User talk:Fortdj33

Welcome to my talk page! Please be aware that if you leave a message for me HERE, I will reply HERE. If I leave a message on YOUR page, I will look for a reply THERE. Thanks!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Hi. I'm a wikipedia newbie and confused why you've removed a reference in the Zandar GI Joe character article. There's a lot of information in that source, and that particular character trait should have a cited reference. Joefan777 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Joefan777, that reference is cited at the end of the very next sentence. I figured it could cover both sentences, instead of having to be cited twice. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and Happy New Year. It's been a long time since we interacted. Thanks for checking the B level criteria on the article. I always prefer other editors to evaluate, so I do appreciate it. If you wouldn't mind however, could you tell me what it is missing from B5? I really thought I had that covered with the lobby card in the infobox, and the two pics I managed to find in old magazines? Also, on the B2, what additional type of information would you be looking for. Not that I can find it with my available resources, I pretty much included everything I could, but for future reference, where do you see it lacking. Thanks for your input, and again, thanks for the review. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you removed the {{WikiProject Romance}} template. Was that your intention? And if so, why did your edit summary say only "Updated classification using AWB"? Debresser (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to just remove the United States template, since I was cleaning up unassessed American film articles. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thank you for fixing it so promptly. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please rate this[1] unassessed article. 117.246.84.62 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read the rules of use for AWB, esp. #4 - "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit". For example, this edit was pointless. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand why you feel that edit is insignificant, but it was not pointless. I was using AWB to catch some silent film stubs that were not tagged as part of the Silent films wikiproject. I discovered that there are still some articles that were initially tagged by a bot, with a space in front of the parameter. This makes it difficult for AWB to recognize those articles, so I see no reason not to clean them up when I come across them. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite easy for AWB actually. Use regex. \s* is the code to detect all white space (however much is there). Also please mark simple category changes minor. You've inadvertently spammed my watch list something awful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dungeons & Dragons character stubs, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

Hi, could you explain this revert? Your edit summary included no rationale. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve really never heard anyone refer to Batman Begins as simply Batman, being the first in a new line of movies? Because I could have sworn I had, which would mean it belongs on the dab page. Are you sure? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm sure it doesn't belong there, for the reasons I stated in my edit summary. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be forgetting that we don’t just go by the official title, but any name commonly used to refer to the subject. WP:PTM and MOS:DAB both support this. So I ask again: are you sure this movie is never referred to as just “Batman”? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Din of Celestial Birds—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Blackgate Penitentiary.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. DrRC (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Blackgate Penitentiary.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) 17:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:D&D-char-stub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortdj33. If you have a look at the grading scheme, you'll find it says, in part, "the article should … provide enough sources to establish verifiability." The most generous interpretation possible of that is that the article should contain at least one source in order to qualify for Start class. Personally I use two rules of thumb to distinguish between Stub and Start class: headings and references. If the article is organised into sections using headings and cites at least one source it's Start-class, otherwise it's Stub-class. I've found that helpful over the years, particularly when it comes to borderline cases like Othello. Anyways, I would encourage you to consider the rating one more time. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you been reverting my work when I've been trying to sort out the list? The version you revert back to has several flaws that I'm trying to correct, many of the volumes listing are not correct and end up being confusing with the old version.★Trekker (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The version you're reverting back to is completely bonkers, nothing makes sense. It doesn't even list the limited series in the correct place like most character title listing do.★Trekker (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you added a "stub" tag in some articles I have created. So I became very curious about how this classification is made. There some program or you do it by yourself? Just out of curiosity. Cheers!--SirEdimon (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a good rule of thumb for classifying an article as a stub is WP:STUB, but it is completely arbitrary. Usually it depends on the amount of prose in the article, and the size of the article in relation to any WikiProjects. Adding an appropriate stub tag highlights the article's status, and places it in the proper categories for expansion. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I create an article I don't put any tag, because I really don't know how it's work. But sometimes I see some similar articles, but one is tagged as "start" and the other "stub". So, I was really confuse. I saw that you tagged many articles and I thought: "Why not to ask?"--SirEdimon (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fortdj33. I saw in my watchlist that you recently moved The Legend of Billy the Kid (TV film) to The Legend of Billy the Kid. This caught my attention because there is now only the article "The" distinguishing that title from the title of the article, Legend of Billy the Kid, that I created on 30 August 2016.

