User talk:Andrzejbanas

Archives

User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 1 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 2 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 3 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 4 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 5 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 6 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 7 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 8 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 9

Thanks for uploading File:Theholymountain1926.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Basic-math-screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi​. Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. However there's two other users opposed over updated table, so I suggested that change "Label" to "Distributor" column via original table. Regards. 2001:D08:2901:3A65:17DE:BAF3:6F67:5D7F (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Surround (video game) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of KwanFlakes -- KwanFlakes (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Surround (video game) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Surround (video game) and Talk:Surround (video game)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of KwanFlakes -- KwanFlakes (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Surround (video game) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Surround (video game) for comments about the article, and Talk:Surround (video game)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of KwanFlakes -- KwanFlakes (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adventure film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travelogue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Faustusmansterposter.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Mayimbú (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since I kinda noticed you being active at WikiProject's Horror. Would you mind if you can review my FAC if you're able to? Many thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hey. I have a few things on the go, but I'll try to find some time to check it out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Universal Classic Monsters) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this editor has been problematic at this article for years. I feel the other editors at this article may need time to come up with a stable version. Valereee (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Andrzejbanas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked form editing the Universal Classic Monsters article. I'm not sure what "stable" form of the article is in question as there hasn't been edit warring or anything in years. In fact, if anything recent changes I've tried to discuss on the talk page first here. and here. If you could give more specifics as reading about sealioning, I haven't been edit warring and while I suppose conversations have gone on long, I really felt that was par for the course on wikipedia. As most of the current content to the article has been my own, I feel like I should able to edit the article or address editors or confirm edits to material which are stated by the source. I'd be happy to hold back and let other users speak and be more open to ideas, but I feel like a straight up indefinite ban will not be productive for any party.

For the record, when I responded to user who banned me on the talk page , I received a short quippy ":Thanks for understanding." response. I feel like right after being banned from editing the article and trying to be civil, this quick response falls under WP:ESDONTS of making snide comments. I want to trust Valereee, but an indefinite ban over this with little hedway on what I should or should not be doing (as stated above, I've tried to make discussions before editing further), I am struggling to see how Valereee did not just drop a ban a sliver presumptuously. I know I have been banned or asked to not edit articles for a few days, weeks etc, and I've respected that in the past, I feel something like that might be more valid now than a flat out ban.

The active block also prevents me access to the Wikipedia Library, which I have been using actively to research articles as recently as today for various articles.

With the above. I feel like the ban should be either revoked or shortened. I will happily admit to be strong headed and the whole sealioning is something I have not heard on wikipedia until the past few months. I'd rather get more strict instructions on what to do or not to do to contribute to an article on a topic I've improved several related articles in. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am not persuaded to lift the partial blocks. If you had built up a track record of developing consensus and getting content changes implemented it would be different. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2024 (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.

