Thank you so much for bringing Groundhog Day (film) to FA. This will probably seem so random, but this was the first movie I've watched in ages (did it for an English class), and afterward I had this philosophical and strangely euphoric experience. Then I went to Wikipedia to learn a bit more about the film and saw that it was an FA, which just made me so happy. Thanks again; it was a big part of a rare moment of joy in a rather bleak time. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ovinus, that makes it all worth it tbh. I was a fan of Groundhog Day beforehand but I didn't realize the scope of its development or later impact until I began working on it. It's always nice to work on articles that have lots of readers and that actually means something to people. Also, watch more movies! Have a great holiday season. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!08:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the thanks! I feel like our friend Kimand299 is being disruptive to make some sort of point (although what, I don't know), but I'm at my third revert so I'll need to hold off on repairing their damage for now. Any ideas on how we can get them to actually listen? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to report the user to the admins for edit warring, because they're way over their third edit despite being told to stop and discuss. Unfortunately not much more we can do for now as frustrating as it is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!23:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that - I really have no idea what their horse in this particular race is; you've been very clear about the BFI guidelines, and even their own AFI source clearly says "Made by Twentieth Century Fox Productions Ltd. at Pinewood Studios, London, England, with location sequences filmed at Acton Lane Power Station, London, England." I'm not sure how much more undisputed it could be! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and today for Raiders of the Lost Ark, "about the 1981 action-adventure film Raiders of the Lost Ark (a.k.a. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark). Though not my favourite film in the series it's the most important one, not just for the film series itself but for its influence on films that followed, it's massive success, and somehow George Lucas was making this and The Empire Strikes Back simultaneously. Questionable talent that he may have become, the man was a genius at his peak."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Gerda Arendt. Yes it's my 2nd favourite after Last Crusade, the other two I don't talk about. I'm slooooowly working on Empire Strikes Back, and it's all the more impressive because Empire was basically a trainwreck production wise and like 23 million over budget, and even so, he created both films that have a legacy 40 years later. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much GRuban, I really appreciate your words and it makes the time invested all the more worth it. For a romantic comedy it really has an interesting behind-the-scenes aspect and a lasting impact afterward that it's a shame its article spent so long in such a bare bones state beforehand. I can come back to read some parts every month just because it is interesting, and I'm a big fan of both Ramis and Murray. Have a great day! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!20:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked at the article for ages, but thought I'd pop along to it now to improve it .... then noticed it had just been on the main page. Superb effort, well written and thoroughly deserving of the FA star, although I will say the opening exchange at the FAC is why I don't bother with FAs. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it, I don't mind a Themes section where it is relevant, but it was pretty solid section as is without knowing how a university rando thinks. I'm getting a bit fed up with the FA process tbh, it's so arbitrary, but these good films deserve to be recognised more prominently. Glad you appreciate it, it was one of my biggest efforts. Pretty psyched to see it had 140,000(!!!) viewers on Feb 2nd.
Unlike almost every other film I can think of, Groundhog Day gets better and better every time I watch it. Do you ever log onto Wikipedia, have a look at your watchlist, and think "didn't I see this yesterday, or the day before .... in fact isn't WP doing the same thing every day, over and over again ...." :-/ Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RoboCop, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Japanese and Frank Miller.
I wanted to say I'm sorry for being a bit of a pain at the article for The Thing a few years back. I wasn't familiar with Wiki policies and didn't really know what I was doing. Since then I have read a lot of your work, and it's always exceptional. ~ HAL33322:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats dude! The article you were working on, RoboCop, has passed the GA-criteria, becoming a good article on February 15, 2021. Great job on the improvements! For you're hard work, I award you this interesting image of a dog staring straight at you (but in a cute way). Enjoy!