It seems to me that this move causes confusion between the two articles, and that the previous disambiguation was necessary to prevent such confusion. What do you think? Carlstak (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you would want to prevent confusion, but per the naming conventions at WP:NCF and WP:NCTV, disambiguation is only necessary if there is another article on Wikipedia with the exact same title. If the article Legend of Billy the Kid required "The", it would be appropriate to add "(film)" to the other article, but otherwise The Legend of Billy the Kid is sufficient. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Personally, I don't think it is sufficient. Are you so committed to your changes that you wouldn't consider reverting them? Carlstak (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page https://www.bathroomreader.com/2014/06/bee-gees-meet-eric-clapton-bunbury-tails/. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some of the content had to be removed and I paraphrased some. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films). In this case, the qualifiers "Dutch film" and "German film" were enough to distinguish the two film. Adding the year as therefore not necessary any more. The guideline which say to add the year for all non-primary articles, meant only if the year is necessary to disambiguate. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. WP:PRIMARYFILM states: "In the rare case that multiple films of the same name are produced in the same year, include additional information such as the country of origin". In other words, the year should be used to disambiguate first, and the country of origin should be added if further disambiguation is needed. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but since in this case the year does not help to disambiguate, it should not be added. That is a rather rare case, because usually it is the year hat helps to disambiguate, which is why this cased isn't specifically addressed by the guideline, but I feel confident that it can and should be inferred from the guideline along these lines. Would you care to present the issue and our diverging opinions at WP:FILM and ask for their opinion? Debresser (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not tag templates like Template:Italian-short-film-stub, Template:UK-horror-film-stub and Template:UK-short-film-stub as {{db-policy}} unless the WP:CSD#T2 criterion (summarised as "Misrepresentation of policy") really does apply. Stub templates (which are all built around {{asbox}}) are largely informational, they do not not state any policy, so cannot be misrepresenting policy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in 2011 you graded and assessed the page for the Microman toy line. The page has come a long way since it’s disjointed state in 2011 and I have made some review requests to the folks to maintain Wikipedia toy pages as well as those who maintain Transformers pages but also just wanted to post a friendly “heads up” about these requests since you were the first person to formally look these pages over in any significant way. --SpyMagician (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning from Calabria, I'm writing to say hello and know how you are. Well, I'm writing to ask you some help regarding Sabrina Ferilli's page in English, would you give her a refreshed and improved? right and not more than 10 minutes of your precious time. If so, if I can then return the courtesy you will be grateful for it infinitely. Thanks and greetings from Coreca--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read this and this. Also, most of the refs on the page are user-generated sources. 86.173.238.53 (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fortdj33. Regarding this, what is that about? Did I miss some WP:FILM discussion? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's been established for years that the Film project does not cover biography articles. Therefore, instead of adding the {{WikiProject Film}} banner to articles about actors, directors and filmmakers, those articles are covered by adding |filmbio-work-group=yes to {{WikiProject Biography}} instead. This applies to all of the film task forces as well, which means that the American cinema task force does not include articles about American actors, directors and filmmakers, and consequently should not have the |USfilm=yes parameter on the {{WikiProject United States}} banner. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask the same question, did some research and discover you were correct Fortdj33. I think, though, rather than removing wholesale any Project header-connection of these various articles to being a filmmaker/actor, wouldn't it be better to replace that parameter with "|filmbio-work-group= |filmbio-priority="? Seems like many filmbio articles have probably been mistakenly placed within WP:FILM - perhaps this could be something for a bot to handle on an ongoing basis - removing the errant template and replacing it with the correct one. In any case, possibly if you mention "filmbio" and link to Template:WikiProject Biography#Work groups in your edit summaries (instead of WP:FILM) that would forestall some of the ongoing hubbub/blowback you probably get here on your talkpage about these Project deletions. Shearonink (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't want to link to the Template then I would recommend linking to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film#Scope as that explains the reasons. When you link to WP:FILM alone...well, that's a pretty huge page with lots of tabbed-subpages...an editor might not be sure where to look. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, I will adjust my edit summaries to be less confusing. Which one do you think would be more accurate: "Covered by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers", or "Not in the scope of the American cinema task force"? Or maybe both? Fortdj33 (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem for many editors is that the deletion will seem arbitrary and possibly might seem like vandalism, so to my mind, the edit summaries have to sufficiently explain the why. I think the best edit summary would include the #Scope linkage because that explains the why the best, why film bios do not belong within the Film WikiProject. If you link to WP:Actors or say "not in the scope of 'American cinema...' " it doesn't state, quite as clearly, why film bios don't actually belong under the WikiProject Film.

This is what #Scope says:

However, for present organizational reasons (as of October 2007), the project does not include articles about actors, directors and filmmakers; those are in the scope of the Biography WikiProject, most especially the Actors and Filmmakers and Screenwriters projects thereof.

