The Kid edit

Hello,

I noticed you remove Jake Schur from the wiki page The Kid. The wiki page has several sources claiming this actor is portraying a major character in the film. The citations provided prove that Jake Schur is portraying the title character. Please reply to this discussion before editing on The Kid again. Thank you.

Cardei012597 Cardei012597 (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:173.67.205.203, please respond. Cardei012597 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Read through this reference: Fleming Jr., Mike (September 20, 2017). "Vincent D'Onofrio Sets Jake Schur In Title Role Of 'The Kid'". Deadline. Retrieved January 4, 2019. He is the title character. Cardei012597 (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

February 2019 edit

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with Angel Has Fallen. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes (March 5) edit

 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

April 2019 edit

Please refrain from removing [citation needed] tags without adding the requested citations, attacking other editors in edit summaries, and repeatedly reinserting unsourced WP:BLP into articles after it has been challenged. This kind of behaviour frequently leads to editors being blocked from editing. You have been warned. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

STOP attacking other editors in edit summaries.[1] This is your last warning. If you are citing a different source from the one already linked inline, there are polite ways to say that. Implying that it should be a given to have seen your source and repeatedly questioning their intelligence for not having somehow figured out what you are talking about is not one of them. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

June 2019 edit

  Hello, I'm TheDoDahMan. Your recent edit(s) to the page Bumblebee (film) appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TheDoDahMan (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

  Hello, I'm Aranya. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Doctor Sleep (2019 film). Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! Aranya (talk | contribs) 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2019 edit

  Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Mulan (2020 film). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

August 2019 edit

  Please stop adding unsourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The Fountain edit

Some editors have ideas that cast sections are unnecessary, and when they have an excuse they will remove the section. They will usually say the "Casting" section (or sometimes the Infobox) already contains that information. There are other editors who don't like having the actors names included directly in the Plot section either.

Between those two groups you end up with articles that can be slightly more difficult to quickly skim read but ultimately the information is all there somewhere. See WP:MOSFILM#Cast point 3, which doesn't quite summarize all the arguments and discussion behind cast sections. I'm not going to revert your changes but someone else probably will, and they probably wont even bother to explain either. -- 109.76.221.165 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Doctor Sleep edit

Hello, here are the actor details we have:

  • Trailer shows "Ewan McGregor / Rebecca Ferguson / Doctor Sleep / and Cliff Curtis"
  • YouTube page says, "'Doctor Sleep' stars Ewan McGregor ('Star Wars: Episodes I, II & III,' 'T2 Trainspotting') as Dan Torrance, Rebecca Ferguson (the 'Mission: Impossible' films, 'The Greatest Showman') as Rose the Hat, and Kyliegh Curran, in her major feature film debut, as Abra. The main ensemble cast also includes Carl Lumbly, Zahn McClarnon, Emily Alyn Lind, Bruce Greenwood, Jocelin Donahue, Alex Essoe and Cliff Curtis."

The "and Cliff Curtis" bit seen in the trailer, in billing-block terminology, means "such words tend to be used when a major star has a small but significant role". See breakdown. This is further confirmed by Cliff Curtis being at the end of the sentence in the YouTube page's description.

Further, the official site repeats McGregor, Ferguson, and Curran together twice here:

  • "Ewan McGregor, Rebecca Ferguson and newcomer Kyliegh Curran star in the supernatural thriller, directed by Mike Flanagan, from his own screenplay based upon the novel by Stephen King."
  • "'Doctor Sleep' stars Ewan McGregor ('Star Wars: Episodes I, II & III,' 'T2 Trainspotting') as Dan Torrance, Rebecca Ferguson (the 'Mission: Impossible' films, 'The Greatest Showman') as Rose the Hat, and Kyliegh Curran, in her major feature film debut, as Abra. The main ensemble cast also includes Carl Lumbly, Zahn McClarnon, Emily Alyn Lind, Bruce Greenwood, Jocelin Donahue, Alex Essoe and Cliff Curtis."

Cliff Curtis is not mentioned as starring and is instead mentioned at the very end, which fits the billing-block terminology. So the trio of McGregor, Ferguson, and Curran is the appropriate rule of thumb to have when writing about who is starring. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but when you look at the billing block on the website under the legal tab, it says both Kyliegh Curran and Cliff Curtis in the official billing block.

September 2019 edit

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at It Chapter Two, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 01:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2019 edit

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Grudge (2020 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for block evasion.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

November 2019 edit

  Hello, I'm Magitroopa. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tekken (2009 film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 21:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2019 edit

 
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for block evasion.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

173.67.205.203 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

NinjaRobotPirate is harassing this address in every way possible. People who have used Wikipedia on this address have not done anything wrong in the time this address was unblocked from November 20 to just now. This Household feels like NinjaRobotPirate is just attacking me because they think it’s fun. Not because the address did anything wrong. How is it block evasion when this address doesn’t even have an account? How do you even know that the same person is doing all of this stuff? It could be loads of people. And attacking someone for block evasion, when yo7 don’t even know who’s controlling the account is just wrong. 173.67.205.203 (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

It's block evasion if you, or anyone else at this IP address, has an active block on another IP address. Blocks apply to people. It doesn't require an account. And yes, we have ways of telling it's the same person. I see nothing wrong with this block. Yamla (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

March 2020 edit

 
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months to prevent you from evading blocks.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

173.67.205.203 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I've waited until I was unblocked to start editing stuff again, and as far as I've seen, I've never done anything wrong. I was just adding stuff that was true. I looked at sources, and added sources as well. I also stopped people from adding false claims like that one editor who was adding names to the cast of Soul, when the sources claim otherwise. Why are you blocking me? Is it because I did something wrong? Or is it just cause you want to harass me? Because this isn't funny if the latter is the case. All I want is to edit freely, while also following the guidelines. If I can't get to do that, then I guess you're just another fake news source.173.67.205.203 (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

This doesn't address the claim of block evasion at all, so there are no grounds to consider unblocking. Yamla (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.