User talk:Captainjackster
Welcome
[edit]
|
August 2018
[edit]
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Die Hard with a Vengeance, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I apologize, but I do believe that Die Hard with a Vengeance counts as a buddy cop film. I have seen the film, and I believe it should count as a buddy cop film. It has all the same buddy cop tropes, two conflicting main characters, one is a different ethnicity, and, like 48 Hrs., one of them is a cop. Captainjackster (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source that's classified the film as such? Buddy cop film does list 48 Hrs. as an exception case, but I see no mention of DHwaV there. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for claims in other articles. Rather, you should copy the pertinent information (and sources) from one article to the other. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Also, I'm a little worried that you may be using buddy film and buddy cop film interchangeably, as you used the latter for categorization but added sources to the former. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Please note that there's typically no need to add a film to both a category and a corresponding subcategory; in fact, this is discouraged. Generally you should only add the subcategory. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Genres
[edit]Please be careful not to cause an edit war on the Rush Hour articles. Per MOS:FILM (our bible for how film articles should be presented), the community wants "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". Since the Rush Hour movies are classified primarily under the action comedy subgenre by numerous sources—[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] —that should go in the lead so that we won't end up with a chained-together "genre salads" like "Action comedy romance thriller buddy black drama coming-of-age horror". Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you're adding redundant genres. "action film" is redundant to "martial arts film", as the latter is generally a subgenre of the former. Please stop labeling martial arts films as action films – or, at least, get consensus somewhere to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 30
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Half a Loaf of Kung Fu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Action (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Fist to Fist 1973 Poster.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fist to Fist 1973 Poster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Non-free rationale for File:Fist of Unicorn 1973 Poster.jpg
[edit]Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Fist of Unicorn 1973 Poster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
September 2018
[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The French Connection (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop adding subcategories and their associated categories, which I've left a note for you about before. Also you are adding categories that don't appear to be supported by articles' verifiable content. Please be more careful going forward. DonIago (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I apologize for the edit on The French connection, as I had seen it on several buddy cop film lists, and it focuses on two cops. Anyway, I have gone to DawgDeputy's user page to access his talk page to discuss our dispute over categories on Rush Hour 2, but the account appears to be a sock puppet account, and I can't access the talk page.Captainjackster (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- My account is not a sock puppet account. Do consult WP:FILMLEAD. DawgDeputy (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Dude, Rush Hour 2 needs both the American buddy cop films, and buddy cop films categories. The movie is a buddy cop film, so it falls in the first one, but it's also a buddy cop film made in America, so it would fall in the seance one also. Having both categories is allowed, and it can be seen on most there buddy cop film articles on the site. Captainjackster (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Categorization, especially the section on categorizing pages. As I've already mentioned, we typically do not add a page to both a category and a subcategory of that category. If American buddy cop films is a subcat of Buddy cop films then there's no need to add a film to both. DonIago (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 18
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hellbound (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Action (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
September 2018
[edit] Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for not discussing this with you first. I believe that my edit was very constructive. Lots of movie articles on this site have a 'see also' tab that gives other articles that might help the reader. It's definitely a more convenient way to get to the actors' filmographies as opposed to going to their respective pages and finding the links. At the very least, the link to the list of American films of the 2010s should stay. I think the inclusion of the filmography links is very helpful and constructive, as well as more convenient for the reader. Also, I don't think the changes I'm making are mass. All I'm doing are adding some links to some other pages related to the topic. Thanks.Captainjackster (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- The "see also" sections are rarely used anymore, they are already supported by the tags at the bottom of each page. Even then, the links there are meant to be for further reading relating to the subject article, and every actors filmography is not related to a particular film. If you disagree I'd suggest raising it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film where it can be discussed by all members of the project. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
October 2018
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Trading Places, you may be blocked from editing. I've spoken with you repeatedly about the fact that categories generally should not be added to articles when a subcategory is already being used. Please stop this practice immediately. DonIago (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DonIago (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Dude, alright, chill, I stopped, after you just asked me when I did it to Trading Places. It makes sense to use both categories though. Captainjackster (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Why did I even have to ask you when we've had this discussion before, and when I linked you to the pertinent editing guidelines previously? Either you didn't read the guidelines, you didn't understand them, or you didn't care to follow them, but when you're making dozens of category-related edits which evidently need to be reviewed, your behavior has become disruptive. DonIago (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, is there a place I can make an appeal to change a guideline? Captainjackster (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- At the Talk page for the guideline. DonIago (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and I again apologize for going against the rules. Captainjackster (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Captainjackster. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Buddy TV shows has been nominated for discussion