You could maybe construct an anchored/linked section (with the above wording or something similar) and then place that section somewhere appropriate onto the [[WP:Actors]] page. Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a version of the disclaimer above, to the scope of the affected projects and task forces. Hopefully that will allow the modified edit summary "Removed per American cinema task force" to suffice. Fortdj33 (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks. I have been in the past working on individual bikinis. The fur bikini is one of them. May be we can collaborate. Bikini in popular culture has a list of iconic film bikinis. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind telling me what's disruptive about my edits?.86.131.240.16 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to be making the same POV edits on this article, that were being made on Scarlett (G.I. Joe), which led to that article being protected. And per WP:BRD, you should try to come to a consensus on the talk page, once your bold edits are reverted. Instead you are edit warring, which is disruptive and not helpful to improving the article. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind telling me what was actually wrong with what I did?.86.131.240.16 (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you re-assess the BLP article B. Unnikrishnan. It currently holds stub-class, but have developed since then.--Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Fortdj33, I added the plot summary on the 1981 Chuck Norris movie An Eye for an Eye. Might need clean up and such. See what you think? BattleshipMan (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen the movie, but did my best to clean up the Plot section. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, Fortdj33. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fortdj33. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having computer problems and I'm heading on vacation so when I come back into town I will finish the article. Quidam65 (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You recently added a stub tag to Black and burst. The article is assessed Start on its talk page. I can go either way with this but we should adjust the assessment to match if we're going the leave the stub tag. ~Kvng (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fortdj33!. Thanks for updating the classification on Talk:Palanka (film). Could you please spare a few moments to assess this? Thanks a lot! Amuk (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, sorry for the accidental save. The request stands. Amuk (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that was really prompt. Thanks again! Amuk (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fortdj33. AfC submissions Random submission ~6 weeks 1,044 pending submissions Purge to update v t e I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 03:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fortdj33. A very happy New Year to you!
Continuing on the theme of my last message, here's another article on an Indian film that is ready for review/reassessment: Massey Sahib. Please take a look. Thanks! Amuk (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Could you take a look at this article: Strir Patra? I have added several references, but in my opinion the Synopsis doesn't need a citation. Amuk (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prompt as ever! Thanks a lot. I notice you've left the refimprove tag in place, though. I feel there are enough references for a start class article, and the sources are pretty reliable. So I'm at a bit of a loss. Amuk (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm still not sure how to carry out the refimprove. Meanwhile, here's a new article on an Indian film: Ekhoni. Please take a look. Cheers. Amuk (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's another new article on an Indian film: Atithi (1965 film). Please take a look. Thanks! Amuk (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's another new article on an Indian film:Ghashiram Kotwal. Please take a look. Thanks! Amuk (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Fortdj33. Best wishes for 2019. Here's another new article on an Indian film: Chhuti. Please take a look. Thanks! Amuk (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before you continue reverting dozens of edits, can we perhaps first have a chat? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention to revert dozens of edits, but now that the more specific Category:G.I. Joe soldiers has been created, it should only apply to soldiers on the G.I. Joe team. Other G.I. Joe characters may have served in the military, but they should still be kept in a separate category. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I thought you were going to revert the whole lot. Then I won't bother you any further. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I can understand your concern, but I know that the category was created by consensus. As long as you are OK with the 5 articles that I reverted, I think we're good. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you review Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria which states that we are to include "Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." This is not my opinion but a local legal policy. Why you think Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe) needs five pieces of non-free media (including several from comic books) to identify one character is beyond me. Can you please explain how five is the minimal amount of pieces of non-free media for this article? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy, but it does not place a limit on how many images can be used to identify a character. Of the 5 images on the article Snake Eyes (G.I. Joe), only 2 of them are from comic books, and the one that you keep trying to remove, is directly referenced in the prose of the article! The other images are being used to identify the character in toys, movies, etc. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So are issue #1 and #45 and #27... This particular piece of non-free media adds no value on this page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is your opinion that the image adds no value. You asked for an explanation and I gave you one. Just because you disagree, doesn't mean that you can tailor the article to suit your POV. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you redirect "Bold Emmet, Ireland's Martyr" to "All for Old Ireland"? It's not the same films. Both have a different copyright.

Bold Emmet : © 1915. 3 000 ft. Credits : screenplay and production Sidney Olcott. © Lubin Mfg. Co. (Sidney Olcott, author) 3 Aug 15 ; LP6006.

All for Old : © 1915. 3 reels. Credits : written and produced by Sidney Olcott. © Lubin Mfg. Co. (Sidney Olcott, author) ; 6 Jul 15 ; LP 5 772.

More informations : http://www.sidneyolcott.com/Bold_Emmett.htm (it's in French).