The article RoboCop you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:RoboCop for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some wings
Buffalo Wings
From a guy in a suburb in Buffalo, New York and a wing fanatic, here's some wings for ya for your plethora of film articles inspiring me to get my groove on with editing this online encyclopedia even more. Your efforts on RoboCop, Ghostbusters II and Groundhog Day influenced me so much to do the same for other film articles (such as on those terrible RoboCop sequels). Your work is phenomenal. Keep it up! HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe. Hey, someone's got do it, and I'll be the guy improving articles on less popular stuff. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of every notable topic (event terrible ones). I particularly took influence in your themes section, what sources you cited and how you represented them, plus those upright photo thumbnail formats I'll admit I just had to copy. HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are two templates that I left on the page, which need to be resolved. One (clarification needed) concerns submitting the initial script to "business associates" which seemed un-satisfyingly vague. The other (citation needed) concerns my naming Erica Phillips as the Saturn Awards–nominated costume designer who didn't win. She was the only nominee in that paragraph not named, but I couldn't find a reference naming her, just a mention on the relevant Saturn Awards page. Those issues could be resolved by leaving it vague and not naming Phillips, but I think the article would be weaker for that. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dhtwiki, the Saturn Award thing can't be resolved as far as I'm aware, that's why I left her out as much as I do not prefer to. The Saturn awards official site only lists winners, and the award show doesn't seem to be covered consistently and competently, especially from that time period. The former issue, I'm not sure I can make it clearer, I think the sources just say business associates or friends, but I'll have another read. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to start undoing my templates soon, especially the one involving Saturn Awards, unless you find some new sources or get to the undoing before me. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Darkwarriorblake. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Thank you. FINALLY!!!! It's dragged on like 5 months in total since late November/early December last year. I had to get SIX supports to get it promoted. It was getting super depressing, I'm just glad it's over. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!11:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, DarkWarriorBlake, and great work with the Die Hard FA. I notice your current project has one year in the 1990s not determined, 1996. I have a great idea for it, given that a remake of it is upcoming: Space Jam. Seriously, go for it! I'd be happy to help! 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Die Hard, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 13, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or for Featured Articles promoted recently from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're showing different things, so as long as the commentary supports them it's fine since I assume they're Non-Free. Anything is better than that terrible Ghostbusters 2016 image that was there before. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!22:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
well, my first was Johnson's initial concept before the costume stage. Plus, I really prefer things to be faithful to the first film, ans yes, avoiding the terrible 2016 screenshot.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Darkwarriorblake! I've sent you an email seeking clarification about the edit I had recently made that you reverted. :) Thanks!
Marvel Cinematic Universe Good Article Reassessment
Marvel Cinematic Universe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, I don't really follow the character lists, the only thing I'd change is the links to the main character articles from a bold link at the start of a paragraph to the "main article" template we use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!11:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Since you seem to have a good idea of how to craft movie articles, I thought you could provide some helpful insight for the aforementioned peer review whenever you get a chance. Perhaps it could be a good way to pass the time while waiting for HumanxAnthro to finish reviewing the Raiders of the Lost Ark FAC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Raiders of the Lost Ark, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 August, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page if one has been posted. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 6 August, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page if one has been posted. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghostbusters
Hey, do me a favour: if you're going to keep undoing my edits, at least explain why. I've given cogent reason for my changes. Do me the courtesy of the same. FishAndCrisps (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain. I disagreed with your edit. The content passed FA as it is and I believe the content is fair. You don't. That's not a reason. I invoked WP:BRD which means go talk on the talk page, where we can disagree to your heart's content without you fucking with the content of a Featured Article. EDIT: Especially on Ghostbusters II, the content you are removing is sourced in the article and the lead is a summary of the article, so you are removing sourced content because you disagree with it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!19:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Darkwarriorblake. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You have done remarkable work on the page Jonathan Schwartz (producer) and correlating topics - without seeking reward. You brought the topic of an amazing producer to an amazing state and I am forever grateful. For your efforts, I present you with this long-overdue barnstar. BOTTO (T•C)00:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine? I don't watch that article because the film is bad. I will say that "The story focuses on four eccentric, intelligent women (and their incompetent assistant) who fancy themselves as parapsychologists and start a ghost-catching business in New York City" is not written particularly well. Is the black woman intelligent? My understanding is she's a tram ticket lady. street smart maybe. And does the incompetent assistant fancy himself as a parapsychologist or start the ghost-catching business? I'd drop the intelligence assessments altogether and stick with eccentric women who found a ghost catching business. Also the plot is too long for something I believe is huge swathes of just riffing dialogue against each other.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ghostbusters 2 (music)
So I don't understand why you removed info I added regarding the Edelman score being recently released by Sony Classical. I also provided a link for reference. This seems odd you would remove this. Can you give a good explanation as to why you did? Also, shouldn't soundtrack info be in the music section, not "home media"??? That makes zero sense. So instead of removing what I added, shouldn't we remove the redundant and less detailed soundtrack info that's in the "home media" area and only have it in the "music" section? You know, where it actually belongs? And only crediting the song 'Flesh 'N Blood' to Elfman alone, when it is actually an Oingo Boingo song, is incorrect info.
