User talk:MikeAllen/Jun-Sep 2023

"Essay-like"

When you have a moment, could you explain somewhere your exact reasons for placing this tag? It's a very subjective, nebulous tag, and I really think the template documentation should exhort editors to be more specific about it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Daniel Case:. My apologies, a better approach would have been to add a tone template. It's really just the tone of how it's written. I removed the template. Mike Allen 03:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks ... What issues do you have with the tone? Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing the whole page and will get back to you. :) Mike Allen 15:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These examples have inessential details (bordering trivia). Could be trimmed down.

Novel

Blatty and Monash had agreed to be co-producers. But Monash wanted changes to the story Blatty opposed, such as setting it somewhere else, making Kinderman less colorful and Chris something other than a film actress, getting rid of the prologue and even Father Merrin's character. Hearing rumors that Monash was planning something behind his back, Blatty was able to sneak into his office at Warners and surreptitiously copy some papers from Monash's files that lent credence to those rumors. When he shared those papers with the studio, he became the film's sole producer.
Blatty recalled that studio head John Calley had been reading the book at his home, alone, in his bedroom, and found his dog unusually unwilling to join him on the bed. He tried to drag the dog onto the bed but the animal resisted vigorously. When he finally succeeded, he found the book was hot to the touch.
Hearing rumors that Monash was planning something behind his back, Blatty was able to sneak into his office at Warners and surreptitiously copy some papers from Monash's files that lent credence to those rumors. When he shared those papers with the studio, he became the film's sole producer.

Writing

When Friedkin came onto the project as director, Blatty expected that, as directors usually do, he would propose some changes to the story. But Friedkin did not, insisting on following the novel closely. According to Blatty, Friedkin even asked him, in one scene, to restore some slight changes to his dialogue to what it had originally been in the book.

Casting

Studio head Ted Ashley vigorously opposed casting her, not only telling Friedkin that he would do so over his dead body, but dramatizing that opposition by making Friedkin walk over him as he lay on the floor, then grabbing the director's leg and telling him he would come back from the dead if necessary to keep Friedkin from doing so. However, no other alternatives emerged, and Ashley relented. Are these details that important?
Friedkin then asked Linda if she knew what masturbation meant. "It's like jerking off, isn't it?", and she giggled a little bit. "Have you ever done that?" he asked. "Sure; haven't you?" she responded. - is this really needed?
Dietz recalls shooting taking so long because Friedkin reshot most of the film. Even scenes that had been difficult to stage and film the first time, such as Regan's bed shaking, were redone. "People were literally placing bets on what he would re-shoot next." Friedkin also fired and rehired crew regularly. One crewmember recalls seeing the director shake hands warmly with someone, and then seconds later tell a second person to "get this guy outta here". This mercurial behavior led the crew to call him "Wacky Willy"

I don't have time to go through the entire article (it's really long), but hopefully you get the gist. Mike Allen 20:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edits is unnecessary

Why do you keep reverting my edits such as Fight Club, What's My Number, and others? 2601:196:4A01:D770:4C61:3F01:AA83:93EF (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries like "LEAVE MY EDITS ALONE" go against everything Wikipedia stands for. Stop changing nationalities unsourced, it is a BLP violation. You are displaying WP:NOTHERE behavior. Keep it up and you will be reported, most likely given an IP range block since you like to bounce between similar IPs. We may can find out if you are a previous editor that has been blocked. Also, I am not the only editor reverting your edits, which should be telling. Mike Allen 15:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Anyways. Fight Club revived a 79% on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic 66 out of 100 which means generally favorable, yet you wanna keep the polarized thing. Just Why? Fight Club reception is not polarized. 2601:196:4A01:D770:4C61:3F01:AA83:93EF (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a section of Beau Is Afraid

Hey, man! I wanted to ask you this specifically since you’re somewhat of a titan when it comes to movies on Wikipedia, so I trust your judgement

Joaquin Phoenix’s character in Beau Is Afraid is in essentially every scene of the film, as well as the only person advertised on posters and such. His co-actors in the film are only shown for certain sequences (excluding McKinley Henderson’s and LuPone’s characters), so would it be unreasonable to remove the other actors and actresses from the “Starring” section of the infobox (alternatively keeping LuPone along with Phoenix), or should it just be kept as is?

