwise it would be even more of a mess, I guess. lol. I tried making a log-in account but I actually can't figure it out. Just like formatting the sources, I can't figure out how to do it even with the tutorials, it's just too complicated. and I'm a college graduate. lol Maybe I should go back to writing the plot synopses on the wikipages. 68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I would suggest to learn is to keep the formatting. If the title is a translation, you don't put it in Italics as its not a real release title of the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned something about not using a slash to separate an Italian title from the translation? 68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Read through WP:SLASH. It shouldn't be in Italics either, as its not a real film title, just a translation of one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to get used to the idea that no fact can be considered "common knowledge". Like for example, if an entry mentioned a film was made in Rome, and I added the word "Italy" after it, that I would need to refer to a source showing that Rome is in Italy. Thats the kind of thing i'm talking about. I will just have to keep rmembering that there is no such thing as common knowledge. It's difficult, because there are certain things you take for granted, just from my years of life experience. And I assume other people take these facts for granted, i.e. they just assume they are true. But I'm not arguing with you, I definitely get it that just because I believe something's a given, doesn't absolve me of the burden of having to find a source to prove it. It's just that this strict adherence to the reliable source rule could be paralyzing to wannabe editors. But I'll try to do it right from now on.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about common knowledge which is your issue. Per Wikipedia:Common knowledge, you can assume basic things. No one will argue that Rome is in Italy. Its more because you edit about versions of films, or when a films was released. We just don't write original research from your own "life experience", as you can't source your information, you can't include it. Mind you, common knowledge is a double edged sword, if something is plainly obvious, do you need to add that Rome is in Italy? Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a Rome in New York? 68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but if it was not the Rome everyone was talking about, then you could sort that out. I.e: When you link to Rome in Wikipedia, it links directly to Rome. If it wasn't the Rome everyone would first think of, than you would be specific. Anyhow, I'm not seeing how this is important. I'm looking at the edits you have made again recently and you are still adding material that is not backed up by sources. Either using wikipedia as a source (here), or AllMovie (which only states a DVD release, not what version of the film this is referring to here). You can't answer me when i've ask if you've read the rules (see above). And I've given you countless suggetions on how to improve your work which you have not taken up. I'm sorry, i'm not really sure what our other options are here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about you has been filed

Hello 68.129.15.71. Please see User talk:EdJohnston#68.129.15.71. There is a suggestion that you are continuing the behavior (adding unsourced material) for which you were previously blocked. You may respond on my talk page if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I just recently got back onto wikipedia after being blocked for 6 months. I seriously do not want to be blocked again, as I enjoy editing and trying to make the pages more complete and informative. I have an editor who is closely following every word I put on wikipedia, and he's been telling me every time I break a rule regarding the use of only "reliable" sources. I have been reading the information he links to me, and I've really been trying to follow the rules, because as I said, I don't want to be blocked again. I've been putting footnotes on everything I add, but he keeps telling me that the sources I'm using aren't reliable enough. All I ask is that you try to understand that I'm not deliberately adding unsourced material, it's just that every source I use seems to be not good enough. Even dvd liner notes and sources that other people have already used on the page aren't reliable enough. I've gotten to the point where I'm afraid to add even facts that are already alluded to on the pages by previous editors, it's paralyzing. I guess he just wants to get rid of me. But I'm just asking you to understand I'm a serious editor and I am really into the topics I try to edit, and I'm not trying to be annoying on purpose. I really think I've got the hang of the "reliable source" thing and I'll certainly try my best not to break any rules. Thanks for your consideration.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a sec, please look at the 2 pages I worked on today. La Casa del Terror and Face of the Screaming Werewolf. I think I did everything according to the regulations. If I do make a mistake, can't one of you guys just delete my error, or alert me to it and I'll change it or add a better source? Why do I have to get blocked when any errors I make are certainly good faith? Surely you don't think I'm purposely trying to cause problems?68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting better, but as stated above, you keep adding content with sources that does not state what is claimed. In your La Casa del Terror article, you added information with a source that is not backed up by it. Your edits may be in good faith, but you don't ever seem to respond to wanting to learn how to use sources, reading rules, etc. I'm happy to help, but nearly all your edits require work which you don't seem to be willing to put the effort in to learn. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier you wrote: "Either using wikipedia as a source (here), or AllMovie (which only states a DVD release, not what version of the film this is referring to here). You can't answer me when i've ask if you've read the rules (see above)."

