User talk:Espngeek

Welcome to Wikipedia, Espngeek! Thank you for your contibutions. I am Hitcher vs. Candyman.

Here are some articles that you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to develop articles
• How to create you first article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Please remember that when you post your messages on talk pages to sign your name by typing four tildes; this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian! Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Avicennasis. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Template:Noir registry without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ^Avic_ennasis @ 21:51, 29 Tevet 5777 / 21:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on noninclude

Hello, Espngeek. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Moon Breath Beat, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

~Kvng (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Robertgombos. Espngeek, thanks for creating Telephilia!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. There are several sources of references for this (http://www.indiewire.com/2013/05/telephilia-has-television-become-a-more-relevant-american-medium-than-art-film-38350/, Google books has a few titles etc.). Thanks

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Robert G. (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just reverted your addition of the fandom category to Internet Troll, as it's not relevant in this case - an internet troll is not in itself a fandom, nor are they the primary purpose of said trolls. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and let me know if you have any questions on this or any other topic! Keira1996 02:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Espngeek (talk)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Touched by an Angel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page College Humor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Lewis Klahr, Espngeek!

Wikipedia editor TheLongTone just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Well I was thinking of sppedying this because I am suspicious of articles relying on Imdb, but a quick google threw up a link to the Tate gallery & they say he has a work in the Met collection...

To reply, leave a comment on TheLongTone's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TheLongTone (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star Wars people, 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. DexDor ^(talk) 06:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Espngeek. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JonathanDP81. I noticed that you recently removed content from Animalympics without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -JonathanDP81 (talk | contribs) 07:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

We're sorry, but we cannot accept blank submissions. Please consider submitting to Wikipedia:Requested articles instead. If in fact you did include text within the article, but it isn't showing, please make sure that any extra text above your entry is removed, as it may be causing it to hide and not be shown to the reviewer.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Espngeek/List of books considered the worst and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Espngeek/List of books considered the worst, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Espngeek, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I dream of horses was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

TV tropes isn't exactly reliable.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of books considered the worst and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:List of books considered the worst, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The 50 Greatest Cartoons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peace on Earth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Immer Zu has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim of notability, and none is apparent.

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. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Permission granted Espngeek (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Espngeek[reply]

Hello, I'm TJH2018. I noticed that you recently removed content from Cordell Barker without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TJH2018talk 00:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to put it on it's own page Espngeek (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Espngeek[reply]

Draft:List of books considered the worst, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:List of books considered the worst and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:List of books considered the worst during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete Espngeek (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Espngeek[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Renegade Cut 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/Renegade Cut until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 02:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Renegade Cut. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add POV stuff like "this film is less/more X than nother film" ever. This is against Wikipedia guidlines.★Trekker (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't add more info than what is needed, there is no reason to point out that a film "yet" remained popular because of midnight screeings for no reason.★Trekker (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of episodes of The Cinema Snob, 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. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kudpung. Espngeek, thanks for creating Brows Held High!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please check the sources again for relevance

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited My Life in the Bush of Ghosts (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sampling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Millennial whoop does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. ...ditto for every other edit you've ever made... Eric ^talk 02:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Film Snob's Dictionary has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that this meets WP:NBOOK guidelines.

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. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Public Enemies (2009 film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Nanophosis. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Magic Roundabout (film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Nanophosis (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Pinocchio (2002 film), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to stop removing plots. I'm not sure why you're doing this, but it verges on vandalism. Explain yourself on the article talk page and get consensus to remove an entire plot, please. If you're removing plots because you think they're too long, please don't do this. Instead, streamline the plot down to the size recommended by WP:FILMPLOT, ~700 words. Per WP:PRESERVE, imperfect content that can be fixed should not be removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Long Night's Journey into Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Z Channel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages A Clockwork Orange and Dressed to Kill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, as the creator of the Brows Held High article you have the ability to request its deletion by adding {{db-author}} to the page. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 20:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the advice Espngeek (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Espngeek[reply]

You seriously need to stop blanking plot summaries. Per WP:PRESERVE, this content should not be summarily removed simply because you think it's too long. If you think it's too long, take the time to actually summarize the plot better. A long plot summary is better than no plot summary (or one that is too short to even understand what the film is about). WP:FILMPLOT recommends a minimum of 400 words, for example. You also need to stop spamming external links to YouTube videos. Please see WP:ELNO. They should almost never be used as citations, because the vast majority of content on YouTube is self-published. A reliable source, such as CNN or the BBC, who operate a YouTube channel could be cited. Reliable sources need to have editorial oversight, a history of fact-checking, and be staffed by professional journalists. Enthusiasts who self-publish their thoughts to YouTube are not a reliable source. If you continue to blank plot summaries or spam links to YouTube channels, I will ask an uninvolved administrator to block you for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know I was spamming Espngeek (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)Espngeek[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ballet Robotique, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delibes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Z Channel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Same Time, Next Year (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Z Channel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thieves Like Us (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Espngeek (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Espngeek[reply]