• It seems you are struggling to understand the feedback from editors across Wikipedia, not just at Talk:Universal Classic Monsters, but also recently at Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road#A closer look at the sources and Talk:Horror film#Christmas Horror. The discussions tend to deteriorate when you begin repeating your position, motion to replace legitimate sources, and/or move the goal post when a line of reasoning runs out of steam. When confronted about behavior, it seems you spend a great deal of time (and a lot of prose) explaining how confused you are by your actions, but you don't hesitate to correct or reprimand others for theirs. When one discussion boils over, you handle it in isolation, in what appears to be an effort to contain the situation before another one unravels. At some point, the struggle and confusion should naturally end.
  Either you are able to see that others are not the issue here, that it is time to genuinely self-reflect and consider that your approach is sometimes disruptive to the collaborative process needed to build an encyclopedia, or the community will eventually conclude that you are incapable or unwilling to do so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoneIn60, those are me at my worst. We've addressed that in the horror sub genre, and that was settled. The Mad Max one you could talk to me directly, but you stopped responding. So yes, I don't know what you want. I'm trying to ask, and I apologized when I know I've touched a nerve and get no response. As of now, I also am reviewing two good articles, one featured, and have two good articles submitted. I'm upset you only approached me after I apologized you to suggest I'm not building an encyclopedia. I can reflect and respect moderators, and other Wikipedians, but limiting my access to materials and an instant ban on an article without any warning does not make me change my ways when I do not know what others want me to do other then wish me out of a site I've worked towards building for 20 years. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrzejbanas as stated in other talk-pages you continually have similar edit warring for articles of a similar genre/topic. As discussed ad nauseum on the Talk:Universal Classic Monsters page (and others), you are now conducting yourself in a manner that is within pattern on The Inner Sanctum Mysteries (film series) article. While attempting to maintain the page's status I have responded to you in edit summaries and now very directly on the associated talk page. Please be collaborative on this page, and many others. I am at this point assuming WP:GOODFAITH, but when there are patterns -- it is concerning. Before you delete sections of an article again, please discuss your viewpoints at the talk page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your asking about a series of edits and there were various reasons. For yours, they were unsourced additions or content predominantly as I recall. And you went back and re-added them for Inner Sanctum, this goes for the lead which now has unsourced genres, cast and crew. Not to mention the sourced material you replaced now (release dates, etc.) are I correct. This is probably considered edit warring, but who knows. I don't want to play victim here, my knowledge was when things are unsourced, they should be replaced with sources content. Unless WP:RS and wp:or are suggestions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the talk page. As per your request, I've been told to collaborate on a talk page. In fact, when I first edited the article and added sources (i.e: being WP:BOLD here, the first thing I did after was make a message about it on the talk page here. I feel as if I'm getting mixed messages. @Gonein60: says I took to talk pages ad nauseum (which, for me, I assumed things went this way until they reached a point of arbitration, not that I just let them be). In DisneyMetalHeads, the first thing I've done, and I've been doing this on various articles that I've re-vamped here, here, here, and here just to name a few. I'm not trying to disguise the fact I changed a lot of information. So what is the issue? Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit upset of my fellow editors to come out the wood work after not responding to me on talk page articles. I'm not sure what I want to say but when editors avoid discussion, fo not point out rules I'm apparently not following, I have to say it's probably the worst time I've had on Wikipedia. If everyone is upset, I apologize, but I get a lot more attached to showing of rules I'm breaking on wiki pages whether it's the talk page or the article page at a relevant time to editing and not deciding to jump me now when I'm trying to find solutions. I don't want to try and push an admin istrator one way or another ,but all previous blocks for me were reverted when I was suggested to leave a page alone for a set period, that's what I've done in the past, that's what I'd gladly do now. I'm mostly wanting the block removed to have access to the Wikipedia Library and feel other editors came edit in peace without I tervention. I wish we could have talked this out earlier and assumed good faith. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are complaining here that you stopped responding and after not responding to me on talk page articles, Andrzejbanas, and that is the heart of the problem. The problem other editors are describing at multiple article talks is WP:SEALIONING, which is when an editor just keeps asking more and more questions until the people responding throw up their hands in frustration and walk away. It's an extremely frustrating problem, which is why editors are coming out of the woodwork, and it's also a problem that is extremely tedious to prove and also extremely tedious for admins to assess even after it's been proved. Which makes it even more frustrating.