I just wanted to explain. That wikipedia.org source I listed was a TOTAL error. I was trying to paste another source there and somehow that wikipedia link got pasted there instead. It must've been already on the page from someone else and I cut & pasted it there in error. When I went back to fix it, you had already seen it and thought I did it on purpose. I would never use a wikipedia or imdb source like that, I think you know at least I've learned that much! and yes, the AllMovie source listed the date of the dvd release but it ALSO listed the title of the dvd...it said that "Casa del Terror" was the dvd title, which could only be the Spanish version. "The Spanish version was never dubbed in English, so I thought when I mentioned it was the Spanish language version, i was actually being redundant. If you had clicked on that source, it even showed the Spanish language poster was the dvd cover. That's the only reason I listed it was the Spanish version.And yes, I have read all the stuff you send me regarding the rules, but I must admit, some of the pages go on at great lengths and link in turn to many other pages, and I think you take a lot of this stuff for granted because you're so familiar with it, whereas it's not easy for me to pick it all up quickly because a lot of the technical terms and symbols is totally alien to me. I have never even had a cellphone, as amazing as that might seem. So I'm reading thru what you send, and I really do feel I'm learning a lot. But if every time I mess up, you send in a report to have me booted, it doesn't give me much chance to improve. Hasn't it only been a couple of weeks since I got back on? Instead of reporting me, can't you just tell me if you see a mistake to fix it or remove it? In the meantime, I'm going to try not to be so loquacious in my editing, or verbose? I'll just stick to the bare facts and not imbellish the sentences. Again I do appreciate your help..68.129.15.71 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the basic idea, I know what you want to edit are some obscure films that do not have a lot of historical research, but you have to be specific. If your source does not explicitly state what you are stating, than its inappropriate to assume things based on that. Be specific with your sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice please? I used searchmytrash.com as a source on Jerry Warren (they have a giant page on him) and Andrze apparently deleted it all. Isnt SearchMytrash.com a reliable reference source? I've seen it on many wiki pages. Thanks for any help you can offer. Here's the link: http://www.searchmytrash.com/articles/jerrywarren(1-10).shtml 68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to figure out if things are reliable or not generally on your own. The burden is on you. Can you find anything on the site on how information is gathered? If it is discovered the site is user-generated or its not clear how it gathers the information, then its most likely not reliable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film affinity

Just as a heads up, we don't use Film Affinity as a source. See WP:RS/IMDb. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jerry Warren. You added birth and death information without a source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was move the information that was already in the infobox into the main article to fill it out a little. The information was already in the infobox, I just moved it to the main paragraph to fill out the article a little more68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not sourced there either! If anything, you should be removing unsourced information. Not applying it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought only verified information makes it into the infobox. Aren't they already verified?68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Infoboxes general purpose should be to support information already stated (and cited) within the article. This can't always be the case (i.e: for the article I did on Barbarella, I couldn't find a good non-useless prose way to fit the editor in the article. So I just sourced it and added it into the infobox. So information within the infobox should be either a) sourced on in the prose. or b) cited in the infobox. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Searchmytrash

What makes this site reliable? Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I see you still using it. Can you tell me how it follows WP:RS? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a review off the site. I am not using any facts or dates from it if you think its unreliable for facts. Reviews are ok, right? 68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Detailed commentary from reliable sources regarding the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) is encouraged. Individual critics can also be referenced to detail various aspects of the film. Professional film critics are regarded as reliable sources, though reputable commentators and experts—connected to the film or to topics covered by the film—may also be cited. The use of print reviews is encouraged; these will be more reliable in retrospect. Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for data pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews; caution should be exercised when using aggregator scores that combine original reviews with reviews from later dates. Also, the data from these websites is potentially less accurate for films released before the websites existed; therefore, care should be exercised in determining whether to refer to them. To avoid giving these sites undue weight in such circumstances, consider whether it is best to place the data lower in the section. It is also recommended to include the date the data was captured: ("As of May 2015, 50% of the 68 reviews compiled by Rotten Tomatoes are positive, and have an average score of 5.2 out of 10."). To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to sample a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used.

Reviews from the film's country of origin are recommended (i.e., Chinese reviews for a Chinese film, French reviews for a French film), though evaluations from several English-speaking territories are desirable. In the case of films not in the English language, the section should contain quotes translated into English from non-English reviews. For older films, it is important to distinguish between contemporary critical reception (from reviews published around the time of initial release) and subsequent reception (from reviews made at later dates). Use secondary sources to determine if a film's initial critical reception varies from the reputation it has today." If you are going to use reviews from sites, whether its an opinion or not, you have to find notability and reliability of the source. For example, is the site self-published? The onus is on you to figure out whether the sites you want to use are reliable. Please do this before adding their content. If you have a question about the reliability, ask me or or post about it on WP:FILM's talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bare urls

I'm going to suggest if you want to move forward with your editing, to avoid using bare URLs per WP:BURL. Its not really useful for readers and lacks information handy for other editors. Try to learn the template:cite web to get a better hang of citing online materials, specifically websites. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can't read this message or haven't received it yet, but I wouldn't continue to work so hard on articles without learning further into citation. Its not that hard. What do you struggle with handling it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I put the info into the formatting, it comes out all garbled and unreadable.68.129.15.71 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me an example? I could at least try and help. It's not that tricky. Its a similar format to how you are doing it now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an actual ref I took off the Jerry Warren article: https://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b9f7373cc "Jerry Warren".

"List of psychotropic substances under international control" (PDF). International Narcotics Control Board. Retrieved 20 July 2018. "List of psychotropic substances under international control" (PDF). International Narcotics Control Board. Retrieved 20 July 2018.

I'm looking at this template and I don't get what I'm supposed to do. I'm assuming I should put the info from the first link into the template below it? Could you show me what that first link would like if it was transposed?68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Horrorpedia

Getting back to this. I would suggest you learn this. As my discussions with other editors, your ability to competently edit wikipedia is keeping you from a ban here. You don't seem to be able to use template:cite web. What is holding you back? I've seen your edits, you have not attempted to learn it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest checking WP:FILM's talk page. No MOS:FILM. and reading Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Again, trying to make sure you can figure out how Wikipedia works here. Looking at the site itself, it seems to pull reviews from somewhat notable sources, but nothing else suggests any scholarship (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources) again. I don't think it would qualify as a reliable source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Jerry Warren has been reverted.
Your edit here to Jerry Warren was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jerrywarren/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Refname

I would suggest to you try and apply WP:REFNAME to your edits. You'll save yourself a lot of trouble and it will improve your editing. If you have any questions, I am more than willing to help out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Going to follow-up on this, please refer to WP:REFNAME and show you are actively trying to make articles better by applying it. Currently, you have made minimal progress in learning how to use citations. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok I'm going to it now68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the REFNAME thing on THE MAD DOCTOR OF BLOOD ISLAND article but I keep getting this message: "Cite error: The named reference Arena was invoked but never defined". What am I doing wrong? Please help?68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did a pretty good job. The main issue was you kept adding 'reflist' to the end of each source. the Reflist template just places a list of citations. This is why i'd suggest creating an account if you could to make your test edits on a sandbox page. Otherwise, I'm glad you are attempting to use references more properly. It will help out your editing a lot.Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did it correctly. Please see footnote #2 on the "Terror of the Bloodhunters" article.68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block proposed

Please see a thread on my talk page where I'm about to declare failure and decide that your block should be renewed, since you are still unable to avoid unsourced information (or inappropriate web sites, such as angelfire.com) when editing articles. You can respond there if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Aztec mummy have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to Aztec mummy was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HST0Nzo4tM0) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Brides of Blood release

Can you explain this edit? You added a year and copryright release year. But the source just says the year and is not clear in what it states. You've done this before, why are you doing it again? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I fixed it. The Terror on Tape book and the Weldon Psychotronic bookboth state the years shown next to the film's title is the original release date. The Fred Olen Ray book doesn't specifically state that, but he uses the same date in his book. I put the two better references into the article.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Film marketing

Per WP:FILMMARKETING, which is part of MOS:FILM. I've removed some content you've added. "Topics that can be covered include target demographics, test screenings, release dates, scale of release (limited vs. wide), merchandising, marketing controversies, and contending for awards. Do not merely identify and describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. Instead, use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method, such as a trailer's intended effect or the audience's reported reaction to it. For example, the viral marketing campaign for Cloverfield began with an untitled teaser trailer that generated strong hype." I've removed some commentary you have added based on just describing posters used, as we don't include this information on film articles. Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Teenage Zombies. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Skipping straight to level 3 due to history of problems. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I added three separate references to back up my edits. I hope you realize when I first entered the edit, I was merely moving the information over from the article's infobox, which was already there before I came along. I assumed the infobox was correct, because I understand we're not supposed to put footnotes in an infobox. Nevertheless, I have added the references you requested.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Blancheville Monster, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Specifically the producer. You should know this by now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:53, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Juan Piquer Simón. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only moved the info about Pod People from the wiki article the title on the filmography was linked to. I meant to add an additional source to that, but I forgot to go back.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Screenweek.it

The about section of the site notes that it can not confirm the accuracy of the information on their own site. (here). It does not appear to be a reliable source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using other wikipedia articles

I've told you before, but I'll tell you again, we don't use other wikipedia articles as source as you have done here. I don't know how to tell you any clearer to read WP:RS to find what constitutes a reliable source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only noticed it was a wikipedia address after I pasted it into the article. I was focusing on the "it." in the address, and I forgot Italy has a wikipedia too. If you notice, I went back in & deleted it immediately. I know not to use wikipedia as a source, I thought it was an unrelated website until I pasted it and then I took it off immediately. Look and you'll see I took it off like a minute or so later.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I only caught it later. I would suggest when you find a new source to investigate it first. Same with the other Italian site, try to find evidence from the site you visit that the content is they provide is verifiable. Usually an about section should tell you how they get their information. If you can't find it, perhaps bring it to the WP:FILM talk page, someone there could help you out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox standards

Just a heads up, only include the following release date of films in the infobox.

The first known public release regardless of location
And the release dates of the films production countries.

I see that you added the american release to Night of the Demon. The film is a British production, so we should really only include the British premiere and British wider release if such information is available. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put that specific British date in there (12/17), someone else had put that in the article awhile back. I only meant that the source indicated the American release date. I see what you mean about only putting in the original release date in the country of origin, but what about cases where a British film was released in the US first, and then released in England several months later? Which date would be the original release date in that case?68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would include the earliest release you can find (i.e: what we would know to be the premiere) followed by the country of productions release. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on List of natural horror films. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DonIago (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I'm sorry. I had a source for the information, I just forgot to include it. I was editing two articles at once and I forgot to add the source.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I added two sources for the Bride of the Monster addition. Sorry I forgot to put them on the page initially.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the sources this time. Looks good to me! DonIago (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Your edits to The Hound of the Baskervilles (1921 film) changed the text of a quote which you cannot do even if you don't like the grammar. A quote is a quote. I set it right and I also formatted your addition of a reference and did the same on the other articles where you added this reference. For future reference, if you use the same reference in multiple places you don't have to have the full reference every time but instead can use a shortcut like I did here. Thanks for helping to add references to articles here. :) ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I do not believe you forgot to use sources again, but do not just add endless title to films in lists (especially without a source as you have just done) or adding material to various genre films without sources. Back to your old stunts I guess...Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andzre, I am surprised you altered this item. I did not add any content to the last two paragraphs you reverted. I just rearranged the two sentences that were already there regarding how the dvd releasinbg company messed up the titles of two of the Gamera films. If you look, you'll see the information you said was "unsourced" is still on the page, even after you reverted my edits. That's because I didn't add that information, whoever wrote the article put that information on the page, not me.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok I just fixed the structure of the paragraphs, to emphasize the correct alternate titles over the erroneous ones. I didn't add any information, I just rearranged the order of the words that were already on the page. Believe me, I'm being very conscientious about references.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would be better not to "clean" unsourced material that way. Unsourced material that's been stagnant for years should be removed or sourced. Just because an article has no sources, does not mean you should feel free to edit it willy-nilly. Also, per WP:RS/IMDB, we do not use FilmAffinity as a source. I've told you this before. Lastly, when you say "all other sources call this film _____", and then just add a bare-url, this is not an edit in good faith. Take it to the talk page to suggest this and we can come to a solution. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daiei films