Have a great day! Christian Seductivenun24 (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christian! Since the poster does not have any cast billing, we can go by the top billing at the end of the film (before the end credits scroll starts). It goes like this:

Note that last billing is "with Parker Posey and Patti LuPone", which is usually added to more famous actors with smaller roles. Mike Allen 16:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thanks for the help! Christian (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No edit summary on revert

Hello there! Would you mind providing some clarity on why you reverted this edit? Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 13:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave an edit summary... 18th film is not a record... and it's not even sourced in article. That's not a record backed up by reliable sources and not a significant record to be added to the lead anyway. If it was in the top 10, with sources, then yes. Mike Allen 13:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin plot needed

The plot for the movie Assassin (2023) is too short. HiGuys69420 (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope's Exorcist vandalism/bad behavior? etc.

Hope all well. I was wondering what you thought about what Bloodyboppa is doing on The Pope's Exorcist. His latest mass wipeout even erases some of his own suggestions I put back into the article -- absurd. Too, he is resorting to personal attacks (which Wikipedia policy condemns) like calling me an "unregistered user" (so what? insulting and irrelevant), and says "do not engage in further edit warts" instead of "wars". He can't even bother to spell "wars" correctly when he's wiping out months of various other people's work. (Vandalism?) ...And he doesn't reason clearly, either. E.g., re "Amorth instructs Esquibel to wear a Miraculous Medal necklace.": that could easily be considered "minutiae", but he still lets it remain. In that line, for Bloodyboppa to inflict his mere personal tastes on other people, and pretend he's doing the right thing, is troublesome... But what do you think? Thanks. Four tildes 47.149.210.180 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Sorry for the late reply. Going through what they removed, I do agree with most of it. It keeps the plot down to the basics, without telling the film's whole story. WP:FILMPLOT does say

The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail.

That is the guideline that Film Project agreed to years ago. However, local consensus can be achieved for that page, if others all agree. Maybe you and Bloodyboppa (talk · contribs) can come up with a compromise on the film's talk page? Mike Allen 00:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

47.149.210.180 (talk · contribs), I meant no disrespect by referring to you as an "unregistered user", but I was not about to type out your IP address. That being said, the plot summary that existed prior to my edits was not within the guidelines of the Manual of Style. Editing and improving film plots is a lot of what I like to do on Wikipedia, and as a result I have become well versed in doing so. I am happy to discuss and come to a consensus. Thank you. Bloodyboppa (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Monster

Hey I was wondering if it’s cool if you move the page to just Atomic Monster, since the redirect goes to it anyway. I noticed that the company just goes by “Atomic Monster”. It’s not really a big deal but if you’re down that’ll be awesome I was just curious… thanks! ImTheGoatOk (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It will be to be asked on the WP:RMT noticeboard since the move target (Atomic Monster) already exist. But yes, I support that change. Mike Allen 02:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I put a request on there but not sure how fast or how it works. Hopefully I did it right and I’m hoping the page eventually moves. Thanks again for helping! ImTheGoatOk (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been

Done. Mike Allen 13:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration of year of birth

Why did you change Steven Brand's year of birth? I have tried to change it back but it changes again almost immediately. It contradicts every other source I can find. Do you have a source for this new information? Thanks. 2603:8000:AE01:49E:D9D:190D:960A:4494 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that someone changed the birthdate without adding a source or an edit summary. After looking further, I have removed the birthdate entirely since there is no reliable source, per WP:DOB and WP:BLPREMOVE. Please do not add a birthdate unless you provide a reliable source. The sites there were listed should not be used for sourcing a WP:BLP. Thank you. Mike Allen 19:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DJB DOB

Hi Mike, you have repeatedly removed the DOB that I have placed against DJB, I have read the references that you provided and none of them state that DOB should not be posted, although I can provide references to his DOB this is not normally done for DOB as it is pretty much public knowledge, in the case of DJB its is listed on allmusic which is regarded as a good source for musicians https://www.allmusic.com/artist/james-dean-bradfield-mn0000139572/biography. I also have checked that it in in that quarter by checking on Ancestry.

In addition you should not threaten people with being reported for no good reason, I have asked you to explain exactly why you are reverting my edits but you have not you have just provided very wide links that do not state that DOB cant be posted. If you are not more reasonable I will consider reporting you for vandalism of the public information that I added. Wytco0 (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Wytco0: yes I am allowed (actually encouraged) to remove unsourced contentious material from biographies of living people. WP:DOB states "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." The WP:BURDEN was on you to WP:CITE the source with your addition to the DOB. You did not. Repeatedly. After that I assumed you couldn't understand the policies I was including in my edit summaries, which is why I said you will be reported. I assure you that others on the noticeboard would agree it would be for a good reason. If you feel you need to take this to get a third opinion, the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is the correct avenue. Thanks. Mike Allen 13:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source has been added by another editor. Mike Allen 14:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Study invitation

Hi @MikeAllen, I am reaching out because you've been using Twinkle and Ultraviolet for reverting vandalism. I wonder if you are interested in our ongoing study for anti-vandal patrollers. The study aims to evaluate AI models that power recent change filters, Huggle, SWViewer, and many other anti-vandal tools. Your feedback can be really helpful! If you're interested, please check out our recruitment page for more information. Thank you for your consideration! Tzusheng (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cobweb film

Why was my edit for Cobweb film reverted? Because I copied and pasted the synopsis and copying and pasting is not allowed in Wikipedia? Ddg1208gaming (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please read WP:COPYPASTE. Mike Allen 02:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbenheimer Edit

In regards to the deletion of my Barbenheimer edit on the Barbie and Oppenheimer pages, I would like to argue that while they are undoubtedly recent, the phenomenon has gone beyond social media and become a talking point for the filmmakers as well as other signifigant figures in Hollywood. I am going to revert your deletion. Please check my references and cited sources for more information. BakedintheHole (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this discussion to the article talk pages because we are going to need to establish consensus for the inclusion of that section. Thank you. Mike Allen 04:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

The other user called you an idiot, imbecile and a goofball a few days ago because he thinks Warner Bros. Animation was involved in Skull Island but it was not true. I told him off by telling him not to say that again. 85.255.234.211 (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm PontiacAurora. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Jojo Siwa that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your immature response to an obviously credible section is what's going to escalate this. You are removing a credible section due to your own personal bias when there is absolutely zero need to remove the section. PontiacAurora (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lennertz

Hello Mike,

According to the Film Music Reporter, Lennertz will serve as the composer of the upcoming film Dashing Through the Snow. By chance, do you know if the Film Music Reporter is reliable? The Film Creator (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been seeing it cited in numerous articles and the reports are always correct (that I've seen). I have never seen anyone contest it. This is the only discussion I see about its notability. Mike Allen 19:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning for removal of edit on 20:19 11 July 2023

This is your only warning, removing the section with credible sources anchoring the segment is blatant vandalism. The section does NOT seek to defame Siwa as an individual, and you have absolutely zero right or obligation to remove it. If you remove the section again, the matter will result in a further warning. PontiacAurora (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea how Wikipedia works. You do not own the page. Give warnings all you want. Mike Allen 00:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. 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. PontiacAurora (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:MikeAllen Doxing and Vandalism. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo Entertainment logo

Should I add the Vertigo Entertainment logo from 2017-present? I found it on this website: https://twitter.com/austinfilmfest/status/1648114176479354880 Ddg1208gaming (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure if that's correct, I don't see why not. Mike Allen 02:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I recognize the same Vertigo Entertainment logo from the end of Death Note (2017 film). Ddg1208gaming (talk) 03:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About the user "Tarachandera"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tarachandera

They continued to post self promotion link, as you see in this link on the page Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One. I reverted the change. If you can, please help me give a warning because I don't know how to do that properly. Thanks. Theodorethebear (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mike Allen 12:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello MikeAllen!

The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Mayhem page

Hello. Would you please go through Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem again for me? The film releases soon, and I want the page to be devoid of any grammatical errors and awkwardly worded sentences. Zingo156 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes I will do a copyedit today or tomorrow. Mike Allen 12:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry to bother you, I know you are busy, but I need help cleaning up the article. I have been adding most of the content, and I don't entirely trust myself. Zingo156 (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of going through the page. Sorry it took longer than expected. Mike Allen 21:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Thanks for the help! Zingo156 (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You message for The Exorcist: Deceiver

Thanks for the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.35.37 (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. 👍 Mike Allen 19:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you hugs and chocolate! 142.162.35.37 (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Freekin Scary poster/logo

Hi!

Do you think you can upload the poster or logo for the Disney Channel show, Pretty Freekin Scary?

I saw you do it on the Saturdays page and you did a great job. I would really appreciate if you could do it for PFS too, thank you! Cqntralls (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks. I will check it out early tomorrow! Mike Allen 02:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cobweb poster with credits

Hello, so apparently, I found a Cobweb poster with credits on Twitter. Should I add it? Source: https://twitter.com/thackerybinx86/status/1684747157306331137 Ddg1208gaming (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find one without the red border? Mike Allen 21:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem poster

Apologies, but It looks like I am going to need assistance with this page again. User:IAmNMFlores keeps adding a low-quality version of the theatrical release poster to File:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - Mutant Mayhem.jpg. The user's excuse is that it has a billing. But it is useless because the source image is of such low quality that the billing is unreadable. Here is the link to the user's source. I propose just sticking to the version at IMP Awards. Zingo156 (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably be better to start a discussion on the film's talk page. I'm wondering what the source is for that image with the billing block. Mike Allen 21:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the image is going to be shrunk anyway so it doesn't matter if it's readable or not. Don't leave out the fact that the one with the billing has slightly more image. If you don't believe me, I put the non-billing in black and white and put it over the billing one in color for comparison here. It's small, but I think having the one with the billing feels like the "full" version. Also, say "reason" not "excuse". IAmNMFlores (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question about edit done on 65 (film)

In regards to your edit on 65 (film) done on 2023 August 4‎ at 18:14, you removed the entire Marketing section, saying, "Not what sources say".

So, my question is: What do the sources say?

I would think if there was some kind of discrepancy, correcting the erroneous info would be better than just removing it (unless you were in a hurry and didn't have the time to do a full edit).

Just curious, WesT (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I skimmed the The Hollywood Reporter article and it didn’t seem to match. Given it was done by a drive by IP and reeked of WP:SNYTH, I just went ahead and removed the whole section. I’ll revisit it and see if I can re write it neutrally and accurately later today. Mike Allen 20:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been too busy to take care of this? I'll see if I can find the article you mentioned. Thanks! WesT (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...I read *an* article from the Hollywood Reporter on the movie 65 but found no mention of marketing at all: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/65-review-adam-driver-1235347167/ Maybe I was on the wrong one...?? WesT (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scream 5

Why did you remove the edits I added. I already added a source you asked for. But why do people kept getting upset if they never add 5 on that? Don't blame anyone, just blame the filmmakers for that. 103.3.81.4 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That site is a fansite/blog. Please discuss on the film's talk page and come up with reliable sources that call it that title. Thank you! Mike Allen 00:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Scream 7 will be ready. 142.162.35.37 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Magazine vs. FORBES

The Citation for the Barbie movie page came from Fortune Magazine and did NOT come from Forbes. Simple mistake.

Fortune is reputable and satisfies WP:RS. https://adfontesmedia.com/fortune-bias-and-reliability/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.229.89.31 (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline for "Inside Man" reverted - was it really necesary?