This is a p-block from a single article, and not even its talk, to try to get you to understand this pattern of behavior is disruptive. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee:, I agree that is the case in that article. In other articles, that was not. I'm happy to step away from the article for a set period, but this ban prevents me from contributing to wikipedia in other ways such as the Wikipedia Library, which I have been using since in Good Article reviews. As Gonein60 has pointed out rules i'm breaking, I've been trying hard to reach a happy mediums, but i'm struggling with differences between being WP:BOLD and trying to use the talk page to talk. Please have patience with me and assume good faith beyond three isolated incidents versus nearly two decades of contributions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to have patience, but this is, as I said, a problem that is tedious (and time-consuming) to prove and assess. I'd like to allow you to continue to do productive editing, including using the library, but I am really searching for a condition under which you could be unblocked. "Agree to a topic ban from any article/talk where two other editors are objecting to your edits"? Other admins tend to dislike such special-case conditions, and prefer conditions like "agree to a topic ban from film." Valereee (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I want to reply to your edits you've made to your own post instead of replying to me, but I feel like responses here just going to be lumped into sealioning. I have no clue what is expected. Can I reply? Should I reply? I'm deeply troubled by the circumstance @Valereee: and don't know if the ban on the article over the talk page is meant for me to contribute or see if I do, or anything. If I ask "too many questions", but wikpedia discussions arent' supposed to be votes either, I really am unsure what to do with contribution on a talk page at this point. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what edits I've made that you want to reply to, but frankly instead of replying to me sounds like we're getting right back to the same problem. I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt if you have something meaningful to discuss about some edit I made to one of my own posts here, like if there was an edit conflict I didn't see that changed something significant. Valereee (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Previously in the past (and we're digging into decades ago and maybe standards have changed since then), but editors have asked me to perhaps avoid the topic for a set period (i.e: leave the article alone for a month, week, year, etc.). As for that article, I'd be happy to walk away at this point and focus on other tasks. I know I have just edited it, but I figured I'd try to showcase, I can try to work with others and communicate. I'm open to other options, but as I have several film articles in the works, here, here, as well as recent work on just revamping genre film articles Action film, Horror film, Mystery film, and User:Andrzejbanas/Crime film. The Adventure film article was recently tagged as needing an update since 2007 (!) and I've recently re-vamped it. I'd really like some mentor on what I can or can't do. Per the "instead of replying to me", is more about when I ask for help and don't get response, I'm not sure if I'm digging my own hole by replying to a long discussion or not, so I know everyone's patience is running thing, but I'd love some guidance to not have this happen any other editors as I feel the current responses are not constructive on what I should be doing next other than leaving. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: it is unfortunate to see that you still have not learned from these ongoing issues. You willingly neglect facts in favor of your personal opinions and move to delete various articles and/or details. Examples include measures you took here, here, and here. I have assummed WP:GOODFAITH various times, but this is definitely a pattern with your edits across various articles as discussed at length through various examples here. Instead of posting the hatnote tag requests for additional references, you take it upon yourself to delete data and notable (yes notable) information. Why?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore and stranger still, you reference your own work at Dracula (Universal film series) in your arguments here as a defining definition of film vs franchise; meanwhile there are other editors who would point out that these articles... aren't in the best form. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to stick to the here and now of conversations and the points currently brought up. Which you seem to have either ignored or missed @DisneyMetalhead. I don't bother tagging because I search out the information myself to try and solve the issue, find nothing, and post my results. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: your desire to "stick to the here and now" is exactly what I'm talking about. You are caught in this cycle, and haven't learned from any of the error-filled actions that have previously been brought to your attention in your various patterns across many articles. You need to tag the pages, not move to delete them automatically. This should be something you understand at this point, as you indicated as much to User:Valereee here. I found a number of sources for Rosemary's Baby franchise, and will be taking them to the talkpage.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is misunderstanding. I search out sources, for example, I did find those three sources you found for the Rosemary's Baby. But these are three trivial me tions of a franchise (or two, the latter site Vulture doesn't actually even mention this) and the others are brief single sentences in articles about new films or a poster reveal. From this, the rules I've listed are not being satisfied. Please note, these aren't my rules, these are wikipedias. As for asking for third party sources or tagging them, I don't see a point when we both google and find the same results. The only difference is there's a disagreement on if they follow the rules I stated WP:SIGCOV as of the three sources you list, they have one or two brief mentions, maybe a single sentence, while thied one does not describe it as a franchise. This fails WP:STICKTOSOURCE, the above rules, and WP:WEIGHT.

I think franchise and series articles have their place, but we need standardization and I think you'd agree. That way, we can avoid disagreements.Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: if you are trying to get a more definitive "requirement" list of what makes a franchise/film series, this goes against the very guidelines you listed there. WP:STICKTOSOURCE is literally what I did by putting the sources that I attached (see that talk page). The franchise exists, while you're getting hung up on titles of a page (similar to what occurred at Talk: Universal Monsters, and you continued to disregard the fact that it has existed for decades. While Rosemary's Baby wasn't a franchise when it was first released, it became one over the subsequent decades and release of each installment.

Assuming WP:GOODFAITH, I am trying to make you aware of where you are erring. My question to you is what makes a source better than another for you? Is it purely that you're wanting "academic journalism" entries? Not every page is going to endless sources of academic caliber.

DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @DisneyMetalhead, I appreciate the good faith. :) I do not believe it has to be academic, but we do have WP:SOURCETYPES which says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." so unless I am reading this wrong (and anyone please tell me what it is meant to say), we prioritize these above other sources if we have them available. Obviously, this isn't always available, but if its there, I believe we are supposed to lean into them more.

So you've asked a few questions and I want to try and address them:

• Please correct me if I'm wrong, but obviously most films weren't made with a franchise in mind in the past, Dracula only had sequels optioned after its success in the box office for example.
• I don't think we need a "requirement" of what makes a franchise or film, I think we need "coverage" of a series of works (franchises, films etc.) as a whole. What is, or what isn't is going to likely vary, and I've now sort of understood and accepted this. Rhodes says this on studying the Dracula films as a series is "fascinating as it is infuriating, as important as it is potentially unrewarding." That's a good summary. Anyways! For example, when I tried to write a reception about Sartana, I believe we require discussion about it as a "series" opposed to individual rankings of films. Similar to Dracula, I believe we require commentary as a series as whole, less about individual rankings. This follows WP:SIGCOV, which states that our sources "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I think this is why the sources you and I had both found for Rosemary's Baby are not applicable. They are extremely brief one sentence lines about a franchise. There is no context or depth, or even an opinion.
• Third point is, if we write about a series, what context do we focus on? I know we've applied cast/crew, etc, but for example, listing characters that show up in the films, and applying the film itself as a source is not really untrue, but MOS:REALWORLD, with this "the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction (work for short) and its publication are embedded. To achieve this, editors must use both primary and secondary information." The focus is on the latter, so yes, the films themselves can be "the source for this characters shows in this media", but we are applying undue weight on the importance of this as there is no secondary-source discussing why its important to know the cast among the films, or how important that is to the series. This is why for example in the Dracula article, I tried to only apply information about the cast or characters reoccurring, when someone else has discussed this topic.

I hope this has been clear. I'm thankfully writing from my keyboard instead of my phone so it should be more easy to read. :D Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas has agreed at my talk that a good idea for them going forward is making a rule for yourself that you will limit yourself to one argument per section on a talk page (and this doesn't mean open a new section every time you have a followup question; one and done, that's it), and never reverting any nonvandalistic edit within any article more than once. I have no objection to any other admin deciding they can work with that in order to conditionally unblock. Valereee (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on working this one up to GA status! I wanted to let you know that I found and added a ton of additional reviews and other sources as refideas on the talk page. Feel free to use as many of those as you like to help build it up any further. :) BOZ (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! I'll take a look! Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say that if you were ever looking to start up new articles on old computer games, a lot of potential articles were added (with sources) to the request page, and while some are still there the majority were moved to the request archive page. :) BOZ (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof! That's a lot innit? Early PC computer games I feel are so lost to history, I barely know about them as I wasn't even born! I'll definitely peruse the list and see if anything sparks my fancy. I know I did managed to get Thunder Castle up and running earlier, so I'll see what else I could enthusiastically contribute to. Thanks again for the Miner 2049er reviews btw! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Universal Classic Monsters and Talk:Universal Classic Monsters) for [[1]] was the last straw for me..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Andrzejbanas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I responded that a user was "fair" and believe I said that I don't know where consensus lies with an editor. The latter part was rude and does not live up to the standards of a Wikipedian. I believe I said this in frustration with the editor as they have continuously suggested adding unsourced content to articles, been referred to as a WP:SEALION here, and reasoning which contradicts each other (i.e: being against the use of home video label as a source here but then within the same day suggesting we should use it here, reverting deletions and not notifying me, the nominator, and restoring unsourced and material that is falsely attributed to a source to an article.) This does not excuse my behaviour, but as this user said they also can't find good faith in me, I'll admit to that my response to their actions was inappropriate for anyone.

Much of the accusation of both blocks currently on the article involve WP:SEALION, an essay involving users that they force policy around articles. As I've re-written this three times and feel like I'm being watched like a hawk on these film articles. I'd like to opportunity to be unbanned to try and redeem myself in these editors eyes. With a block on several on going topics, I'm unable to pursue this.

