User talk:Wik4

Jude Law

According to the Russian Wiki, the Russian article became a Featured Article on August 22, 2006. That is why the link to the Russian article is listed as such. Please do not remove this link again, as it may be considered vandalism. María (críticame) 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Template talk:Link FA. Do not be disruptive and remove the Russian FA link again. María (críticame) 16:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crane

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of The Crane, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://filmsales.bfi.org.uk/the_crane. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 10:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supercouple article

Hello, Wik4. Your addition of Jude Law and Sadie Frost to the Celebrity supercouples list of the Supercouple article was/is a great and valid add, of course. I moved it further down, though, because we're going by alphabetical order of the woman's last name or if she only goes by one name, then her common name, for the Celebrity supercouples list. Anyway, I'll see you around. Flyer22 16:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleuth (2007 film)

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Please see Talk:Sleuth (2007 film) and related editing history summaries concerning Sleuth. Thank you. --NYScholar 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Law

Hi, and thanks for your contributions. I am removing the category "Film actors" from the listing because he is covered as an actor under other, more specific, categories. The Film actors category is basically a catch-all for lesser known actors or ones for whom another category does not exist. The general Film actors category page says "It should list very few, if any, article pages directly and should mainly contain subcategories. Articles in this category should be moved to subcategories where appropriate." That is why Law was removed from the category. Thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries -- Jude Law

Hi, Thanks for all of your work on Jude Law. Could you please use edit summaries, as is required by Wikipedia editors? Otherwise it is hard to get a sense of your changes, except by clicking on each of your edits. I am by no means perfect with adding edit summaries, but if you look at my recent edits to Jude Law, you'll see I at least give a general sense of what I am trying to do. Thanks. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Law fix

Apology accepted. To tell you the truth, I was afraid I was going to get yelled at by one of the administrators! --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 15:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of content

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to the Jude Law page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Law's Real Name

Why are you deleting his birth name? According to official birth records, it is David Jude N. Law. And there is a space for the person's "real" name. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The http://www.ancestry.co.uk/ -enquiry results Jude Law as Jude Law. David Jude N. Law is another person according to this site. If you have other sources /official birth records, please add this. Greetings, (Wik4 (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

The only Jude Law that I can find born in Lewisham in 1972 is David Jude N. Law. You can now search through all birth records 1916-1984 on Ancestry.co.uk. Other people who names really are Jude Law were born after 2000. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, forgot to say, on the Jude Law discussion page it mentions David being his real name, as it does on numerous other websites about him. Greetings also. Ravenscroft32 (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does appear that his real name is David Jude Heyworth Law - Google that and see - it's everywhere. The David Jude N. Law on Ancestry.co.uk may have an N instead of an H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenscroft32 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot to sign that last item. But his name really is David Jude Law (not counting another name which begins in N or H) so why is his official birth name being removed all the time? I'm sorry, I don't understand. I would send you a screen shot of the official government listing if I could.Ravenscroft32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Chris Rock

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Chris Rock, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. (Diff) Nightscream (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Law

I'm sorry, I can't make sense of some of the things you put in the edit summary. What do you mean by "awards as usual"? WP:ACTOR has a very clear example of its recommended filmography style, and it does include listing the awards and nominations in the filmography. You won't find a featured article with a stark listing of awards that aren't even linked to the proper WP article for each award, which in many cases denies the reader the chance to click through to see who else may have been nominated with him. It does not include a 4th column for awards, that is precisely what a "notes" column is for and another column would serve to crowd the filmography too much, considering the notes column is generally under-utilized in the filmography. Since featured articles pass regularly using awards in filmographies, I'd suggest there is no problem with them, while the FA reviews I've ever seen that only had them in a list asked for better presentation, so I'm not accepting the comment of "upgrade yes, but in a better way, please" as valid rationale for reverting what was not a small amount of work, especially in light of the suggestion of a 4th column, especially when it is in a style that is standard for actor articles.

"and the complete list of awards, please"? As far I know, each and every nomination and award was transferred, and at least one added that was not listed, with the exception of the award listed as Variety Club Showbiz Awards, which links to something entirely unrelated to any award, but to Variety, the Children's Charity that mentions no award. If there was another, it would seem that adding it, insteading of reverting So as far as I can see, the most relevant complaint you seem to have is that... you don't like it? LaVidaLoca (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you would go through and disambiguate links from a general listing page to the same page? There is nothing accomplished by formatting such as [[Empire Awards|Empire Award]], [[MTV Movie Awards|MTV Movie Award]], [[Teen Choice Awards|Teen Choice Award]], or [[European Film Awards|European Film Award]]. This formatting makes ''no'' sense: Nominated — [[Satellite Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture]] - Best Supporting Actor – Drama. This makes it much easier for future pages for awards that will be added to WP if the content is already presented as it would be in a page title. Clicking on the page will get the reader to the page, the additional notation is unnecessary. There is no valid reason why you would put non-specific film awards on separate lines when it can be handled on one line with a break to separate them. This is standard styling. It's completely confusing to me why you would want to delink the awards name. I've worked on literally hundreds of filmographies, I helped formulate the style guideline, I am quite familiar with how such awards should be presented. Also, your change added errors to the table formatting. Editors who work on filmographies routinely are well-versed in how to format them. LaVidaLoca formatted them properly, I have restored that format. I realize you work almost exclusively with Jude Law related articles, but you do not own them. Please do not undo stylistic updates to content. It would be most helpful if you would respond to talk page postings when someone makes them. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Law again