Sincerely Derrien56

It looks like you need to step in and do something about the G.I. Joe pages being vandalized[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.12.132 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am in the process of translating the bio page the Marathi version of the subject bio to Ramabai Bhimrao Ambedkar (using WP:CXT for starters). I am not entirely sure how to deal with the presence of an existing page which has been moved there from what now seems to the right article name (with the "(film)" suffix). Looking through your profile, I felt there are more chances of you having dealt with something like this - I certainly haven't. Could I ask your help in reverting back Ramabai Bhimrao Ambedkar to Ramabai Bhimrao Ambedkar (film), and deleting/blanking Ramabai Bhimrao Ambedkar so I could replace that with a bio? Alternatively, please feel free to point me to somewhere that helps me figure out how do this myself. :) Thanks in advance -MayureshK 09:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the meanwhile, I have created the bio-article stub under Ramabai Ambedkar. In my opinion, the main bio article needs to be under Ramabai Bhimrao Ambedkar with Ramabai Ambedkar as an additional redirect to the same. The marathi film article needs to go back from Ramabai Bhimrao Ambedkar to Ramabai Bhimrao Ambedkar (film). Hope that makes sense? -MayureshK 11:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to sort this on my own. Please feel free to archive this conversation. -MayureshK 14:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you can consider few things on this movie. The plot is long since the script is strictly based on a more than 200 pages novel (there's no original script for the movie besides the novel's "condensed" narrative). The movie includes virtually all of the book's narrative chapter by chapter and it actually is rather fragmented, giving the impression that the director has aimed to include everything. The plot tells of elements and characters that's rather hard to omit. I would appreciate if you could revise the plot or maybe remove any redundant phrase or description you can judge it helps this matter. Empathictrust (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortdj33,

Thank you for your interest in using our tool. Sorry about the wait. We've been working on improving our tool in the past several weeks, and we will send recommendations to you very soon. Stay tuned. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortdj33,

Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.

We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system.

Username	Why we recommend this editor	First Edit Date	Total Edits in ENWP	Editor Status	Invite	Survey
Parkin peet (talk · contribs)	Parkin peet's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and People, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!	2018-1-18	82	Newcomer	invite	survey
The Lool (talk · contribs)	The Lool's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category People and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!	2017-11-3	43	Newcomer	invite	survey
Looplena1997 (talk · contribs)	Looplena1997 made 1 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project.	2017-12-13	129	Experienced Editor	invite	survey
Foodles42 (talk · contribs)	Foodles42 made 2 out of their most recent 500 edits to articles within the scope of your project.	2017-4-28	217	Experienced Editor	invite	survey
StephRJ (talk · contribs)	StephRJ's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Arts and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!	2012-2-10	178	Experienced Editor	invite	survey
Kyojikasshu (talk · contribs)	Kyojikasshu's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Arts and People, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!	2006-2-25	138	Experienced Editor	invite	survey

Please let me know below if you have any general feedback about our recommendations. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortdj33, I update the recommendation list sent to you earlier. I fixed some bugs in the previous version (as you might have seen that some editors on the previous list were not quite active). Very sorry about it, but now, everything should be good! Please take a look, and let me know what you think! Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with this edit ?. 2A00:23C5:2E16:5701:68ED:47C1:DCC1:BA3A (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was very similar to this edit and this edit, both of which resulted in the article being protected. If you feel your edit was reverted in error, please take the discussion to the talk page of the article, instead of edit warring. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did I do wrong ?. 2A00:23C5:2E16:5701:68ED:47C1:DCC1:BA3A (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with me tagging the page with unreliable source tags?. 2A00:23C5:2E16:5701:84C3:15CC:2D36:723 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I created a article Swastika Dutta help me to improve it. And published this article in keep. Rakhi (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortdj33,

Here is a new list of recommendations for WikiProject G.I. Joe. Please take a look when you get a chance. Thank you!

Username	Why we recommend this editor	First Edit Date	Total Edits in ENWP	Editor Status	Invite	Survey
Parkin peet (talk · contribs)	Parkin peet's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and People, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!	2018-1-18	82	Newcomer	invite	survey
The Lool (talk · contribs)	The Lool's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category People and Society, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!	2017-11-3	43	Newcomer	invite	survey
Jaimeastorga2000 (talk · contribs)	Jaimeastorga2000's editing history suggests a strong match with your project. Most articles they have edited fall under the Category Society and Arts, and most of your project's articles also fall under these categories. Studies have found that editors with a stronger topic match with a project tend to edit more and stay longer in the project!	2006-11-25	422	Experienced Editor	invite	survey