Hi Mike,

Just noticed that you reverted my edit of Inside Man (=> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inside_Man_(2023_film)&oldid=prev&diff=1170936629), and I wonder if that was really called for?

Yes, I copied that summary of the plot from IMDb - but only because there was nothing in the article about the film's plot (BTW, it was me who added {No plot}} template to the article). That short copy-pasted blurb would be better than nothing - giving the reader general idea of what the film is about, and without having to visit IMDb and only discover there the same information, wouldn't you agree? It was meant to be removed once somebody got round to adding the full plot for the film at some point later in time... Incidentaly, "Storylines" for many films are identical on Metacritic and IMDb anyway - plus, I come across other articles on Wikipedia with "Premise" or "Storyline" for a movie being copied from other website in the absence of the plot proper (so I didn't even realise that anybody would raise an objection). :-(

Do you really think that the article looks better or is more informative without that "Storyline"?

Cheers,

Serge Z. (Szagory (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

We can not copy and paste from websites, see WP:COPYPASTE. Must be written in your own words, or it is a copyright violation. Mike Allen 22:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twisters (2024) undo edits

You said:

Has nothing to do with this film (and most of those sources are unreliable)

In what ways were my sources unreliable, and, most confusingly, how did it have "nothing to do with this film" when my edits added depth to the history of a Twister sequel? Is this not exactly what that is? GoodEditsOnly (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Paxton's and Hunt's version did not become Twisters. Would be best added on the Twister page under a "Canceled sequels" section. I mean, like you put it, "Paxton's vision died with him when he passed away in 2017". Mike Allen 00:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and sources like "www.sequelbuzz.com" and "www.firstshowing.net" are not a WP:RS.

Warner Bros. was intrigued but wanted to see how Independence Day: Resurgence, another long-awaited sequel to 1996 blockbuster, who perform financially; when that film was a financial failure, "Twister 3D" was scrapped, and Paxton's vision died with him when he passed away in 2017 Source #6 says none of this.

Paxton was unenthused by the "blockbuster" tone of the first film and wanted a Twister sequel to be darker, more realistic, and to focus more on the people negatively affected by the tornadoes than the tornadoes themselves. Source #5 doesn't say this. Mike Allen 00:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Explaing Wikipedia guidelines before editing

Hi. On the DreamWorks Pictures article when it says the Home Entertainment banner revives on Touchstone Pictures DVD's, you reverted that, saying that there's a guideline on Wikipedia. Like Why? Is that how you want to reverted my edits on that? Huh. That's rude. Aside from that, when you reverted my edits, how does the Guideline rule on Wikipedia have to do with you reverting that statement. I't just doesn't make any sense ALL BECAUSE YOU THINK THOSE TYPES OF INFORMATION ARE WORTH NOTHING. SuperSuperSonic207 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's Magic Bake-Off Logo or Poster

Hello again!

Do you think you can add the logo or poster to the Disney's Magic Bake-Off page? Even though the show is long over, I still think this page deserves a picture.

Please let me know if you can do this! Thank you! Cqntralls (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mike Allen 01:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great, thank you so much! If I may ask, how do you do it? Like, what is the correct way to upload posters on here? I've done it before, but apparently it's not supposed to be high quality. What's the trick to reducing the size of the images? Cqntralls (talk) 07:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I use the built in picture editor on Windows 11 to resize the image to 255 x 376. I use this rationale summary that you see in the file description. Just copy that and replace with the correct details. Mike Allen 14:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackening

I got a question; when I saw The Blackening in cinema, Universal Pictures logo appears. I never knew Lionsgate's involvement until I saw their logo appearing after Universal.