[edit]
Category:Buddy TV shows, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
October 2020
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hunter Biden; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- The page is under a one-revert restriction. Use the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Alert
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please note that Hunter Biden is currently subject to a one-revert restriction. – bradv🍁 23:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in . Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Acroterion (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)- You were amply warned. You're blocked. Acroterion (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Captainjackster, you have multiple administrators basically telling you to "Slow down or you're going to get blocked". The material that is disputed does not need to be added to the article this minute, this hour, or this day. Controversial subjects have small changes made to them, not radical ones. And major changes are discussed on the talk page. If you keep acting like a bull in a china shop, you will find yourself blocked. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we do not need to act quickly. That's not how reliably sourced-based content is added. It's preferable to be slow and accurate than fast and violate policies like WP:BLP. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- While I was writing this, you received a block. But consider the advice any way. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
That's all great, but I was mainly trying to remove false information that was added. People were adding information that was wrong and clearly reflected only one view point in an effort to slam right-wingers. I changed it, and three people whined until they got their way. You talk about being slow and accurate, but the people reverting my edits were anything but. Captainjackster (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Again, you may not edit-war, even if you're convinced you're right. You've been around on Wikipedia long enough to know that, and to use the talkpage, not just revert to have your way. You're ignoring all voices but your own. If you resume after this block expires, your next block will be much longer. Acroterion (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I realize that and I didn't revert anything after the second time. I removed two things that are incorrect. I don't know why three people who don't like what I said get to decide what the page says. I see my edit was again reverted, so now the information on there is false and biased. I thought this was supposed to be a database. They immediately jumped on me and defended their edits, and there was no respect at all. This is supposed to be an unbiased database, so what's the point when three people who think they're right get to control whatever a page on here says? Don't talk to me about having "reliably source-based content" if that's the case. The people arguing with me are also only listening to their voices.
Also, I did use the talkpage. If you read the conversation, you'll see the arguments made against my edits are illogical fallacies. Hunter is still a part of the investigation even if not directly-so. Having the word "debunked" and the slams on right-wingers proves I'm not the only one listening to my voice. But no, definitely block me and let other people decide that the page can say whatever they want.Captainjackster (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- You made substantially the same edit a third time after I plainly told you that you were violating the arbitration restrictions. You didn't listen to me, and you've made no effort to understand what anybody else told you. Listening is essential here. If you don't start listening, you will lose your editing privileges. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand perfectly. The people arguing against my edits on the talk page have made no effort to understand my point, but I guess that doesn't matter because there are more of them? I thought I was allowed to edit, I didn't know it was more than just performing more one undo. In my third edit, I even explained in my edit summary why I changed what I changed and that I wouldn't add the information being argued over. So basically no one is going to actually look into this, and I should just shut up? Sounds like someone besides me has a problem with listening. Captainjackster (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- Since I'm tired of repeating myself, this is my last reply. Read the talkpage and its archives, where your argument has been extensively discussed. Read the sources listed in the article. Read all the warnings you've received and the policies that they are linked to, and make an effort to understand why you got them. You've got a 48-hour break in which to do so, so that you will be more informed when you return. "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" is not an argument that ever succeeds. Listen to somebody other than yourself. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Captainjackster: shutting up is not what you should do, but that's what you will likely have to do eventually; if you don't think so, go to the “Feminism” talk page: you'll be surprised at how essential listening is there and how willingly consensus is sought. :-) My advice is: don't waste your time trying to rectify Wikipedia articles on controversial topics; if you think that libel occurred in the article you discussed here, collect evidence and help the person or the people in question to take out a libel action; if not, read Wikipedia, edit articles on more innocuous topics, and advise those unhappy with the workings of Wikipedia to spend their time more wisely. :-) – Fobemipa (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Liberal Bias
[edit]I have also been warned for trying to correct obvious bias in the Hunter Biden page. Like so many other places in the e-verse, this site seems to be mainly run by those intent on suppressing fair coverage of political figures and promoting a false progressive narrative to readers. I will not participate in censorship or propaganda. If they do not wish to publish fair content, but hide propaganda behind of facade of procedural "rules", then further attempts are a waste of time. They can wither on the vine.
DEOLES (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)deoles
Thanks, I totally agree. Nothing about the Hunter Biden thing has been debunked, and the allegations against him are much more than right-wing conspiracy theories. This is clearly a biased site that isn't interested in the truth when it concerns politics. Suddenly, we have to wait and see what happens, gather information slowly, and not look at things objectively. Captainjackster (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |