User talk:BattleshipMan/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Abby Lockhart

If you find a dead link, rather than put a note next to the link, as you did (I thought it was vandalism), just remove it and explain in the edit summary. Problem solved! Drmargi (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I will do that. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I was able to remove the broken link on Abby Lockhart's biography on ER Headquarters. I also have to remove links of some other ER characters' biographies on ER Headquarters since that site no longer exists, including Doug Ross and Elizabeth Corday. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Perfect, and a helpful contribution to each article. That link should never have been there, as it was a fan site, and they tend to disappear as shows go off the air. If you're not sure what to do, you're always welcome to drop a note on my talk page!

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Boulder, Colorado, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I know some things require realible sources. I was watching the filming of it in Boulder, which is why I made a change in that article. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Right, but we can't just accept your word for it. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Please see WP:V for more information. Doniago (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I know enough rules of verifiability on WP:V. Thank you for sending it though. I've been doing somewhat a decent of verifying references neverless. I also know that some pages have to be cleaned up from grammerical mistakes, vandelism and such. I also know that some pages have to be verified by the third party like, in my view, that ER couple Doug Ross and Carol Hathaway are considered to be supercouple, but can't list them on the List of fictional supercouples page because it requires a third party and I respect that. That the policy of WP:V I have to respect and that's the way it is. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In List of characters in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page C4 (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) 11:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add the C4 disambiguation page, some anonymous editor did, which made the page looked bad and I had to redo it, which is probably the reason why for the disambiguation page of C4. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of Rizzoli & Isles episodes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chris Vance
Live Free or Die Hard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Department of Defense

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard

I've redirected "A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)" to "A Good Day to Die Hard". As you said, the year in the title in unnecessary. --JJB (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew that the year in the title is unnecessary, which is why I let you guys know. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Ignore IMDb entirely, it is user edited and completely unreliable, I don't even know why they let you add "Rumored" people. Before Tower Heist came out, it had a bunch of weird names for characters, absolutely nothing like what they are in the film. I can't remember exactly what they were, I think they had Tea Leoni down as playing Fiona McClower or something when in the actual film she is Claire Denham. IMDb just is no use as a source, its OK if you want to have a chat about a film but that's about it until after the film is released. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I know IMDb isn't very reliable. I just thought you should know about what I saw. Alright, I'll talk about the movie when it's finished filming. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've re created "A Good Day to Die Hard" as filming is now confirmed. JJB (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard (Part 2)

I just made those changes based on what was already in the article, using the references already supplied. We did a lot of similar stuff over on the Skyfall page, but A Good Day to Die Hard is much more difficult because there is virtually no information available about the film right now. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I, at least, notice that. They are very much trying to keep things hush-hush at this time. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Mea culpa and how!

I'm so sorry! My comment regarding Unforgettable was directed at the IP, not you! I agree with you -- if you read back, you'll see I'm the one who keeps fighting to keep it in the article. That editor's rigid "it must not be here because it doesn't fit what we've done every year since God wore short pants" approach chaps my hide. I should have directed my comment to her more clearly. Sorry to have offended you!. --Drmargi (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I get it now. Well, just try to more careful who your commenting to next time. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A good day to die hard plot

Sorry, but it is not your say as to when the plot should be revealed. WP:SPOILER explains it all. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 06:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Catchphrase for AGDTDH

Leaving everything else in the article intact, why should the catchphrase "remain where it is at?" When you look at the other films' articles, it was never necessary to state that John utters the catchphrase. Does it serve some crucial part of the plot? And that's not even mentioning that not every theatrical release version of the film got to have that line, notably in the UK version, which was cut/censored to remove violence and language.

I will leave the Plot as it is for a week, unless there is some valid reason to keep it there. I mean, as a point of analogy, it's not as if "May the Force be with you" had to be specifically mentioned in the Plot section of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. - Enter Movie (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to those 2 films: I'm not really a DH fan, so I'm not too interested in them. Sorry. :\ - Enter Movie (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vyto Ruginis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Fast and The Furious (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) 19:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2010–11 NHL season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tim Thomas (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) 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Box office sites