Here is the proof that claims Universal Pictures distributed the film international. Should we added their involvement of the film too?

https://www.universalpictures.co.uk/micro/blackening

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xNUbwrJpovQ&pp=ygUYdGhlIGJsYWNrZW5pbmcgdW5pdmVyc2Fs 2A02:C7C:5ADE:9E00:B492:D343:A3B5:DC4F (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking online it appears that Universal Pictures UK did distribute in the UK. Not "international". Mike Allen 00:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, should we added Universal's "UK" involvement of the film too? Just in case 2A02:C7C:5ADE:9E00:B492:D343:A3B5:DC4F (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To let you know I have already added Universal's involvement in The Blackening page but can you check and re-proof the page? 2A02:C7C:5ADE:9E00:B492:D343:A3B5:DC4F (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is an American film, only the US distributor is listed in the infobox. See WP:FILMRELEASE. Universal Pictures UK could be added under the Release section instead, however. Mike Allen 02:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check The Blackening page for me because the source for top template isn't working; distributor selection. Please? 2A02:C7C:5ADE:9E00:1915:86F8:5A65:5462 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No more feuding over the pages

Look I get it, my edits aren’t improvements but I just want to have free will of editing pages without getting into any clashes with other users like you who keep reverting my work. If this keeps happening then fine, I’ll leave the pages alone to how you see them fit. Spartan231297 (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only editor that undid your edits. We are not "feuding". Why do you persist in writing it that way? Why are you writing the the film title twice in the lead when the lead is not very long. Why are you wording the sentence only to use superfluous comas? Mike Allen 15:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it’s because I like it that way. Spartan231297 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But if that’s the way it’s meant to be, then fine, I won’t do it again. Spartan231297 (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. Mike Allen 21:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from Avatar 3 to Avatar: The Seed Bearer

Can you be kind to change from Avatar 3 to Avatar: The Seed Bearer, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.35.37 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from Avatar 4 to Avatar: The Tulkun Rider

Can you be kind to change from Avatar 4 to Avatar: The Tulkun Rider, please? 142.162.35.37 (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from Avatar 5 to Avatar: The Quest for Eywa

Can you be kind to change from Avatar 5 to Avatar: The Quest for Eywa, please? 142.162.35.37 (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, rather than bombard an editor with multiple new sections to their talk page, you might want to keep it more concise and add just one section and include all of your requests.

Second off, for name changes you can request a page move by including {{subst:Requested move |NewName |reason=Why ...}} on the correlating articles talk page rather than harassing an editor. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And thirdly, there are hidden notes on each of those pages explaining why the names shouldn't be changed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, but this is presuming this user edits the source code rather than just making visual edits. Lol. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I stand corrected they actually do edit the source code. Haha 4theloveofallthings (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Visual Editor can't do many things (read: it's garbage), but I believe reading hidden comments isn't one of them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Hmm. I guess I just assumed the markup would continue to hide the text on the visual editor. Interesting. I have learned something new. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InfiniteNexus.. strange, my visual editor doesn’t show any hidden comments. Only source shows it. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Fundamental Wikipedian!

4theloveofallthings has gifted you
The Fundamental Wikipedian!

Copies of The Fundamental Wikipedian promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else The Fundamental Wikipedian, whether it be an acquaintance you have had a dispute with in the past or an editor friend you just had an argument with.

4theloveofallthings would like to express their apologies regarding a recent dispute with you in which they were incorrect.

EXPLANATION:

Saw X blockquote dispute.

What is WikiLove?

…please don’t revert me… no more…

Have an editor you need to apologize to? Gift them the kind gesture of The Fundamental Wikipedian by adding {{subst:Fundamental Wikipedian}} to their talk page with a friendly message explaining why you chose to gift them it!

4theloveofallthings (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no need for an apology. :) Mike Allen 20:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does CE mean?

Hi Mike, I saw that you reverted one of my edits with "CE" can u explain what it means please? 2601:647:5700:6440:51F3:32D0:3B57:B605 (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does CE mean?

