User talk:You've gone incognito/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:You've gone incognito. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Added reviews

Hey real quick note: when you add reviews, it should be past tense, not present. So like "he *called* the film lazy" not "calls". The review has been posted, its done with, not a fluid, on-going event. Hope this makes sense... TropicAces (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Blair Witch Project

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Blair Witch Project you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Famous Hobo -- Famous Hobo (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Blair Witch Project OST.jpeg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversion

Could you care to clarify your reason for this reversion? PatTag2659 (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@PatTag2659: It basically means that starting a sentence with the coordinating conjunction "but" isn't as bad as one thinks. In fact, doing so is highly desirable in any number of contexts, as many style books have said (many correctly pointing out that but is more effective than however at the beginning of a sentence.) Blue sphere 10:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Liza Soberano

Hi, I'm Apettyfer I appreciated of what have you done in the Article Liza Soberano. I'm not saying it violates the BLP standards. But I'm asking what is the purpose or the relevance of adding a signature image on her infobox? Yes a lot of celebrities has a signature on their biography that doesn't mean you are going to put that on her article like for what??? because you are a fan of her and you like her to have this kind of thing? Apettyfer (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Apettyfer: What, me? Nah, I am not a fan of hers. Fact of the matter is that personally, I'm utterly bored by celebrities. Most of them are devoid of interest. Mind you, I'm completely aware with the fact that Wikipedia is not a venue for fanboyism. And that's not really the point as to why I added her signature on her article. It's just her signature is in the public domain, and I thought adding it in her article would substantially improve it. Funny though, that I thought it is you that is a fan of hers given your vigilance in that article. And on top of that, you reverted the signature again! My oh my, you don't edit anything other than Liza Soberano's article and her latest film My Ex and Whys, haha. Blue sphere 10:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes I have edited the film My Ex and Whys but I don't overly put anything on her Article or on the film Article. Just like what you have done on her Article. Only to look it as if it is very notable. 11:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Woah, lemme stop you right there. What exactly has prompted you to call adding her signature "overly" editing the article? Did I put fanboy materials apart from that? Have I extensively edited it enough for me to be called "a fan" just like you did a while ago? Dude, I just placed her signature. What's wrong with that, what exactly a part of that edit that makes it trivial or "pointless" as you put it? I have yet to hear your reason as to why it shouldn't be in the article. Blue sphere 11:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

How many celebrities in the Philippines or let say in the International scene does this kind of signature image on their infoxbox? because in what I have observed ONLY those people who has a big contribution on the field that they had or a person who is notable had this kind thing of signature image. But I'm not belittling Liza Soberano and Yes I know it doesn't have standards to add that. Apettyfer (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Many BLPs doesn't have their signatures in infoboxes because many are probably either inexperienced in digital editing or is just too lazy to do so. That has nothing to do with neither their prominence nor their contributions in whatever cause. If their signature is circulating through the internet, it could be placed in Wikipedia as long as it's in the public domain.

Anyway, you insist on not placing the signature in the article, so be it. I won't be vigilant nor be too nagging about it. Besides, engaging in a revert tennis match is clearly just not my thing. Article's yours, go nuts. Blue sphere 13:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Logan

Hello. You reverted my edits on Logan (film), saying 'No need to add more reviews.' but I only added 2 more. It'd improve the section I don't think that adding couple of sentences from more credible reliable sources would damage the section. CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Already told you that only four reviews for paragraph, but you kept on adding a review or two each. I think the section is already improved without them. No worries. Blue sphere 14:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but I think these reviews describe and analyse the film more than 'Unforgiven, with claws'... so can we add a short paragraph? CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it has to be an in-depth analysis. What matters is whether the review says it's good or bad. The Unforgiven, with claws claim seems like a positive compliment to me. Blue sphere 14:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

For those readers who haven't watched Unforgiven it's not a useful reviews because they don't know what it means. Honestly, I really do not believe that adding two sentences would be detrimental. CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Blue sphere 14:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bluesphere:So we can add the reviews, right? CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty. Blue sphere 15:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

