Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:15, 26 July 2016

Wikicontributor12, you are invited to the Teahouse

Greetings

Hi there! Welcome to Misplaced Pages from Twitter! dogman15 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Frozen (2013 film)

Your information could be useful. However, I couldn't find an appropriate section for it. You can transfer the information to the characters' pages, like Anna.Forbidden User (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, Wikicontributor12. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Misplaced Pages:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Misplaced Pages

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Misplaced Pages:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 03:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Strange Magic post-credits scene

Thanks for catching my mistake about the post-credits scene; I couldn't really tell what kind of bug it was. I'm not entirely sure that it's a fly, either, but you're right that it's definitely not a beetle. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. You're welcome. By the way, I apologize if I sounded harsh in my edit summary. Part of me was thinking that it might have been vandalism, (I have had to clean up a lot of nonsense edits on various articles lately.) Also, you may be right about it not being a fly, I'll have to find some screen shots and double see if I can be more specific.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your addition to Penn Zero: Part-Time Hero has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dcbanners (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Anna (Disney) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary statements in film articles

Wikicontributor12, there is no ban on summary statements in film articles. Some WP:Film editors are for them, especially if they are WP:Reliably sourced, and other WP:Film editors are against them; see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52#Summary statement for "Reception" section. In some cases where you are removing these statements from film articles, editors might have reached WP:Consensus on the matter at the talk pages of those articles; I've been involved with a number of film articles where this is the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, whether we include a summary statement in the critical reception section or not, it's usually best to summarize the film's reception in the lead, per WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I'll keep that in mind. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stevie Wermers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frozen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Fantastic Four (2015 film)

Hey again, Wikicontributor12. The 2015 Fantastic Four film did not simply underperform; it bombed, as is clear by the sources. So I re-linked "box office bomb" under "underperformed" as a WP:Pipelink. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for letting me know.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The edit description was appropriate in this instance

It's always Disneyland Park, never Disneyland park. The entire phrase operates as a proper noun, or more correctly, a proper name, and hence both words are capitalized. See Noun phrase. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of all that. That's not the point. I never said that I objected to the edit. Grammatical typos happen. Like I said, still no reason to call it "weird". It come across as judgemental. That is all. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That episode counter...

Although there would have been no great harm to Misplaced Pages had that ep counter on The Lion Guard been one number too high for a few hours, things like TV schedule changes are one of the reasons for WP:NOTTVGUIDE and, more generally, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Thank you for understanding. Jeh (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. Thank you for the message.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Critical response sections

Hi there, I've noticed you've taken out the quick review summary line that is part of most film's "Critical Response" sections multiple times with the edit summary, "We do not need to summarize in this section. Let the sources speak for themselves." When you say "we", who are you talking about, exactly? It's long-standing practice to offer a quick summation of whether a film has received positive, negative, or mixed reviews, unless one of those descriptions is a matter of contention. It does seem like a unilateral decision to just delete that sentence or phrase from pages without a consensus being established first. Rockypedia (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am referring to this discussion. I am well aware that if a consensus has been been reached on the respective talk page, then it shouldn't be touched. I usually check a film's talk page before I attempt to remove the sentence. And in many cases I have left the summary intact if I see that it has been brought up on its talk page. But sometimes I've noticed that the critical response summaries can be one's own personal interpretation, which I know is something that most editors want to avoid, especially when it is not black and white. On that note; Yes, I admit that I jumped the gun with Cell. I have generally found that many editors have adopted the "let the sources speak for themselves" approach, and it is often the safest approach, as I know that one of most important things for Misplaced Pages is to keep the tone neutral. That is why I often use the word "we", since I know that it is frowned upon for one to interpret something on their own. (Similar to one giving their own personal interpretation of a quote. The quote should just speak for itself.) Have I been overeager? Most likely, and I apologize for that. I am often quick to make sure that articles are as neutral as they can be, since there are a lot articles on Misplaced Pages that don't get as much attention (film or otherwise) that are absolutely horrid when it comes to neutrality. I will have to watch myself in the future. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I read the discussion, but it certainly seems like a mess to me on first read, and maybe I need to re-read it, but I don't see that any particular consensus was reached, and even if it was, it's not like any points made there have been adopted as a Misplaced Pages guideline. I do try to stay away from summarizing reviews when they're mixed (I think "mixed reviews" is a statement fraught with WP:OR) but I also think that when it's clear that most critics have gone one way or another, it's reasonable to state a movie was received overwhelmingly negatively or positively. Cell is obviously a great example, given that 9 reviewers didn't just pan the movie, they absolutely pasted it, and if a movie has over 90% positive reviews and/or makes a bunch of critics' "Top 10" lists or something similar, it's safe to call the critical response "positive." I would only take that position in clear-cut cases, obviously, but I also don't think there's a need for anyone to run around removing review summary statements from every single film's page. I'd save that for when there's an obvious mistake - like a film getting 40% positive reviews being called "received negatively" - yeah, that kind of thing I'd remove myself. But mostly I just leave what's already there if it makes sense. It's a useful statement to have and it's been added to pages for far longer than I've been editing, which is like 7 years now or something. Rockypedia (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair points. It is certainty true that critical summaries are necessary for many film pages. Like you said, it is best to stay away from summarizing when critics are mixed, because then there is room for error. I think those cases were the ones that I was initially concerned about. Thanks for offering your thoughts on the matter.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Way to snitch

I've just seen your post on Anna's talk page. Whiny to moderators won't get you anywhere on Misplaced Pages. You could of just talked right to my face, instead of needing help to confront me. An immature move in my opinion. Hawkeye75 (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)