Your contention that "according to WP:FACR, Wikipedia:Featured articles, the list is equivalent to the Jake Gyllenhal one" is not true. This table does not reflect the one on Jake Gyllenhaal, it is full of red links and lacking relevant ones. WP:FACR and WP:FA do not endorse that standard. They endorse whatever standard the requisite project endorses. While there are some articles that do have a separate table for awards, it is not the standard endorsed by WP:ACTOR. In regard to WP:FA, all revelant terms with corresponding articles should be linked to that article. You have consistently delinked those, have again introduced redlinks when formatting that was added avoided that. That is as far from WP:FA criteria as you can get. You do not own this article, you do not have the right to undo or revert changes introduced by others.You're more or less a single purpose account. You've only posted to a user talk page besides your own once. You've only responded on your own talk page once. You've posted to an article talk page once, in 2007. You are obviously not someone open to, or willing to, discuss article content and changes, and it's obvious here you won't. Your focus is only on Jude Law. That's fine, but your editing experience doesn't support that you have any idea that your arbitrary reverts are supported. Again, you do not own this article and if you cannot accept changes made by other editors, and you refuse to discuss it with anyone, then I am going to take you to arbitration and tampering with or undoing accepted stylistic formatting will henceforth be considered vandalism. Try working on some other articles besides ones related to Jude Law for a change and let people who are interested in actually taking this article to GA or FA have a chance to do so. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

I see from the article's history page that some "critical raves" you inserted were deleted: that is no reason in turn to delete more balanced material which is well referenced. I have to agree with User:LaVidaLoca, above, this is beginning to look a bit like a case of WP:OWN. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's an explanation, I can agree with your deletion of "first time bookers", but the Telegraph quote is too long to include in full. The part I used seems a balanced extract: Between the "Jude is fine" at the start and "just not funny" and "terrible affliction" later, I think this is fair balance. My own view is totally irrelevant, but, as Old Moonraker, I have seen many Hamlets and this production is definitely near the top: specifically—Law is second only to Ben Kingsley at Stratford in 1975. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However: another editor has inserted the full quote, giving it the proper provenance from The Independent, not the Telegraph. My mistake. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant concerns regarding your editing on the article that have been raised on Talk:Jude Law, which you have ignored. Either respond to the postings on Talk:Jude Law or prepare to be taken to WP:AN/I. This ownership issue has become problematic in regard to your recent edits concerning the Hamlet performances, including removing criticism from film critics, cherrypicking only positive reviews or the postive comments from other reviews, and stacking the article with only postive statements. Your citing WP:NPOV, WP:NPV, and WP:NEU (which are all the same policy, by the way) is not valid for removing negative reviews. The policy states quite clearly: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Denying or removing mentions of less than positive reviews in fact violates this policy. By removing this content, you are factually violating that policy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My ownership – or your ownership, that’s the question. Once I removed ALL reviews, in the other case I tried to balance out the negative reviews with positive statements on the other side. Never cherrypicking, attempting to balance out; you posted negative reviews and posting the other side was necessary to reach a neutral point of view. You forced it, take a look at the history. I never removed negative reviews, take a look. Posting negative reviews in a gossip-like manner in fact violates the policy of WP. WP is a encyclopedia, not a second-life-reviewing. Would be good to come to a consensus without menaces. My suggestions are: Either 1. no reviews. or 2. reviews in a neutral point of view. the worst and the best review and one roundup for both productions respectively seems fair, without highlighting one. The current editing isn’t neither fair nor neutral. In this moment initially, I would prefer to delete all reviews and starting the new edits. Tell me your decision, please. Wik4 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I see three different editors have brought up ownership issues regarding the Jude Law article on this talk page, so I would suggest "my ownership" is a false assumption. There is no policy nor guideline that suggests that each positive review must be balanced out with negative reviews, or vice versa. The policy says that both viewpoints should be covered, but there is nothing whatsoever that states it should be 1:1. When you removed all critical comments, you removed negative reviews. This edit removed negative comment. Then you added more positive reviews. At that point, the Independent review was fairly scathing, but it was the only negative review, "balanced out" by 4 positive reviews. How is that balanced? I'd note that the New York Times review was not included, but in all actuality was the most scathing review of the play in either London or New York. Then Old Moonraker cut the section significantly because of the undue weight being given this one role, which had suddenly become as large as content covering a 10 year period. That edits, in my view, balanced the content quite adequately, however you decided to remove everything, citing WP:NPOV. Not a valid rationale nor a proper interpretation of what NPOV is. I didn't force that, and adding one of the negative reviews did not "force" you to add three glowing reports and for the record, that is in no way balanced. The fact is, the reviews are mixed. Some critics despised the production, some painted it with glow paint. I have raised all of this on the article talk page, where others can see the discussion and comment. Someone already has. I see no valid reason to cut the reviews and start over. Unless, of course, the New York Times review be used for the New York production. This is the second time you've referred to the use of legitimate critical reviews as "gossip-like". It didn't sit well in the edit summary, it sits even less well now. Please point out, on the article talk page, what you would characterize as gossip like and why three other long term editors, all of whom edit myriad articles unrelated to Jude Law, whom you told "break a leg" on October 6, are wrong and only your interpretation is right. Please note, I am referring the remainder of this discussion to Talk:Jude Law. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly referred you to make discussion at the article talk page, where other editors can also take part in discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Presence of Mind for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Presence of Mind is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presence of Mind until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The Film Creator (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]