Decline reason:

You need to address the accusation that you are civil POV pusher directly, rather than talking around it. Also you admit your problem conduct, but don't provide evidence that you have changed. I suggest editing other articles collaboratively to show that you are not a problem user. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2024 (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.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Andrzejbanas. I would like to invite you to join the discussion about "Label" or "distributor" at the album release history table. Leave your comment if you like. 183.171.120.3 (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrzejbanas, Just thought I would give you a heads up and let you know that I am considering reviewing your nomination for the Dracula Universal film series. I am still waiting for a final support for my Fearured Article review on Troika so I will try and review your article in the meantime until that (hopefully) happens. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dracula (Universal film series) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Paleface Jack -- Paleface Jack (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to reply to my comments on the GA review so I can move on to the other portions.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dracula (Universal film series) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dracula (Universal film series) for comments about the article, and Talk:Dracula (Universal film series)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Paleface Jack -- Paleface Jack (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the ongoing creation of many low quality film series articles. This has been happening for years now.

I also noticed the discussion you started about one particular example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Franchises_and_film_series

One user in particular seems to have created most/many of these articles. This keeps happening despite the lack of quality sources available. In the case you mention there is barely any "franchise" per se, just multiple adaptations of the same source. As you have pointed out, although the individual films are notable, they are not particularly noteworthy collectively. There is little chance of anyone ever bringing these articles to the highest standard in the long run. They are frequently little better than list articles repeating information already elsewhere, and they are often full of holes. Very basic citation needed requests that should have been filled before leaving draftspace never get filled (e.g. The_Nutty_Professor_(franchise)#Critical_and_public_response). These articles are started but very little progress is made. Persistent people keep on repetitively starting even more new draft articles and worse they keep getting approved by people who are either unaware of or unwilling to apply the WP:FILMSERIES guidelines.

The guidelines WP:FILMSERIES are frequently ignored. "should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films" two recent cases of this were Smile (franchise) and Horizon: An American Saga where a franchise article was let out of draft space before a second film has even been released, but this has been happening for years and years. The standard of WP:NFP is being ignored for franchise articles simply because the individual films are notable.
I pointed this out Talk:Horizon:_An_American_Saga#Draftify but Erik (one of the most active long term WP:FILM editors) doesn't seem to be bothered by the guidelines being flagrantly ignored, and seems to think these low quality film series articles are worthwhile.

I think the WP:FILMSERIES guideline was written to discourage this kind proliferation of low quality articles but it has largely been ignored and rarely enforced.

I'm often annoyed by this state of affairs but I'm not angry enough to bring this seemingly obvious problem to WP:FILM and push for action.

It gives me some solace to know that someone else has at least noticed part of the same problem, but I don't think editors are ready to grasp this nettle and either stop the proliferation of low potential film series and franchise articles or remove WP:FILMSERIES guideline that is almost never enforced.

I do hope you will persist and make sure your point is seen and understood by the other editors at least in this one instance. Even if there was a clear consensus telling him to stop doing something[2] the best you can hope for is a small change. He's been at it for years and he is just going to keep on creating more low potential film series and franchise articles but maybe you can get editors to notice, form a consensus, and push him to adjust his behavior (or abandon the WP:FILMSERIES guideline if there's no real consensus for it anymore). -- 109.79.162.114 (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind support. While I appreciate your comments and consideration for this, and I do somewhat notice that WP:FILM seems a bit wary on updating or changing guidelines, I would suggest commenting it on the talk page there as whenever I try to update or edit things, if there is little to no response, its like talking to a wall. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies (for rambling excessively above and also because) I don't have the strength to bang my head against that wall too. Too many rules and the tyranny of selective enforcement. One of several reasons I only edit sporadically anymore, but thank you for your efforts. -- 109.77.197.194 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Virgin Among the Living Dead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lichtenstein.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andrzejbanas: You deleted more than 80% of the Jesus Franco article with the click of a button, without any discussion on the talk page whatsoever. The section you deleted was meticulously designed so that a wiki-reader could quickly search the "NOTES" column and see the entire history of the collaborations (in date order) between Franco and the various actors and crew members he worked with. That column contains an ENORMOUS amount of researched data that took years to amass and verify. You replaced it with a bunch of near-empty columns that do not contain any of that information which you so casually deleted!