I can provide reference links for the other songs that are still missing from being listed on this article. It seems odd to only have certain songs listed for the soundtrack.
Why would you talk about billboard listings and home media releases in a section talking about the production of music for the film? You wouldn't. You'd talk about it in the home media section that discusses separate releases for home consumption. I didn't notice the bit you added about the Edelman score because I was busy trying to pull apart the unsourced info you'd thrown in everywhere else, but just listing every song in the film isn't appropriate or necessary. You'd be better off creating Music of Ghostbusters II or something like Back to the Future soundtracks. I'll re-add the Edelman info. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!19:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To call your work on The Empire Strikes Back unbelievable is an understatement. Your rewrite is absolutely astonishing. Keep it up!! JOEBRO6416:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um you did not write the entirety of the Empire Strikes Back article, you’ve made edits to it yes, but for example the opening paragraph which has been copied verbatim to the special effects article is largely unchanged for a long time and you were not the sole contributor. All you need to do is log and acknowledge the paragraphs that have been copied in the history so it’s properly attributed. Ask it stands it implies you wrote that opening paragraph with no other input for example. You just need to put in a blank edit or such stating what was copied from where and the attribution will be handled. I’d recommend doing it before the article gets edited and altered more, as that opening paragraph mostly will be changed anyway as it’s not really relevant to the article you’re making.
Ah hundreds of editors have made edits to the ESB article after the plot in the last couple of years, so no every word cannot be yours, but that’s not the discussion here. The opening paragraph has been pretty stable for many many years, I’m even one of the editors on that, which is something that was copied wholesale from ESB to the special effects article and needs the attribution applied. All that is needed here is an attribution line in the history saying x paragraph was copied from Y article and see that pages history for attribution. Canterbury Tailtalk12:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on the article, if I'm not interested in the film it's really hard to be motivated. I can help source information and do some writing for you if you're willing to copy edit and write up the rest. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!09:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought anyone would be capable of doing this, I initially thought you would ignore the message, but unexpectedly you were working all this time. My biggest Thank You to you. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Empire Strikes Back 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You think I'm lashing out over the fucking Rolling Stones? I've explained it to you multiple times we're not citing magazines. It's affecting other sites like GameInformer and labeling news websites as NEWS when cite web does the exact same thing and news is specifically for when referencing pages and sections. I know this from 5 minutes reading in the last 40 minutes so why don't you? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!23:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised a bunch of articles to featured status, you don't do that unless you're willing to listen to all the critical views at review. I've presented you with evidence and reasoning and you've ignored it, which one of us isn't listening?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!23:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Greetings!
The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!
Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.