Hi Mike, I saw that you reverted one of my edits with "CE" can u explain what it means please? HiGuys69420 (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYEDIT Mike Allen 20:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What edit was it? Mike Allen 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon HiGuys69420 (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Alien film

The Untitled Alien film which you have edited is already being named as Alien:Romulus in the footnots in the article for the film (see footer#10). Should the page be retitled, or the title be brought into the article somewhere in the various sections and lead. HenryRoan (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For all we know it is a working title (that sources do use sometimes). We should wait until an official announcement (or a trailer/poster) is made. We are not on a deadline here. Mike Allen 15:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, MikeAllen. Thank you for your work on Imaginary (film). User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

IMO this falls a bit short of coverage in sources to meet wp:notability and as a result also short on content. It looks like as time progresses this will change and I'm marking it as reviewed. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla

Dear Mike Allen, Here is a link to confirm my edit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30-fBu8L3VI&t=579s Sincerely, Mike Mikemoriss (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not understanding. WP:IMDB is not a reliable source that we use for Wikipedia. The official poster credits and film credits say that Phoenix scored the film. Variety confirms this. Mike Allen 19:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikemoriss: The official Press Notes from A24 also confirms this. [1] I think we can agree that the official score was done by Phoenix, and per Template:Infobox film, that is what goes in the infobox. You are free to add it under a music section. Mike Allen 19:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Good of the Order

Look, I want to clear the air because there were some harsh words, sentiments, and perhaps feelings exchanged in our recent spat and it would be productive to be clear and aimed towards growth.

The reason that you received such a harsh response from me, was because I believed you came in very hot onto my page, very judgmental, authoritative, and almost prosecutorial, to an overbearing, disproportionate, and unfair degree. Under the principle of charity I can sympathize that being on Wikipedia for many years as an editor you have seen many instances of careless, selfish, and mindless editing. Even given that, I think that there is a difference between an initial approach to edits you believe to be improper over a period of time by some user, versus judging similar edits over a period of time by a user and ordaining that they are acting in bad faith without approaching it with good faith in mind to begin with.

In this instance, my edits were a handful of films, 5 or so, with box-office bomb info added, most with sources, which was in line with how box-office bomb info appears on pages, is sourced, is reasoned by many on talk pages, etc. Your very thorough knowledge of Wikipedia’s rules, discussions on meta topics, consensus building and conclusions on norms for terms used within pages (like box-office bomb), etc. is essentially esoteric to the average user. The average user will not know that you need multiple sources for something specific, because most of the time, even on box-office bomb terms, there is only 1 source. The average user will not know about this movie (65) being special and not being a box-office bomb, despite very many movies with the same budget to box-office ratio underperformance are labeled as box-office bombs. Many without sources.

Therefore, from my perspective, you coming in hot and all that I said in the intro, made me basically want to speak frankly, give you a piece of my mind, let cooler heads eat dust, etc. however you want to phrase it or feel about it. Nevertheless, this is essentially what happened from my perspective. What I think would’ve prevented this, since our personalities, moods, characters, assumptions, etc. clashed (and perhaps as a general rule to people, I believe, because I think I make myself reasonable in my assessment of our spat, is the following):

If you came in with something like this: Hi, I noticed you made several edits to movie pages to include a box-office bomb info on them, and 1 of them didn’t even have a source. The rule on Wikipedia</ref> and consensus</ref> is that box-office bomb info is a sensitive and loaded term, unlike other things that are sourced, so Wikipedia requires multiple (3)</ref> well established (so no blogs) sources that come to the same consensus. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions.

Instead, what I got was something completely out of left field for me, an accusation instead of explanation, a mention of a ban as a hello, or assertions that I'm editing for the thrill (which tbh bothered me uniquely), etc., and thus it devolved into what it did. Not everyone will know the very many rules and norms on Wikipedia. A source is obvious, it’s all the other things that you assumed people will know such as multiple sources for this one thing or a special built-consensus, even though many pages are without even one source and thus a very easy assumption to make in good faith by the average user. Based on at least those assumptions, and your extensive (and I'm sure very useful to Wikipedia) rule-set knowledge, you made the first approach not assuming the good faith on my part. And when I meant "step away from Wikipedia" I meant it in the spirit of considering the dynamic between you, a versed user, and average users in the context and sentiment that I attempted to articulate above.