I request you yo please read this message very carefully. I don't need any consensus or convince any admin to prove BOM is wrong. I wouldn't have cared at all whether Box Office Mojo or Boxoffice.com would have been used as a source if BOM would have been reliable for the worldwide box office gross of "The Incredible Burt Wonderstone". If you don't believe me look at this proof (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=reddawn10.htm). Please check all the information carefully. Under the Foreign section it is clearly visible that foreign box office gross is shown. But the total foreign box office gross is shown as "n/a". BOM is basically contradicting itself and thus under the basic definition of a reliable source it fails to qualify as a reliable source atleast for the box office gross of increadible burt wonderstone. That's why I instead used boxoffice.com as a source instead of Box office mojo. Now please I request you not to revert my edits because I've already proved that Box office mojo does not qualify as a reliable source. And since I already have I don't need to have a consensus or take this matter to a notoceboard or an admin. Trust me when I say this I'm literally sick and tired about explaining to people that Box office mojo does not update it's foreign box office grosss regularly for some movies especislly those which have not been noticeable. I can instead use the given link as a proof to request BOM be disqualified as a reliable source for Box Office gross. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Also you've reverted edits at the article of 2013 film The Call. Box office mojo does not qualify as a reliable source for this film too as the total foreign box office gross is given as "b/a" while it lists the foreign box office gross for many countries. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Did you even understand anything what i said earlier? The worldwide box office gross for Incredible burt wonderstone is incorrect. The foreign gross is given as "n/a" while under their foreign section they list the box office gross for many foreign countries. But since they list the foreign gross n/a they've listed the worldwide box office gross near about 21.8 million dollars which is also the domestic gross. But they have not added the foreign gross since it is n/a. But as I have already said they list box office gross for many foreign nations. The website is contradicting itself. So unless you wanna manually calculate the whole foreign box office gross along with domestic gross I instead used boxpffice.com as a source. Now if you understood it or not I don't give a damn. When DarkWarriorblake said some users just lazily copy from websites I thought he was just insulting them but he was actually right, you people are really lazy. Why don't you properly check the source you are using? KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
You earlier yourself is said that no site is completely accurate. And now you're saying we don't know which site is accurate. Looks like just like BOM you're contradicting yourself. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If you didn't then why did you say that we don't know which site is accurate. Don't back out from your own statement just because you think it's embarrising. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Or even, perhaps, embarrassing. KahnJohn27, your argumentative behavior is uncivil, your inability to recognize consensus is troublesome, and I think the fact you are a high-school student with a questionable command of grammar, punctuation and spelling isn't helping your case. Several editors at the WikiProject Film talk page have asked you to stop being disruptive and move on. Constructive editing is always welcome on Wikipedia. Beating a dead horse and being rude and argumentative with other editors is not constructive. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

MarnetteD

Also I request you again to ask MarnetteD to stop induldging in combative behavior with other users. This user has constantly accused multiple users of having combative and implosive behavior. Those complaining to me have said that whenever she opposed it personally upsets her. She starts calling their behavior as combative while it is the fault of her own behavior. Also they have said that she has no intrests in actually improving Wikipedia. As a fellow Wikipedian user I request you to please inform her about her irresponsible behavior. If my behavior looks combative then hers is more than just combative. Nobody can be allowed to enforce their views and ths I have turned to you for help. I hope you will help me. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Could you take a look at the FAC of Ra.One? Your input would be much appreciated. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not interested to look over that film for FAC. I don't even know that movie. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Hard to be sure of doing the right thing until somebody approves. I always liked pie instead of birthday cake, so here's one as thanks for your encouragement. (Reply on my Talk page.)

Cool list of Die Hard type movies you've collected. Looking forward to the latest. I can check out ones I've missed. I hope more keep coming, so "Last one" can be constantly updated. AnEyeSpy (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Mel Blue-Eyes in Lethal Weapon

Another individual-style action hero I liked from around the same time as Die Hard is Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon. AnEyeSpy (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I watched the Lethal Weapon series awhile back. They we're pretty cool movies. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed the gross of Incredible Burt Wonderstone

While still using BOM as a source to avoid edit warring I've changed the worldwide box office gross of the film by manually calculating the whole foreign box office gross and adding it the domestic gross have to obtain the true "worldwide gross". As you can see I have instead linked the box office gross to this section (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=burtwonderstone.htm) where the foreign gross of all territories is given. The difference comes out to be more than 5 million when the whole foreign gross is manually calculated and considering the small budget of the film it's a lot. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

Hello, can you comment at Talk:The Dark Knight (film)#How the cast should be ordered about the cast list? I hope we can all put aside the animosity and articulate our rationales for the kind of ordering the cast list should have. Per WP:FOC, we should strive to focus on content. If there is a repeat situation, I encourage you to notify WT:FILM so discussion can be facilitated. I've also asked Bluerules about starting a general discussion about such ordering so we can determine a wider understanding and consensus when going forward. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Olympus Has Fallen