Just a follow-up, I would rather we come to a conclusion of sources. You state the majority of sources call a film by a specific title, but you provide a single source. My source specifically states this an English-language title, the other appears to be a direct translation with no reference to it actually getting released anywhere under this title. Please come a conclusion on a talk page when making edits like this. You have done this type of patterns before. I would also suggest to learn to cite a book. I see you are able to do it, do not just copy + past a URL into a ref tags. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right, since I haven't been able to find any one-sheets with the "Yonaki Swamp" title written in English. But I found about ten different sources online that use that title, most of which are not reliable I guess.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Online databases just need to back where the information is getting them from. Up to you to figure that part out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Manster: 2019 edition

So not sure why you made AllMovie's URLs worse here. That's a very poor way to source things. What makes the TCM source cancel out the rest as a source? You should at least explain yourself before making such bold edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Manster, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm Gab4gab. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rusty Stevens, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. We don't consider www.famousbirthdays.com to be a reliable source. See WP:RSN. Gab4gab (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello, I'm The Hello God. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Law of the 45's have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. The Hello God (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Some of your edits do make weak sources, others are just you editing things without any sources. The cycle continues.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using FilmAffinity as a source. Per WP:RS/IMDB, we have established that is not considered reliable. You have been told this before, but you keep using it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but I'm trying desperately to correct a major error on the Brescia page. Someone listed "The War In Space" as one of Brescia's 1978 sci-fi films in the article, but that movie was a Japanese film, it was not even Italian! The correct title of the missing film is Battle of the Stars (that was the Anglicized title)^[1], and its original Italian title Battaglie negli spazi stellari translates as Battle in Interstellar Space^[2]. "War in Space" is totally erroneous. If you can't find a source, could you at least remove the title "The War in Space" from the article? Anyone who sees that will know it's a 1977 Japanese film. It's such an obvious error, it ruins the whole article, in my opinion. Thanks for listening.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Alfonso Brescia have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to Alfonso Brescia was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://trashfilmguru.wordpress.com/tag/battaglie-negli-spazi-stellari/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

I understand. I didn't realize the site was considered unreliable. Sorry.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

August 2019

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What site am I supposed to have vandalized? Are you sure you have the right person?68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brescia page

If you are going to add content from a website, make sure the content is actually from the website itself (you didn't include a URL) and make sure it states what is actually being said (you had no URLs for them, and you missed out on details. Also, you added a source too AllMovie that was not stating what you claimed). Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Star Odyssey. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please refer to WP:CITEWEB. You seem to occasionally add sources correctly, other times you add just a URL. As an experienced user, you are expected to add full sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please create a wiki article page for the Alfonso Brescia movie Battle of the Stars (1978 film)? (https://letterboxd.com/film/battle-of-the-stars/) We have a wiki article on 4 of his 5 space movies, but for some reason, this one title doesn't have an article. Isn't that odd? I have all the info to put on it, if you would just create the page.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's barely enough information for it to have an article that could tell anyone anything substantial about the film. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have the movie on DVD. At the very least I could supply a plot synopsis and a cast list. See https://trashfilmguru.wordpress.com/tag/battaglie-negli-spazi-stellari/ which shows both the Italian and the American one-sheets for the film. It clearly shows the film's English language title was Battle of the Stars. Also see https://letterboxd.com/film/battle-of-the-stars/ for a shot of the English language poster. That's 2 sources showing the English language poster. The film was aka Battle of the Stars.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again..