The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:
Overall winner
1st - $500
2nd - $200
3rd - $100
Diversity winner - $100
Gender-gap fillers - $100
Language Winners - up to $100*
Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
Unsolicited advice
With respect to the current ANI thread in which you are embroiled, and in particular your comment the situation was aggravated by the other editor not myself, I think the discussion will wrap up much more quickly if you were to acknowledge the (obvious and not particularly damning) fact that the situation was aggravated by both of you. You might even suggest that, in the future, you will try to find less combative ways to communicate. Given the obvious provocation to which you were subjected (and in particular given that you were substantively correct), it is unlikely that anyone will be interested in pursuing the matter of your behavior further if you can make a basic recognition that it was suboptimal. Just my two cents. --JBL (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article The Empire Strikes Back you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Empire Strikes Back for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Empire Strikes Back
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article The Empire Strikes Back has been completed.
There are several things I'll draw to your attention.
I found the punctuation to indicate possession was inconsistent. I standardized it as "s' " throughout the article.
I added a "clarification" tag after this sentence from the Casting section - Prowse hesitated to return as Darth Vader but was told that he should agree or he would be replaced. because it is unclear to me. It seems obvious Lucas would replace him if he didn't return and Prowse would know that. Was there a reason he was hesitant?
Most of the WP geographic links were removed. They are largely unnecessary.
This sentence from the Filming at Elstree section is unclear. Lucas worried he would have to sell Empire to Fox to sustain the project, and Fox was rumored to be planning a hostile takeover. There are two different subjects being discussed here. Lucas is worried about finances and Fox is launching a takeover. Is there a connection? What was Fox's target?
In the Other Media section this sentence was not clear to me A Star Wars comic book series launched in 1977 by Marvel Comics, adapting the original trilogy films beginning Empire's run in 1980, written by Archie Goodwin and Carmine Infantino.
In the Modern reception sections there are two "factoids" that I masked that have nothing to do with the subject.
I added text from the lede missing in the Cultural impact section. It needs to be cited. (Tag added.)
On my second pass I found this:
In the Development section this appears but also many people who wanted Lucas' financial backing or just to threaten him. I get the financial backing. What are the threats?
I think that's it. Please do let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Ghostbusters, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
Greetings,
It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.
Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.
We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
This is to let you know that the Ghostbusters article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 16, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 16, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
regarding the statement that the film had the second-highest gross amongst 1984 films, is the ranking based on gross in the u.s., in the u.s. and canada, worldwide, or some combination of the above? as the blurb and article lead both mention the worldwide gross immediately before the ranking, they both appear to suggest that the ranking is based on the worldwide gross. however, sources appear to state that it was second to beverly hills cop domestically, but ranked third worldwide, as indiana jones and the temple of doom outperformed them both internationally. if the ranking is not based on the worldwide gross, would it be more appropriate to replace that value with the one that the ranking is based on?
the worldwide gross seems to be partially based on an estimate of 53 million usd for the gross outside of the domestic market. however, the value of 282.2 million, obtained by adding the earlier inexact number to the more accurate domestic gross of 229.2 million, appears to misleadingly suggest an accuracy that was not present in its calculation, contrary to mos:uncertainty. would it be more appropriate to drop the ".2" to avoid implying this level of accuracy?