I write this to you sincerely, and impersonally as far as I can help it, because I do share your sentiment about it (Wikipedia, community, rules) being “for the good of the order” because this is a community, and so I hope that our unfortunate exchange was worth the analysis on this reflection so as to better the order via discourse, and relationships in the future. (But at the same time if someone comes in hot like that and what I believe to be disproportionate and unfair, I don't want to be level-headed about it, so I'll have to work on that. Perhaps as you with your exhaustion with loads of people making stupid edits, or maybe you're so versed in Wikipedia and exhausted with inanity that you've forgotten the ignorance of the average user and what good faith entails when dealing with them). Because if we do cross paths somewhere again, our past spat shouldn’t diminish the good of the order. Be well. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major Studios

Your reverted edits keeps causing confusion. Sony Pictures is the owner of Columbia Pictures. Columbia is the major studio. Walt Disney Studio is also the owner of Walt Disney Pictures. Walt Disney Pictures is the major studio. If you keep causing confusion, the say that the majors are NBCUniversal, Paramount Global, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Walt Disney Studios, and Sony Pictures Entertainment. Those are holding companies of Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros. Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, and Columbia Pictures. 71.68.129.162 (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it on the talk page. What you are saying is confusing. It's been written that way, for how many years now? So it's been incorrect the whole time? Mike Allen 20:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was already on the talk page. 71.68.129.162 (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To also answer your question, yes it was incorrect the whole time. 71.68.129.162 (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nun

Hello. This is about the revision and edit I've made to a film article. It's the part where I added stylization information to the film's title. I just want to let know that that information didn't come from me. I've always seen it in the article since the first time I visited the article page. I just thought that some users deleted it for no reason, so I have to incorporate or insert it, which is what most editors would do. It is not meant for vandalism but rather to reverse what has been done. If look at the edit history, it's been there since the article was moved to the article page. I was just wondering why it was deleted all so suddenly now. Other than that, thanks for letting me know. Russell7890 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point in describing how it is written on the poster? Mike Allen 16:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know. I've always seen that on the article page; that's why I put it back, thinking someone was probably messing up with it. Anyways, this is all what I have to say about it. Thanks! Russell7890 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMRATING on Coyote vs. Acme

Mike, DemoJoker47 keeps adding the rating announcement for Coyote vs. Acme when you said all users should only add ratings to film-related Wikipedia articles when it is notable. The user that made these edits on the article should be blocked, and you have to revert these edits since DemoJoker47 didn't read WP:FILMRATING. 2607:FEA8:761F:4600:A5BC:99CC:769B:6788 (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep reverting them per WP:3RR, even if they are in the wrong. At this point if they think saying what the movie was rated is that important, then so be it. I'll remove it in a few weeks when they forget about it or either gets blocked for something else (don't they always). If they keep reverting then, I'll take them to WP:ANI, but right now I don't feel like it. Mike Allen 20:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile composer credit

Please stop reverting the composer credit on the infobox.

I've added the right credit under the section production / soundtrack.

This leads to articles copying this wrong credit out of the wiki page.

The TIFF source was limited to their formatting. Featuring vocalist isn't the same as co-composers.

Film is out tomorrow and if the credit is different please add it as you want but all I do is fixing this mix up based on the offical credit as appears in the film's credit roll.

Thanks and best! 2A01:C23:65EB:5900:F8E8:81B3:F198:9342 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source from Variety. If it comes out tomorrow then how have you already seen the “credit rolls”? Mike Allen 14:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this nonsense - I represent the composer who worked on this project for half a year.

All you do is spreading false information here that circles and then you use it back as your source.

Watch the credit roll tomorrow and if i'm wrong I won't change it again 2A01:C23:65EB:5900:30CD:2ED0:5F5F:E89D (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so you have a WP:COI if what you say is true. Please I would suggest not to edit the page and put any edit requests on the talk page. Mike Allen 14:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want Saw X to be a Mexican movie too

I put the right references that proves Saw X is in cenrtain way a Mexican production too. As a Mexican-American i felt proud of that and i just wanted show it in Wikipedia, but it's okay. Thank you. UsuarioFeliz33 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]