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Alfonso Brescia. Please do not add bare-links. You seem to be ignoring the situation here.]], you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally lost with the bare url thing. i'm embarassed to say I don't know what I did wrong. I clicked on the source's link that I listed (the Italian site's web address) and it went correctly to the page I was linking it to. The link you changed it to seems to be the same site. I went to the link Manual of Style you referred me to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style), and I can't find anything on the subject of "Bare url". I'm doing the best I can to list reference sources as accurately and as neatly as possible.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Italian source at the bottom of that site lists alternate titles, and one of them is "La bataille des étoiles", which translates as "Battle of the Stars". That's the title on the English language one-sheets for the film. See https://trashfilmguru.wordpress.com/tag/battaglie-negli-spazi-stellari/ and scroll down the page to the 2nd poster shown there.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what you are missing here is the following: WP:CITEWEB. If you are going to cite a webpage, include that information. You should also learn how to use name tag on ref pages. As for adding information and titles, you are combining information from blogs with information form a website and applying original research to connect the dots. That is against WP:OR. Which you have done several times in the past. So I will ask again, please do not add bare-urls, learn how to use them before adding content. I would suggest creating a user-account (as I have above several times) so you can test this out on test pages in a Sandbox. Failing that, you can make test edits in Wikipedia:Sandbox until you figure it out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Gorgo (film). Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not vandalism. The article stated that the publishing company reprinted "issues #1 and #3", but it didn't say issues of what title! I just wrote the title of the comic book in the sentence so people would know which "Gorgo" comic was being reprinted. It is a clarification. It's not vandalism.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with sources

Just because a film exists does not mean its notable. You need context, as stated to you by me several times read MOS:FILM and WP:FILM/Notability to see if the things you are creating are actually notable films. Also, with your sources, <ref>"The Criterion Collection: Ugetsu by Kenji Mizoguchi". The Criterion Collection. Archived from the original on 20 October 2012. Retrieved 1 January 2013.</ref> was obviously copying and pasting a source from somewhere on wikipedia. What were you trying to say with this source? There's even a bit here where it's archived somewhere, but its not in the URL. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Evil Dead Trap. . You have added content from Letterboxed which is not a valid source, and you added content without any source. Before you ask where you did it or when it happened, it was all here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 68.129.15.71. The information which you added to Evil Dead Trap is clearly unsourced by Wikipedia's standards. In particular you said, "The film released internationally as Evil Dead Trap 3: Broken Love Killer ... has no connection plotwise to the two earlier films." How do you know this? This shows that the problems we found before are still continuing. Can you respond on my talk page and explain why you shouldn't be blocked? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed; I'm really sorry about the edit you called unsourced, but I did not come up with that information. I merely transposed the sentence that said "The film released internationally as Evil Dead Trap 3: Broken Love Killer has no connection plotwise to the two earlier films" from the wikipedia article that already existed on wikipedia about "Evil Dead Trap 3". (Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Dead_Trap_3:_Broken_Love_Killer). That information was already in the "Evil Dead Trap 3" article, I didn't come up with that information. I just transposed the sentence over to the "Evil Dead Trap" article, that's all I did. I assumed if that fact had been in the "Evil Dead Trap 3" article for such a long period of time, it was apparently considered accurate or else it would have been removed. I thought the info already in the wiki articles was considered accurate, so I just transposed it into the other article. But I realize I shouldn't have done that now. I was just trying to give the three articles a little unity, that's all, just to kind of tie them together a little more.68.129.15.71 (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