Also, almost every Franco film has so many alternate titles. The filmography you created only shows one title for each film (apparently chosen randomly by you) which means if someone is trying to look up a specific title on your filmography page, they have to be able to guess which title you chose for each film. If they know the film by an alternate title, they cannot possibly find it on your filmography page. I have no objection to your creating that separate filmography page (although it was unnecessary in my opinion), but I don't understand why you so cavalierly decided to erase almost EVERYTHING on the main article page without even consulting anyone. A lot of people worked for YEARS to create that page, and you just delete the whole thing without asking?? This is outrageous behavior. Every scrap of data on that list was backed up using the same two Stephen Thrower books you used yourself. How about a compromise? I suggest we leave BOTH tables up so the readers can avail themselves of ALL the available information, instead of having you censor certain data that you personally are not interested in, wouldn't that be fair? I placed the link to your filmography page above the other section, so that the readers would see your page first. If you wish, you can even move your filmography's link all the way up to the top of the article! But PLEASE do not take it upon yourself to boldly delete 80% of an article that has been on wiki for so many years, on a whim? You can correct any errors that you find in the research, no problem. But you have no right to barge in like you own the page and make wholesale alterations to an article like that! 49Bottles (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Another thing...you claim the research on that page was "....just cited without page numbers...". They were the same two books YOU used yourself to create your filmography page. So you should know that those books feature a separate chapter on each Franco film, chronologically arranged in the table of contents. (Each chapter is only a few pages long.) So it's obvious what pages correspond to each film in the two books. Also you wrote "to the average reader, the importance of this (information) would not be "known" (meaning "relevant", I'm guessing?). The people who have used that Franco article for reference all these years are not just "average readers", they are obviously VERY interested in learning about who Franco collaborated with, the alternate titles of his films and the chronological order they were produced in, or else they wouldnt be researching the topic to begin with! The readers should be permitted to read all or part of the article and decide for themselves what facts regarding the topic are relevant to them, without your censoring what information they are permitted to read. Let's compromise and agree to leave both sections up, ok? That's the fairest thing to do. They're already set up as two separate articles, so they won't interfere with each other at all. In fact, the two articles will compliment each other.49Bottles (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49Bottles (talk • contribs)

Dear Andrzejbanas: After you vandalized the "Jesus Franco" article unnecessarily today by deleting almost 80% of the article's content without consulting anyone on the Franco talk page, I did a bit of research and I see you are currently blocked from editing a number of wiki pages due to "disruptive behavior" and "Sealioning". Apparently you have a HISTORY of boldly deleting whole sections of various wikipedia articles without going through the proper editing procedures. You have exhibited an amazing arrogance by erasing a number of people's work, and then blaming it all on your personal psychological problems. You have harassed and annoyed a number of editors by posting novel-length "walls of text" on their talk pages, in an attempt to force your opinions on them during various talk-page discussions. (See August 6, 2024 and August 12, 2024 on this guy's talk page above). I guess you haven't learned your lesson? I see you haven't changed your ways, that's for sure. Needless to say, i'm not responding any further to your future comments other than to advise you to get some serious help with learning proper editing procedure as soon as possible. 49Bottles (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the procedures I'm breaking? Information wasn't sourced. Its been replaced with sourced content. I knew the edit would be a bit controversial, but you have been a bit back and forth on what specifically the issues has been and I think I've addressed most of your questions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a bit controversial? Deleting practically an entire article without seeking consensus first on the talk page?? I hope you're kidding, right? I can't believe someone who has already been partially blocked for "disruptive behavior" and sealioning would continue to vandalize more articles! It's really amazing. What you have done to that Franco page constitutes vandalism.49Bottles (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bottles, I've asked what specifics are the vandalism. A filmography is a list, in the previous iteration, it applied information from the Thrower book incorrectly. If often suggests that films were only released in certain locations "only", which is not what the sources state, and has since been proven false. See Rififi in the City for example, which was indeed released outside the three countries suggested in the filmography. Some of the sources in the previous article were cited to IMDb, which we don't use per WP:RS/IMDb. I've asked on your page to discuss the content, and so far I've not really received a response to what specifically you want re-instated outside returning the filmography to its prior form. But in that current state, it lacked inline citations to specific details. If there are glaring errors, please discuss them or better yet, add sources to move them in on the page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, unsourced information was removed and some of that information was deemed unreliable. Thus it was removed. It is hardly disruption to do so. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Megamania you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Megamania and Talk:Megamania/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Megamania you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Megamania for comments about the article, and Talk:Megamania/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over some of your edits I discovered that your article for the 1977 film House could do with some reworking and expansion. I looked at the Japanese version of the article and it is significantly longer and has some additional sources worth taking a look.