Would you review my new page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Film Espngeek (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Espngeek[reply]

Category:Larry Bird, 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. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Trivialist (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Shakers: Hands to Work, Hearts to God, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WHYY (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Beyond the Black Rainbow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I did put the Moviefone link to Beyond the Black Rainbow to this film and shortened the summary in order to remove this template:

  This section's plot summary may be too long or excessively detailed. Please help improve it by removing unnecessary details and making it more concise. (December 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Would this help?: "When Elena, a telepathic teen, tries to flee a mysterious facility that have imprisoned her entire life, her unbalanced therapist is enraged and relentlessly pursues her". Beyond the Black Rainbow on Netflix Espngeek (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Espngeek[reply]

Would you please review my new page for the 1994 Kirk Douglas animated spoof? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Story_(1994_film)Espngeek (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my new page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submissions_for_Best_Documentary_Feature Espngeek (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Least offensive programming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madam Secretary (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Thanks. Espngeek (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding my suggestion. :) Espngeek (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Espngeek. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queen of Sheba Meets the Atom Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ajax (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Espngeek (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leap of Faith (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great list creation in 'list of submissions to the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature'! Keep it up! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Espngeek,

Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for creating Submissions for Best Documentary Feature! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Seems a pretty arbitrary time frame covered in the article. Might want to discuss pre-2008 -- were shortlists not provided to the public? Or is this something which only began in 2008 (which I doubt)?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Børge Ring, you added links to Youtube videos. According to my understanding of Wikipedia:Video links, we shouldn't link to Youtube videos, as doing so may be against their copyright. Is it standard in film articles to link to YouTube, and if not, then should we be doing it? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• They're official courtesy of Anne-Mieke Bovelett and requested by the late animator himself. Espngeek (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying, seems fine to me then. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cartoon Alley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Hand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oscar speech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hearts and Minds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kickstarter-funded animated films, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vulgar auteurism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue Steel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fahrenheit 451 (2018 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sarah Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Vibes
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Night_Delight

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Vaporwave, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please compare your edits to the already existing articles to see if your edits are up to par. See WP:CITEWIKI and WP:RELIABLE to see how to properly reference a source and what sources to cite. The current way you are sourcing sites isn't the correct way. Micro (Talk) 22:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 18 Carat Affair requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. KH-1 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Go ahead Espngeek (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi hii. Would you care to review or offer comments to this nomination? Apart from one or two substantial reviews, it has been relatively stale so far. Dan56 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Late Night Delight has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of independent notability for this album, which can only be found at the typical streaming and self-promotional sites. The article has a bunch of sources, but most of them actually identify the artists that were sampled on this album, and not the album itself.

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. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Espngeek,

Thanks for creating Late Night Delight! I edit here too, under the username Doomsdayer520 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Thank you for your new article on the album "Late Night Delight" and for adding a source after I proposed that it be deleted. However, you have one review that can be mined for the writer's content but is not believable as a footnote for every single song. The article still needs additional evidence that the album is notable.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Shoes for Industry: The Best of the Firesign Theatre.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

It looks like the AllMusic review is the only independent reliable source that has written about this subject, which makes its notability borderline.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Classical Hollywood cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Matter of Life and Death (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited California Split, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Writers Guild (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my new page Espngeek (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please not unlink redlinked titles in the list, and not pipe them to the animator's biographical article in lieu of leaving them as redlinks? While it's true that not every film in the list has its own article yet, that's not because there are notability questions about them — by virtue of having Genie/CSA nominations, every single film in the list is inherently notable per WP:NFILM, and the work of getting all the articles up and running just isn't done yet. Wikipedia does not have a rule forbidding all redlinks: if a topic is definitely notable and just doesn't have an article yet, it's allowed to stay a redlink, and the only redlinks we should unlink are those where notability is either questionable or non-existent.

If you bury a red link by piping it to some other topic, then it's much harder for me to keep track of which articles are still missing and need my attention, if I have no way to distinguish blue links that represent finished articles about the films from blue links that have been piped to the animator instead of leading to a finished article about the film — and if somebody else creates the article about a film but forgets to relink it in the list, I have no other way of knowing that they've created the article.