I don't see why the figure is inaccurate. The same site gives the two figures. I've added the Us and Canada qualifier to the ranking, the Temple of Doom article is too incomplete and poorly sourced for me to ascertain if it was actually the highest grossing film worldwide of that year.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!22:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
apologies if i am not being clear. i am not questioning the accuracy of either of the two values found in the cited source, but rather the accuracy implied by presenting a total that is simply the sum of the two values together.consider this extreme example: if the richest person in the world had a net worth of about 300billion usd, while i had a net worth of −31967.79 usd, it would be misleading to state that we had a combined net worth of 299999968032.21 usd. the first number suggests that the estimate should not be much more than 50billion usd away from the actual value, while the second suggests that it is accurate to the cent. as the third is simply the sum of these two values, it suggests that it is also accurate to the cent, even though only one of the source figures had that level of accuracy. instead of using so many significant figures, it would be more appropriate to state that our combined net worth was about 300billion usd.similarly, the value of 53million is an estimate likely only accurate to within 500thousand or so, while the value of 229.2million is likely accurate to within 50thousand. simply summing up these two numbers gives the value 282.2million, which, to a reader unfamiliar with how the number was calculated, appears to be accurate to within 50thousand, even though that may not be the case. to more clearly convey that the calculated total is likely only accurate to within about 500thousand, we can drop the last significant digit, so that the value of 282million does not imply any accuracy that we did not have when calculating it.this kind of mishandling of significant figures is not uncommon. a page i linked to above provides an instance where the bbc appears to have either summed the values 14.0 and 0.58 to obtain 14.58, or subtracted 14.0 from 14.58 to obtain 0.58.is there a reason why the ".2" should be kept? i had been wondering if the "$282.2million" value was actually taken directly from a cited source, but you appear to be confirming that the value was synthesized. dying (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get your point but I don't think it's particularly misleading. All these figures are rough estimates based on tickets sold. If it was combining $1.65 billion and $534.5 million into $1.7 billion I'd agree, but I think the figures here are fair enough. Plus if you remove the .2, you will have to repeatedly remove it in the future as editors re-add it over time DyingDarkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!22:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for the article, introduced: "This article is about Ghostbusters. It's a great film. Watch it. Wait. Not the 2016 film, also known as Ghostbusters. The good one. The 84 one. Watch that one." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this bot can sometimes make unwanted changes. You can prevent it from editing any article by copying and pasting {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} anywhere in the article. Hope this helps! (t · c) buidhe17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah SNUGGUMS it was an interesting experience, I grew up on Star Wars but was never a huge fan outside of like the first two films, even as a kid I knew those Ewoks were bullshit. I enjoy working on the films with a trouble production as they are significantly more interesting in how they came about. Ghostbusters II is more interesting than Ghostbusters I for instance which was pretty straightforward apart from the truncated production and the Slimer designer doing a bunch of cocaine. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!22:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, The Empire Strikes Back, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for The Empire Strikes Back, introduced: "This article is about The Empire Strikes Back, which modern critics argue is the best film in the Star Wars film series. A conflicting reception at first its legacy is now one of setting new standards in blockbuster trilogies and advancing an overarching narrative."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for The Thing (1982 film), introduced (in 2018): "To paraphrase: "I know I'd make this a Featured Article. And if you were all these things, then you'd just not make it a Featured Article, so some of you are still human. This thing doesn't want to promote Featured Articles, it wants to hide inside an imitation. It'll fight if it has to, but it's vulnerable out in the open. If it takes us over, then it has no more enemies, nobody left to prevent this becoming a Featured Article. And then it's won.""! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Darkwarriorblake, Pamzeis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Pamzeis (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
You're absolutely correct. I clicked on the wrong source, so I didn't see it. However, your approach to all of this wasn't the best. No initial edit summary on why you undid my edit. No talk page message. Just an undo. Your follow up edit summary was just a tad bite-y. I was wrong. I admit that, but you could have showed me that a bit better, IMO. Have a good one. Jauerbackdude?/dude.18:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? You're right, I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a long term user, when someone removes sourced content from an article I worked hard on it irks me and when they revert the revert I lost my patience. My bad. Carry on. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!20:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. I'm currently in the process of writing a Signpost article on the artistry of Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia editing, and at one point I discuss prose and the diversity of prose styles. One of the articles I cited is The Empire Strikes Back which you expanded. I observe that in that article-- as well as several of your film articles-- you have a specific preference of separating filming and SFX/design, as well as putting "Thematic analysis" between "Post-release" and "Legacy"; in contrast most articles put that section after "Plot", "Production", or "Critical response".