Bobo.03 (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People keep adding unrelated nonsense to the Scooby Doo film series page. The live-action part is needed to prevent people from adding shit about the DVD films and other animated projects.★Trekker (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make a counter argument maybe or at least acknowledge my point please?★Trekker (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So?★Trekker (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I have been away from Wikipedia for a while, but I don't appreciate you pushing me for an argument on my talk page. As I briefly mentioned in my edit summary, per the naming conventions for film articles and disambiguation in general, the title should be as precise as possible. Since there is no article about any other Scooby-Doo film series, the "live action" disambiguation is unnecessary. But I do understand what you are trying to prevent, so I added a hatnote to the article for that effect. Hope that helps. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I've seen you edit a bunch of times and I only ever added a comment here after I'd seen you edit the Scooby Doo article. And as far as I'm concerned I don't appreciate being ignored without as much as a single acknowledgment, could at least say something like "really busy right now, will be back when I feel like it". Otherwise I just feel like someone is trying to ignore me until I go away, which has happened on this site before.★Trekker (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the past you've offered your opinion in choosing photos for the Infobox. Can you offer your neutral opinion in this discussion on a related topic? It may go toward a precedent regarding captions. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Viral (upcoming Bollywood film). Since you had some involvement with the Viral (upcoming Bollywood film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Batmanlogo.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 08:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that you are back!!! SirEdimon (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello could you please assist me regarding the draft Draft:Meri Pehli Mohabbat as I have submitted it for Article for creation AR.Dmg (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Trigon DC Comics.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. NeoBatfreak (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Netherlands and Flanders). Since you had some involvement with the List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network (Netherlands and Flanders) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 12:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Cooke's stage name is Tristan and I think I'll add article about him, but even that in disambiguation pages there are non existing pages like Tristan (poem), I think he's known enough person to have a page on Wikipedia, can I edit this page again when there is article about him? jcubic (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Decade-canada-film-stub" is not redundant with "Quebec-film-stub" — for starters, you may have noticed that the national parent category is subdivided by decade, while the provincial subcategory is not. So decade-Canada sorting is always essential on every Canadian film that has stub templates on it at all, with zero exceptions — the Quebec template can sit alongside the decade-Canada template as a second sorting criteria where that's deemed useful, but cannot replace decade-Canada outright, because decade-Canada is the most important and salient and critical point. If Category:Quebec film stubs were being subdivided by decade, then it wouldn't be a big deal — but since it isn't, the by-decade scheme in Category:Canadian film stubs takes precedence in terms of which stub templates are required to be there and which ones are optional. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Bearcat, but I disagree. Film stub templates are only subdivided by decade, when the parent category becomes too large. Since "Decade-canada-film-stub" and "Quebec-film-stub" are both subcategories of "Canada-film-stub", it is redundant to have both of them on the same article. And per WP:STUB, "If a more specific stub template than is currently on an article exists and completely covers the subject of the article, remove the more general template and replace it with the more specific type." Therefore, since "Quebec-film-stub" is more specific than "Decade-canada-film-stub", again it is redundant to have both of them on the same article. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Quebec-film-stub" is not more specific than "2010s-Canada-film-stub". The "more specific" rule only requires diffusion of the undifferentiated "Canada-film-stub", while Quebec and decade-Canada are parallel but non-contradictory siblings at the same level of "more specific". Since Quebec-film-stub subcategorizes films by province while decade-Canada-film-stub subcategorizes them by timeframe, Quebec is not a more "more specific" level that vitiates the need for a film to be sorted as decade-Canada at all — especially given that Quebec is the only Canadian province that actually has its own dedicated film stubs category at all, while by-decade is the scheme that actually exists at a comprehensive level, it's essential that the films stay present in the by-decade tree alongside all other Canadian films from that decade, so that they don't get missed by people who are using the genuinely comprehensive scheme instead of the one-off oddball. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Distant Voices Still Lives.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, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tina Ballerina. Since you had some involvement with the Tina Ballerina redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Goveganfortheanimals (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article See Jack Run has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable stub; film doesn't appear to have had any impact. I couldn't find any reviews or mentions other than to support that it was made.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ThePhotographer2000.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) 18:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ramu (1966 Telugu film). Since you had some involvement with the Ramu (1966 Telugu film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Infinity (Marvel Comics).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, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kup (Transformers) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kup (Transformers) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Female Autobots is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female Autobots until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Star Brigade has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this toy line related to a fictional military organization (from a game/action product series) passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT+WP:OR.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ninja Force has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this toy line related to a fictional military organization (from a game/action product series) passes WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Pure WP:PLOT+WP:OR.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Battleforce 2000.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) 03:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]