So you copied unsourced information from one article to another to give a little unity? Does propagating unsourced information around the encylopedia sound like a good idea to you? You could have tagged the original statement with {{verification needed}}, or as an alternative, you could have removed it completely with 'unsourced' in your edit summary. And why did you use Letterboxd as a source in this edit? Our article on letterboxd describes that site as a 'social networking service'. Surely you know that is not allowed per WP:USERG? EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only used letterboxd to illustrate the fact that a sequel called "Evil Dead Trap 2" existed, but I see now it's not a reliable source. That was just an honest mistake, I know now not to use Letterboxed at all any more. As for removing other people's contributions from articles that have been on wikipedia for years, I didn't think I had the authority to delete other people's additions that were unsourced. I've seen many articles that had no sources cited whatsover and if one deleted the unsourced sentences, there'd be nothing remaining of some of the articles. The only reason I assumed that earlier article was safe to use data from was because it appears to have been posted on wikipedia since 2011, so I assumed the facts in the article must've been just accepted as fact for some reason, or otherwise someone would've surely deleted it long before now. But I totally understand your point that we shouldn't be disseminating unsourced material even further, you're definitely right about that, and I won't transpose information like that any more from one article to another without verifying it first myself.68.129.15.71 (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for Inability to follow Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I'm leaving this block at the same duration as the last one. The ongoing problem seems to be one of WP:CIR rather than a desire to make things worse. I perceive that the problems you created weren't intentional, but the fact that you still can't do these things right after 3 years means that we can't let you continue this way. EdJohnston ([[User talk:|talk]]) 00:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I've told you I won't use Letterboxed for any reference any more, and I won't transpose information from one wiki article to another without verifying it. Can't you just assume good faith error in this case, and give me another chance? Or at least please cut it down to 30 days? I know I made some errors, but I won't repeat them if you give me another chance. The errors I made were not done maliciously.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

68.129.15.71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't originate the unsourced information I put on that page. I just transposed it to the page from another wikipedia article. I didn't think I had to find a source for that sentence because I was just moving it over from a wiki article that has been on wikipedia for 8 years, so I assumed the information was verified by others. The edit was done in good faith simply to more closely unify the two articles, it wasn't done maliciously. I thought it was safe to just transpose the information to where it was needed. I understand that Letterboxed is not to be used as a source, and I understand that I should not move information from one article to another without verifying it with a source. Please unblock me or at least reduce my block to a 30-day period. The errors I made were done in good faith and with the aim of improving the articles I was working on. Thanks for your consideration.68.129.15.71 (talk) 10:58 am, 3 October 2019, last Thursday (4 days ago) (UTC−7)

Decline reason:

Given the long-term pattern of failing to meet the minimum standards for editing quality, I see no reason to override EdJohnston (t c)'s decision here. –Darkwind (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello, I'm Green Dragon Pride. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Green Dragon Pride (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC) That was an intentional edit. There is a section on the page that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic (Jungle Jim). It's just a section that lists "People Named Jim". It doesn't apply to the topic in any way. So I just tried to delete it, but if you want it on there, it's ok with me.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 years for Disruptive editing and WP:CIR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The past problems are continuing, as seen in your removal of content from a disambiguation page with an edit summary that makes no sense. The people you removed were also nicknamed 'Jungle Jim'. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

68.129.15.71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I thought I was cleaning up the disambiguation page. It looked like someone had pasted on a list of "People named Jim", and the theme of the page was specifically "Jungle Jim". I didn't realize the people on that list were actually called "Jungle Jim" by their friends or fans. I only intended to clean up what I thought was an erroneous addition to the page, I would never intentionally delete important information. Please remove my block as the error I made was purely accidental on my part, I misunderstood the meaning of the section I deleted. If you look at the way it was listed on the page, you will agree it seemed trivial and disconnected to the theme of the page. Please remove the block? Thanks for your consideration.

Decline reason:

Your defence of your edit seems to boil down to you lacking sufficient competence to understand the changes you were making. That's grounds to leave the block in place, especially given the long, long history of inappropriate edits from this IP address. Yamla (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.

[1] ttps://letterboxd.com/film/battle-of-the-stars/

[2] ttps://letterboxd.com/film/battle-of-the-stars/

[1]

[2]