• https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8F%E3%82%A6%E3%82%B9_(%E6%98%A0%E7%94%BB)

Paleface Jack (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny you mention that as I've been browsing through Archive.org and found a French-language review from when House came out (!) recently. Good call. I'll check it out this weekend. Thanks @Paleface Jack: Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I revamped my citation style for Chain Saw, felt like it was better to have it all as sfn to consolidate things. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh a person of taste! ;D Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Faceless (1988 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Severin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Andrzejbanas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per @PhilKnight:'s previous message, I've re-requested an unblock. I believe I've shown change. I was going to edit the response there, but sort of got distracted. Since the block, I've focused on what user Valereee suggested and focus on other topics. Since then I've discussed the topics several times before making more bold changes and have alerted the respected users. This ranges from Below the Root (video game) (started discussion about changes to the article, and reached out to other users heavily involved with the article to discuss changes made to it (here, and here here). Similarly with Les Mains d'Orlac (here for discussion) and here for responses: here, and [User_talk:Paleface_Jack#Les_Mains_d'Orlac here] (with this user, we've even collaborated more since as we seemed to hit it off pretty well!). Also since then, I've applied work on other articles bringing Megamania and Dracula (Universal film series) to good article status. With all this, I feel i'm ready to re-contribute to the article, which has since gone on with unsourced material that is unchallenged, and I'd like to get that back on track. Andrzejbanas (talk) 5:28 pm, 8 September 2024, Sunday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC−4) :Month later update: While I understand reviewing blocks takes time, I might as well continue with what I believe I've changed with. Since the block, I have been trolled by editors and did not attack or let their comments get to me. (see editor spam here: here, here. These comments were very much in tune with the themes of content I edit. With one patrolling editor calling them gravedancing. Beyond this, I have kept my cool during a few Xfds, when being told my edits have a "stench" or "stink". [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary's Baby (franchise)]. In the meantime, I've worked on getting other articles to good article status and have primarily been able to focus on following policy and civility with other editors. Without going into detail, I feel like I should be able to edit the talk and or article without any issues with civility. Andrzejbanas (talk) 2:28 pm, 18 October 2024, Friday (27 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Accepting unblock with the proposed condition: Andrzejbanas is limited to one argument per section on a talk page (and this doesn't mean open a new section for followup questions; one and done, that's it), and never reverting any nonvandalistic edit within any article more than once. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, sealioning is so incredibly tedious to prove, and even when you've shown the 20-40 diffs that prove it, who wants to assess? At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Behavioral_issues_at_Talk:Horror_film (take a look at both the extended content I provided -- 20 diffs, with the offer of another 20 if needed -- and the editor's behavior in that ANI), those who bothered to read the diffs and/or were already familiar with the behavior at Talk:Horror were recommending a ban from film. Take a look also at User_talk:Andrzejbanas#More_issues?; A's complaint was that other editors were coming out of the woodwork. That's because sealioning is so incredibly frustrating to try to deal with. When I saw the same thing happening at Universal Classic Monsters and its talk, I pblocked there.

What Andrzejbanas said at my talk at the time was that he would limit himself to one edit per section on talk pages. Are you actually seeing evidence that's happened? If he'll agree to that as a condition of unblock, I'll support an unblock. Otherwise, I'm very reluctant to support it. I think a pblock from a single article he wants to edit is a good incentive for actually agreeing to avoid the behavior. Valereee (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into dregs, I'm happy to comply @Valereee: and @Rosguill:. I'll try to tread lightly, but If possibly, I may run by requests by you Valereee to make sure I'm not over stepping boundaries at first. I know you aren't a babysitter, but I figured I just want to be safe and not just do some misinterpret overzealousness with other content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always happy to help, but this seems like a bright line: one post per talk page section at any article. One single argument, and you're done. Valereee (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh totally. It was more if I had some questions in context if I have doubts that saying one thing or doing something I think could be viewed as squibbling the rules. I just want to be clear that I'm trying my best to comply with the request at hand. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a conditional unblock with a logged restriction. Valereee (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure this unblock condition is going to be beneficial to the community or Andrzejbanas--it replaces a software-enforced block with an editing restriction that requires manual enforcement, and it's not entirely clear what the penalty for violation of the restriction would be: reblocking for the one TCM Monsters page? A full block? The restriction is aimed at the behavior that precipitated the block by applying a formal limit to places where Andrzejbanas currently and for some time has been editing freely without issue, and carries the possibility of hampering discussion on the rare occasions where a second reply from Andrzejbanas actually would be appropriate and conducive to the formation of consensus.