I wrote my own analysis into this ordering, but I thought it'd be interesting to hear from you. Why should it be a whole new section-- what about the different levels of subsection, isn't SFX/design a part of production too? Why is the post-release separated from release-- isn't home media part of the film's release too? And why isn't "Thematic analysis" after "Plot" or "Production"? [dont take this as a comment btw, just a question and i have no problem of those stuff myself]
I treat the articles chronologically, and I don't like to include things that happened post-release alongside things that happened at the time, especially with older films where a lot will have changed since, such as The Empire Strikes Back and the substantial changes made to the original Star Wars films. So regarding things like Home Media, I don't want it to go before Critical Reception because that section is related to the original film only, normally a theatrical release for those older films and it feels weird to talk about it there, especially because you will be discussing home media and potential changes that occurred up to 40 years after the reception we are referring to. Similarly, when people put Merchandise or Other media sections in the Release section it accomplishes the same thing, talking about modern things before the reception/accolades/initial responses to the film nearly 40 years ago.
So I like to put these things in Post release because I treat it like a Post theatrical release section and believe it's a perfect place to talk about these supplemental materials. Essentially for me the theatrical release is my bible and everything else is secondary to that.
As for special effects, as you'll see on most articles I work on the special effects section is not small. You will get small sections but not generally if they're done well on older films. Modern films might be different because the answer is "and then we used CGI", seriously watch a behind the scenes on Terminator Dark Fate, it's all CGI, even pointless stuff you wouldn't expect, which is a far cry from something like Terminator 2 which does employ CGI but overall only for 3 minutes, the rest are these ridiculous, huge stunts. Anyway, so a huge SFX section would have subheadings of it's own as well and so I separate it out for two reasons: Because having a big section in the middle of Production will kill the flow and make that section huge, and I don't like using headers below tier 3 because it doesn't look nice aesthetically. It also ultimately works because for films like Total Recall (1990 film) and The Empire Strikes Back, the section is so huge that it needs splitting out to another article. If the content IS split to another article, I guess technically you could add Special Effects as a small subsection within Production/Development, but I like to remain consistent in my layouts. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!12:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thematic analysis can change. If you check out The Shawshank Redemption, the analysis section is earlier because at the time I did it, that's how FA articles looked and it's a film that is so heavily interpreted that it seems to make sense for it to be there. As I've developed as an artice author and the demands at the FA level have changed, making those sections bigger, it feels awkward to put them immediately after the plot when I feel the Development/Production sections is both more important and relevant, and ultimately I don't feel the Themes/Analysis sections are particularly notable for every film. Total Recall for example lends it self to analysis more than Ghostbusters, IMO anyway. I put it nearer the end because much of that is also stuff that happened Post release and also i think by that point in the article you have a full context of anything I then refer to in the Themes section.
Oh wow, this does more than helping, thanks for the insight! I certainly won't be able to quote your whole response, but I have stated the cruxes and I'll be sure to cite this so that people can read this. GeraldWL14:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RoboCop
Just a note to say that I was impressed with the improvements you were able to make both to the critical reception section and to the paragraph I asked about in the full review. Those were dramatic improvements. I know I've commented about critical reception sections in your articles before, for Ghostbusters II and Die Hard, but I think the current text for RoboCop is absolutely fine. Thanks for putting up with my nitpicking, on all three FACs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I hate reception sections and always tend to leave them to last, the content is so subjective and the standards all over the place so it's always the most difficult to get right, just after Box Office sections for old films with no international figures. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!17:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fan editor research interview