R.J. Scott

Hi, Bluesphere. I read your reply on the Rachel Scott article. Feel free to message me on my talk page when and how I can help with any issues or areas of population, clarification, and improvement. As it says on my user page, I'm always happy to assist with any topics. As for the Rachel Scott article, I can say I found it very humbling and rewarding to populate. Regards. PS I like your user page.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft Pages

Hi Bluesphere, thanks for reaching out and helping me with Wikipedia contributions. I noticed you edited my update to the Power Rangers Film page and their new mobile app which launched yesterday. I live in Los Angeles and I'm interested in updating Wikipedia with all the various companies within Silicon Beach. Science, Inc for example. Would you mind looking at a few pages I have in draft before I publish them? Suzysansone (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Suzysansone: Hi Suzy, thanks for your contributions! Which draft are you referring to? Blue sphere 03:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Move Draft to Wikipedia

Hi! It's a draft in my draft area, are you able to see my contributions? Suzysansone (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Suzysansone: If it's Draft:REVYRIE that you're referring to, then here are my thoughts about it:

The lead doesn't seem to adequately summarize key points of the article. You can learn about it by going to WP:LEAD.
Most of the sources you provide appear to be independent thus reliable, but there's one reference that links to a website that requires subscription to get the entire article. You can learn more about identifying reliable sources here in Wikipedia by going to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
I'm not sure about the notability of this subject; the subject of the article must be notable and verified by reliable sources.

It is recommended for new users to create a new article via the Wikipedia:Article wizard, so that a volunteer will review the draft before moving it in the mainspace (it's where articles became live for others to read). That said, you may boldly submit your draft and let the volunteers from Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation decide whether the article is qualified to be in Wikipedia. If that's not the case, then it'll be declined. The editor who declined the draft will then explain in your talk page the reason why it's rejected. Blue sphere 08:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christine Caine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speaker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Reversion related to Mark Wahlberg-article

I've reverted your reversion because I don't agree with the rationale for your reversion:

Read carefully, it's already covered in that section. More of it would be WP:UNDUE.

The fact is, this information is not provided anywhere else on that page, and I believe you've confused the following two bits of information:

Existing information:

One of Wahlberg's victims, Trinh, pledged in December 2014 to make a written statement supporting a pardon

My added information:

In 2016, Mark said he'd met Trinh and apologized for his "horrific acts"

Also keep in mind that in 2014, Trinh had not met Mark, and Mark had not apologized in person to Trinh yet. He didn't meet Trinh until 2016. His meeting and apology is a significant piece of information, particularly given the previous bit of informtion in that section:

Commenting in 2006 on his past crimes, ... He said the right thing to do would be to try to find the blinded man and make amends, and admitted he has not done so, but added that he was no longer burdened by guilt. ... So I don't have a problem going to sleep at night. I feel good when I wake up in the morning."

It gives the impression that Mark never met and apologized to Trinh, despite the pardon that Trinh offered in 2014. I'd also recommend reading the source articles, and it should become clear that these are two separate events.

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Blair Witch Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gregg Hale. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Haxan Films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eduardo Sánchez. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Mummy (2017) teaser poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Mummy (2017) teaser poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Majora (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael de Mesa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bliss. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: Filipino vs. Philippine

Most articles about films produced in the Philippines use "Filipino" over "Philippine" just because it's commonly used in mass media. Just look on these articles: CNN, Rappler and Spot.ph. In 3 Idiots case, you were saying that it uses "Indian" over "Hindi" because it refers to the citizens of India, not their language. But don't you think "Filipino" also refers to the citizens of the Philippines, aside from referring to its language. BTW, MOS:PHIL also says that "Filipino may also be used with inanimate nouns, though it is more commonly applied to people". I also noticed that if you go to every film article in the List of Philippine films of 2017, every article uses "Filipino" except on the articles you've created like Baka Bukas and Bliss. I'm not going to revert your edits and put these articles back to using "Filipino" as it's pretty debatable. I'm just discouraging you to avoid using "Philippine" in future film articles as much as possible. Janbryan (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Scott

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Rachel Scott has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Good luck with the GAN.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jerrold Tarog