I recognize what you're saying Valereee about the difficulty of addressing sealioning and that you're not yet convinced that the issues have been decisively put to bed. But it seems like going from a p-block to an editing restriction just replaces one corrective measure with another, more bureaucratic and labor-intensive corrective measure, without really increasing Andrzejbanas's ability to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. On this basis, I would lean towards simply declining the unblock request rather than implementing the edit restriction as an unblock condition. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I am available for suggestions, but if Valereee is willing to go forward with the unblock and to address it, perhaps they could clarify where they will take part. I do not have much to add to the talk page, but I have since found more material I would like to address and give time for editors to follow-up on. I'm not sure what would give proof over the vague accusation of sealioning, but I think its Valereee is open to working with me to confirm I'm not falling into questionable territory, I don't think it makes my contributions a determent to the community at large. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, IMO -- based on the complaint about 'other editors coming out of the woodwork' -- this would be akin to any tban or other manually-enforced editing restriction: typically policed by those who interact with this editor in topics they see each other in frequently. I do get it, though. Custom restrictions are a PITA.

How about this: A, commit to one post per section in any article talk, exception for answering a direct reqiest for ou to clarify your original post. Do you understand the difference between feeling you need to clarify and being directly asked to clarify? That is, pretend you have this editing restriction. Come back in three months. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I do, As I said above, I have very little to add in the first place, so I see it unlikely that I will go as overboard as I have before. I'm mostly interested in bringing in some new sources I've found on the topic, and do not see myself going as overboard as I have in the incidents you have mentioned. If I'm seriously in doubt if I should chime in (which I do not expect to be often), I'll message you for an opinion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:, any further thoughts on this? I understand its a complicated spot, but just figured I'd check in as it has been over a week. I'm still happy to comply to the above as Valereee seems willing and there is now finally some new voices entering in on the discussion on the talk page that I'd like to contribute to if possible. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that Valereee was suggesting waiting a few more months, unless I misunderstood. I don't have a strong position on this and am ok with moving forward with other's assent; my original qualm was that it seemed like the unblock condition proposed was more onerous than the existing p-block and wanted to make sure that you and Valereee were still in favor of proceeding despite that concern. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, I'm fine with the unblock condition instead of revisiting after three months of behaving as if the conditional unblock was in place. Valereee (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah same. Per what Valereee said here and above, I'm more than comfortable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for straighten that out. I saw the line break but didn't correct it. DMc75771 (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Glad to have been able to help! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Yars' Revenge 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Pokelego999 -- Pokelego999 (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Yars Rising has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13 § Yars Rising until a consensus is reached. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yars' Revenge you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Yars' Revenge and Talk:Yars' Revenge/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pokelego999 -- Pokelego999 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Film franchise, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Halloween II and Diamonds Are Forever.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Yars' Revenge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Yars' Revenge for comments about the article, and Talk:Yars' Revenge/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pokelego999 -- Pokelego999 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrzejbanas! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, Just thought I would let you know, I created a separate userspace to transfer some of the information on my TCM edits in relation to the themes and analysis. I dont normally allow people to work on these sorts of things but if you want to utilize that space and expand upon it I trust you enough with that. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! I have a few tasks to work on, but I'll come in to copy-edit and see if I can add things and suggest stuff. Thank you for the invite! Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I am trying to entice DarkWarriorBlake with working on some of these separate spaces as well even though he has sworn off of 70s films until he completes his current lineup. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lostcontinent1951.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tetris Forever, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emulation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]