Instead of manually calculating I think it will be much more convinient to use Boxoffice or The Numbers. You can start a discussion about it if you would like to.use them as sources. Also if you would still like calculating gross you can do.it yourself. I would like to give an advice here. Just write down the gross of all countries on piece of paper and calculate it with a calculator. That's how I calculated the gross of The Incredible Burt Wonder stone and The Calk. It only takes some 2 - 5 mins. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's right to say you are not going to use a source because you don't trust it. Especially those which have already been proved reliable. BOM does not have enough employees to keep grosses up to date always. On the other hand Boxoffice is the online presence of National Association of Theatre Owners. Naturally there's no chance of employee shortage. It can be easily seen that Box office will be more up to date since they are the official representation of the Theatre owners. Naturally they'll have much more access to financial records of the theatres and have more communication with them and that's why their grosses are more up to date. I highly doubt BOM should be used when there is a much more reliable source. I don't think BOM can be trusted for low grossing movies. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Also please don't mind. But you recently called me Khan while my surname is Kahn not Khan. Khan is a Muslim name and I am a Jew. Please don't mispronounce my name like that. I know it was a simple mistake on your part but it seems like an insult and embarrassment to call a Jew with a muslim's name. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
First of all there's no proof that Box office.com has incorrect budget. It might include the marketing budget or really might be incorrect. But since there is no proof we cannot say that it is incorrect. Not only that it is never used as a reliable source for budgets. It is only used as a reliable source for box office grosses. As it has already Bern proved reliable for box office grosses you cannot say that you will not use it because you don't trust it or that it has wrong budget. Apart from that why do you wanna calculate the gross when BOM is already displaying the foreign gross. I don't think there is any need of calculating the gross at BOM. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Olympus Has Fallen

So you're aware, you are the one who violated 3RR, as I only reverted you once. You reporting me is a bit bass-ackwards, since I didn't break policy. Technically, my edit should've stood and we called for outside assistance then. Despite that, I've responded to your request. I think the issue may be that you don't know what a billing block is (I promise I'm not being sarcastic, it isn't exactly common knowledge), and you just think I'm being blind. I assure you I'm not. Please read my response. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit of Die Hard with a Vengeance

Hi BattleshipMan,
Why did you find it necessary to remove my addition to the Die Hard with a Vengeance article? That the film is also known as Die Hard 3 is an indisputable fact. I did not imply that this is any official alternative title, but if you google "Die Hard 3", you get close to 11 million hits. In comparison, "Die Hard with a Vengeance" only gets 1 million hits. So "Die Hard 3" is undoubtedly a very common alternative title, however unofficial, and there are probably more people who think it's called "Die Hard 3" than there are those who associate it with its official title. Consequently, it makes sense that Wikipedia mentions that this alternative title exists. Wikipedia itself redirects Die Hard 3 to this article, thus recognising that many may not remember the long title, but think of it as "Die Hard 3".
You also state that IMDb shouldn't be used as link, because it is considered unreliable. Yes, I know that IMDb sometimes has errors, and I am myself involved in helping IMDb correcting those, but it's the most reliable central source for film facts in the world, and it's getting better all the time. But perhaps you regard the New York Times as more reliable? If so, please note that their article about this film, directly under the official title, states: "Alternate title: Die Hard With A Vengeance, Die Hard New York, Die Hard 3, Die Hard III, Die Hard III, Die Hard: With a Vengeance, Die Hard: With a Vengeance, Die Hard 3, Die Hard New York".
My main reason for adding the parenthesis "(also known as Die Hard 3)" is to help those users, who reach the article via the redirect, realise that they've found the article they're looking for. Anyone who doesn't already know that "Die Hard 3" actually is called "Die Hard with a Vengeance", would otherwise not understand why he/she has ended up with an article about a Die Hard film with another title. Best regards Thomas Blomberg (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

White House Down

"Joey King is not listed in the billing block, even the current poster doesn't show the billing block below it." - Then why the heck are we going by the billing block? The ordering I put together is a much closer approximation of who actually stars in this movie... Wikkitywack (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

VE

I agree that visual editor shall not continue. I seen that you not reply all messages. Jiawhein (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meet the Parents, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Thomas McCarthy and Peter Bartlett (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) 11:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Tell Ronhjones to block 82.35.218.9

Tell Ronhjones to block 82.35.218.9 with expiry set of indefinite, because 82.35.218.9 is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.171.178.58 (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Jingle All the Way