Hi Darkwarriorblake! My (user)name is Gen. Quon and I'm an editor who works largely on articles about TV shows. I'm currently working on my PhD dissertation in library science about the information behaviors of fan editors (here's a more detailed overview of my project, if you'd like to read more about it), and I've been messaging Wikipedia editors to see if they might be willing to share their experiences with me. Given your interest in film and video games (among other things), I was wondering if you'd be interested in chatting with me about your information experiences here on Wikipedia? The questions I'm asking will be stuff like "where do you get your info", "how do you know if it's legit, so to speak", etc. I'm more than happy to send over additional details through Wikipedia's email tool, if you'd like. Thanks!--Gen. Quon[Talk](I'm studying Wikipedia!)16:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, man. So, a new film that is self-contained has been announced -- how would you suggest we organize the franchise page? At this point, I'm not necessarily opposed to including the AvP films, though I also believe that they should be separated out from the six (going on seven) exclusively Alien films. What would you say - perhaps we organize it as "Main Series" and "Crossover Series"? BOTTO (T•C)21:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think ultimately you need to be wary of whatever this new film will be because Scott kept saying Prometheus would be stand-alone too. You could look at Star Wars for an idea, it doesn't have individual sections for each film but groups them together. So Star Wars's "Original Trilogy" would be Alien's "Original series" for instance. Less focus on things that have their own articles to discuss them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!22:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're working on Terminator 2; I assume the goal is FA. Do let me know if you take it to FAC. I don’t see a lot of film-related articles at FAC so it is always nice to review the occasional nominations. FrB.TG (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Terminator 2: Judgment Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ron Young.
The user BattleshipGun is not me. It's someone else who closely resembles my user name. I just wanted you to know that. Off the record, I'm not thrilled that someone has the user name that closely resembles mine. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, RoboCop, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've recently written a biography of Tom Holland and nominated it for FAC here. Since you're also a film buff, I was wondering if you'd be interested in reviewing it. I would love to get the perspective of a film writer on Wikipedia. FrB.TG (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Total Recall (1990 film), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages.
Just dropping a note I finally circled back around to this article, and I appreciate all the work you've done in the past few months. That had to be time-consuming! While I haven't reviewed all the changes and enhancements, much of what I've read has been nothing short of amazing. It is well on its way to FA! Being one of my favorite films of all time, I truly appreciate it! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GoneIn60, I'm working on The Dark Knight right now and I realize it's really not as interesting as working on those 80s and early 90s films where the filmmaking process was a ridiculous challenge and things were done ad hoc. Projects were things are smooth sailing are much more boring. If T2 isn't picked up by the copy editors soon I'm gonna remove it and just do it myself as I think it's a good candidate for FA already. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!10:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)
Hi Darkwarriorblake,
I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.
Hi Darkwarriorblake. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed, Rosguilltalk17:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Darkwarriorblake, Hope you are enjoying reviewing new pages. If you recall you pinged me for using text from a 'non-free' source. The text I had quoted is out of copyright under Australian copyright law. However, the Trove site no longer includes the necessary information to allow me to document that properly. I have contacted Trove to try and resolve that issue, but it obviously won't happen immediately. So, I have rewritten the material in another form. Could you have another look at the articles and see if the tags can be removed? Thanks.TrimmerinWiki (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I just wanna say sorry that I did undo the revision of the article, I was just disappointed when other old statements are gone but now I changed my mind because I thought it was wrong but it is right and I like how you did improved and add more information for the article to expand but should I add and change other sentence to make it look more fine and appealing?. And to be honest The Dark Knight is one of my favorite films and I hope you learn more about the cultural significance of the film and add more information regarding the The Dark Knight (2008 film) article in the future. KMTRAGER (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some tickets were only delivered – none had been folded, spindled, or mutilated; and not one got lost, nor were any confiscated as evidence in the local scalping investigation...
When the word only immediately precedes a verb, it almost always strikes the reader as an adverb modifying that verb, e.g. my silliness above. In our case the correct modifier is "only the night before..." (a prepositional phrase used as an adverb). Remove the only (and the irrelevant date) and voila.
Problematic word‑wrapping only comes up comes up only on the right.
At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.
Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]
In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).
While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).
Backlog drive
A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
TIP – New school articles
Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
Misc
There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 12709 articles, as of 20:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC), according to DatBot
There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