That's why every film in the list should remain wikilinked, to a direct page title and not piped somewhere else, whether there's already an article there or not: that's how the film WikiProject knows what films still need to be worked on. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll wait. Espngeek (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hit Vibes 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/Hit Vibes 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. Micro (Talk) 01:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Late Night Delight 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/Late Night Delight 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. Micro (Talk) 01:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mickey Mouse Disco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page D23 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Message picture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tea and Sympathy and American Gun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shake Some Action, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Lowery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Postmodernist film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Beauty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reference information in Wikipedia articles to YouTube videos, or primary source copies of the films themselves. Appropriate referencing for Wikipedia content is print journalism published about the film or the award ceremony in media, not streaming copies of the film or the award ceremony. We use secondary sourcing to reference Wikipedia articles, not the primary kind — and you've also been removing solid sources to replace them with weaker and less notability-supporting ones. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe and Mail is a real newspaper, which means it is a secondary source, not a primary one. Real journalism in real newspapers is the good kind of sourcing; YouTube streaming clips are the bad kind. Bearcat (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And the only reliable source for History of the World in Three Minutes Flat? More than one source. Espngeek (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five distinct citations to five different news articles is more than adequate for the length that the article currently entails; we don't care about how many different newspapers the citations are coming from nearly as much as we care about how many different citations there are, and five is more than adequate. Sure, additional content can certainly be added with additional sourcing, but nothing currently in the article needs more sources than it already has — we never need more than one citation to resupport the same statement, and any new sources being added to an article should be used to expand the article with new content rather than as a second or third footnote for content that already has a valid footnote. And at any rate, when it comes to retrieving archived media coverage, people can only do that in databases that they have access to — I don't have accounts with HighBeam or Newspaperarchive.com, for example, so I cannot access sources archived in those databases. And, unfortunately, in the database I do have access to, most other newspapers only kick in from 1982 on, and The Globe and Mail is the only newspaper it archives any earlier than that. So, yeah, sometimes The Globe and Mail is all I can actually use for old topics, but that doesn't mean there's a problem if I cite five different articles from it instead of just one.

And as for your question on my talk page while I was writing this, one of our rules for what constitutes a reliable source is that it represents independent coverage about the thing being claimed rather than the thing's own self-published content about itself — for example, a person becomes notable for holding a job because newspapers publish journalistic reportage about his work in that job, not just because he has a staff profile on his own employer's website or a résumé on LinkedIn. And another of our rules is that YouTube videos are never acceptable referencing for anything — for one thing, YouTube is not the rightful holder of the copyright on an Academy Award broadcast, and we are not allowed to link to copyright violations whether they've been already taken down by the host site or not. It's not "discriminatory", because there's no pressing reason why primary source video would even be necessary if more reliable independent sourcing exists.

And furthermore, one of the things you did was to remove legitimate and sourceable awards that should quite rightly be mentioned in the article, without giving any reason whatsoever for why you were doing that. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat directory entries are also not reliable or notability-supporting sources either. A notability-supporting reliable source contains prose content about the film. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Did you know that 97% of your 14,200+ edits have no edit summaries, and that only 431 do? This is really unacceptable and extremely discourteous to other editors who have to expend extra effort to determine what changes you've made. This came to light for me, trying to work out who the vandal is and what they were doing by making repeated edits at 13 Reasons Why where an IP editor, along with yourself, has equally failed to explain their edits. I note from this Talk Page that over the last few years you have been repeatedly asked to include them. Please will you do so, in future?

In case, like me, you're terribly forgetful, you can easily go to Special:Preferences and tick the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" in the "Editing" Tab so you don't forget next time you save your changes without explaining them. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Espngeek: Hey, I was just wondering why you keep removing the "People" subsection from the "Superlatives" section on the National Film Registry page? I only ask because I don't see the reasoning behind it, as its all superlatives of the people who have been inducted - like the youngest, most inducted, etc. Anyway, I thought I'd reach out before I changed it back again, because if I'm missing something, I'd really like to know so this doesn't keep happening. Thanks! Bradforce28 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give The Sight & Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2012 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. SITH (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks :) Espngeek (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Annecy International Animated Film Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CGI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could use the appropriate {{cite}} template when you add new references? We haven't done things that way in a decade, at least, and you'd save the rest of us the task of bringing your footnotes up to code. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Last American Hero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Recording Registry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 12 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 30 for 30, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Superdome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Animalympics. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Typically I'd just leave a note asking why you added a source that didn't support the information preceding it and didn't include an edit summary to explain your intentions, but you've been warned about this multiple times, and frankly as-is it almost appears that you're trying to promote the website you cited. Please stop making unexplained edits. DonIago (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it's officially released by Hen's Tooth Video, but thanks. Espngeek (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope I fixed it for you guys (better sources and all). Espngeek (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]