No I most certainly do get "it". Just because "most" film articles have something doesn't mean they all should. Most of them are not good articles. This is. As WP:FILMCAST clearly states: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so it is encouraged to name the most relevant actors and roles with the most appropriate rule of thumb for the given film". This is already perfectly conveyed by the plot section, as the policy recommends ("actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary"). A stand-alone list, in this case, is superfluous, trivial and adds nothing. This is not IMDb. Gran2 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't really see how that is a valid reason. 'Other articles have it' is, as I have said, not automatically a valid reason. There are plenty of articles which don't have one (like Sense and Sensibility (film)). I have also supplied clear support from the WP:FILM guideline stating it is not necessary. As is, it is frankly confusing, as well as totally pointless, as you've listed the characters which only appear in the opening show-within-a-show scene, with no explanation of this. Unless you can show me clear policy or consensus support for it, I'm going to remove it. Gran2 19:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, just because other articles have something doesn't mean they all should. I have supplied an example of another good article which doesn't. I have shown you, clearly, from the film guidelines, that it is not compulsory. When the article was passed as a good article, the cast list was not there. It was not there because it didn't need to be there. It still does not need to be there. It is not compulsory. Gran2 20:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
And again, I don't see what that has to do with this. I know. I know other articles have cast lists. That's fine. In a lot of articles, it works. They have nice cast lists with lots of real-world info. That's great. Other articles, like this one, don't do that, because they don't need to. As I have said, four times now, that other articles have something does not mean all articles must. For the fourth time, the policy says it is not compulsory. The policy says that including them in the plot is more than fine for cases like this and is much better than a simple, barren list. I'm sorry, but I'm really, really struggling to understand what you're point is, other than that you like them. As said, they can be helpful, but not in this case. In this case it is pointless. And, again, as it is not in any way compulsory, it should not be included if it is pointless. Gran2 20:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've copied this discussion here, for easy access. Gran2 22:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The WT:FILM thing didn't really yield anything concrete about this issue, but the sole opinion offered seemed to me to say that my interpretation of the policy was correct. Do you wish to seek more opinions on this, or can I remove the cast list? Gran2 17:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

What's your source for them?

Tell me! Imdb? Then you're committing WP:OR. Nothing says they are merenaries. Is IMDB a reliable source? According to them Giovanni Strassini played in 1976 Rose Bowl game. We all know how true that is[1].

That is not from IMDb, just so you know. There are so many film articles with actors and filmmakers who are without their Wikipedia pages as is, some which are notable. There are no necessary consensus to remove actors and filmmakers that are without their Wikipedia pages. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rex Linn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Always Been Cowboys'' (1991), ''Thunderheart'' (1992), ''Sniper'' (1993) and and ''Cliffhanger'' (1993, and guest shots on TV series including ''Northern Exposure'', ''Raven'', and ''The Adventures

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent ANI report on OldJ

Hi User:BattleshipMan; Your recent ANI on OldJ has some other pages where he is edit warring, and where he has exceeded 3RR. You may want to visit the Raging Bull page and The Departed page and see his Edit History for each of those pages. Also the Talk pages for each of them is currently active and you could look at them also. 67.250.71.150 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Stoney Jackson

"Expired PROD, concern was: not notable, only source is IMDb." GiantSnowman 08:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


Chicago PD

Hi. I see your point. I was mostly trying to address redundant POV text in recurring actors' descriptions (i.e. "one of Chicago Fire's main characters"). Yours, Quis separabit? 02:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what I did wrong; will rewrite. Rewritten. Should be OK now. Yours, Quis separabit? 02:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that will do. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
BattleshipMan (talk) Would you edit Chicago Fire's episodes summaries please. (talk)
When I can, but I got things to do. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Malaysian IP vandal

The recent vandalism you encountered on A Good Day to Die Hard is by a Malaysian IP hopper who has been vandalizing film articles since December. Please visit the Sockpuppet investigation and post your comments. - Areaseven (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Olympus Has Fallen

Did not mean to step on anyone's toes. Just enjoyed the movie for the first time, filled in some of the details and may have overdone it. None of it was valid? Is 'necessary' a Wiki term?--Bf2002 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Your suggestions are noted. I thought USSS was a common acronym for United States Secret Service. I agree regarding IMDb references. Thanks.

London Has Fallen

Hello. Thanks for the tip. I was just practicing in my sandbox. I was not planning to add anything until a release date is announced. If someone with more editing experience creates it ahead of me, c'est la vie. --Bf2002 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sabotage

OK, I'm not the type to edit-war, and I'm not touching your edit. I do have to respectfully suggest that redundancy is not, generally speaking, good writing or editing. Neither, additionally, is having a cluttered and hard-to-read paragraph. Please accept these suggestions as something to consider.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: 1.5 vs C

I took the figure from Rotten Tomatoes. Please correct anything wrong. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 02:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of The Fast and the Furious characters may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Aeternus. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Λeternus (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Aeternus: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is a policy essay you should be aware of. The reason why the web series was removed, was because there was no coverage in secondary sources. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@123chess456: WP:DTR is an essay, not a policy. --Λeternus (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Where to discuss

The specific article talk page is a good place for discussion. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television might be a place to look for wider input. The edit warring noticeboard isn't for continuing arguments. --Onorem (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)