User talk:Ribbet32

User talk:Ribbet32/Archive User talk:Ribbet32/Archive 2 User talk:Ribbet32/Archive 3

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hour of the Wolf you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DAP388 -- DAP388 (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hour of the Wolf you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hour of the Wolf for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DAP388 -- DAP388 (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hour of the Wolf you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hour of the Wolf for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DAP388 -- DAP388 (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah excuse me Ribbet32 i had reason why add my plot on the page because no one add page so the plot that movie had released and suppose to add now the plot i had you not responsible to remove my add plot in the page and i responsible to add my page ha i search to imdb that not copyright that plot HA I DID NOT CLEAR TO PUT REMOVE THAT I MEAN AND I WILL PUT IT BACK MY EDITING IN TO PLOT HA I WILL ADD REFERENCE. OK YOU SON OF A BITCH FU** YOU 😠😠🤬🤬 Cjsorima10 (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eighth Grade (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Eighth Grade (film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Eighth Grade (film) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does Fanny and Alexander not being an American film, have to do with posting a film release date in the article infobox? Release dates apply to nations where the films are released and have nothing to do with the origin of the movie... Fanny and Alexander was released in the U.S. And since the largest audience of the English-speaking Wikipedia is the U.S., the release date for the film ought to be included, not to mention that most of the film's revenues probably came from the United States, which on both accounts would make it a notable release date. The United States was at the time a larger film market relative to the film markets in the rest of the world, than it is now. That is why Bergmann used to release movies to television, because no one in Sweden went to the cinema... So what is with the bullying? Regardless of what you may think, Wikipedia is a public forum, and you do not own the article. It is not yours to possess...Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Eighth Grade (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eighth Grade (film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here you reverted my edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Contender_(2000_film)&diff=next&oldid=914664151

You say the "controversy" which was referred to, and which reference I deleted, was "well documented":

You say: The Oldman controversy was well documented and needs to be summarized per WP:LEAD

I checked the reference. It's not. It was clear that the author of the article inferred this all by caveat. You can check the reference for yourself and see what I mean. It was not a quote from Oldman, it was an interpretation of an off hand remark that could be taken many different ways. That's hardly "well documented."

In any case the major issue in the sentence, the words saying:

→"The film serves as a response to the Lewinsky scandal involving President Bill Clinton"

are not even close to being accurate. When I reviewed the movie, there is nothing similar in the plot to relate it to the real life events in the Clinton Whitehouse.

The character depicting the president does not have an affair with an intern, and while the press does criticize the President in this movie, that is generally true of any president.

It would be tantamount to saying that any movie that has a president characterized in it, who's criticized by the press is a response to the events in the Clinton Whitehouse. It's really a stretch.

If any parallels can be drawn (but would be "original research" to do so) it would be the Chappaquiddick incident that happened with Senator Kennedy when his car went off a bridge.

Hope this helps and please do not start an edit war over something so minor. בס״ד 69.112.128.69 (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it has been a few months, but you posted a message on my talk page. You might (or might not) remember that I posted "six messages" on your user talk page? I apologize, but where else did I post? This topic was the only one that I know of, and I know that I only was concerned about this one thing. Is there a mistake? If there are five other messages, please let me have a link. Sorry for any confusion. 69.112.128.69 (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC) בס״ד[reply]

Hey, Ribbet32. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! PATH SLOPU 11:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not sure why you’ve reverted my edits without so much as a sentence of constructive explanation.

1. A general plot summary of the film would summarize the numerous hallucinations and delusions the character experiences throughout, not one specific detail which only appears in the film's final ten minutes (but which your sentence misleadingly implies happens throughout). I don’t see the value of emphasizing this one detail over, say, her incestual act, or her hearing of voices in the wall, or her visions of her husband. It’s entirely arbitrary.
2. Why have you separated the mention of one theme—"God is love"—from the sentence that discusses the rest of the film's themes? And why include this but not the influence of Bergman's wife and their relationship, which he speaks about just as often? Especially given that he explicitly denounced the seriousness of the film's treatment of this theme later on?

gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you’ve responded on an entirely different page, but I don’t anticipate we'll be seeing any consensus quickly built on the talk page of a relatively sleepy article, so: I haven’t suggested the spider-god is not notable... there is simply no reason to emphasize it in the context of a general plot summary—perhaps a thematic summary, given its symbolic importance, but it does not reflect or summarize the majority of the plot. Additionally, I did not remove mention of the "God is love" theme in my final edit but simply included it alongside the others, as it does not strike me as taking precedence over, say, the film's exploration of mental illness and deterioration (even Bergman retroactively states that this was his true interest in making the film). And sorry, just about every general piece of writing I’ve encountered about Bergman in relation to Fårö feels it necessary to describe what it is, including including UK sources—the idea that it’s equivalent to Manhattan in the broad cultural imagination is somewhat silly. There are three notifications because I made edits to my comment, I do hope you’ll forgive me. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've copied the relevant portions of this discussion to the Through a Glass Darkly (film) talk page, hopefully we can clear this up. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:46, 10 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ribbet32, I have been working on a revision draft (now the main draft since the original article was deleted) for the Black Christmas antagonist Billy for some time now. I like the work you did on the article for the 2006 remake and was wondering if you want to collaborate with me on it. I need more information for the "Men Behind the Killer" sub-section and "Legacy" section since they are both a bit underdeveloped in my opinion. I found a video interview you could help me look over for possible information and if you find any more non-video sources that I have missed feel free to let me know. Just let me know on my talk page as a heads up on whether or not you are interested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: User:Drown Soda did the work at the 2006 remake, I suggest asking him/her Ribbet32 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an actual reason why the Canadian Screen Award for Best Screenplay was done as one article instead of splitting it up into separate articles for Original and Adapted Screenplays.

Most importantly, there's no case at all for spinning out a separate article only for the original screenplay category, while leaving the adapted screenplays inside the merged-category list. If separate articles are desired, then there have to be three articles (one for the original, one for the adapted, and one for the merged category), not just two. We cannot split one of the more specific categories out as its own article, while leaving the other one embedded inside the generic category's article — either original and adapted both get split out as separate articles or neither do, because it's an WP:NPOV violation to decide that one category is more important and more worthy of a standalone article than the other.

So the fundamental reason that I opted for one article instead of three is because there's no value in making the reader bounce back and forth willy-nilly between three separate articles. It breaks context, because separate articles mean that there's now no way to see any list that goes year-over-year directly from My American Cousin as the winner in 1986 to The Decline of the American Empire as the winner in 1987 to Night Zoo as winner in 1988. Instead, the reader now has to bounce back and forth between two different articles to figure out that succession — and if we actually had the three articles that are necessary, then Dancing in the Dark would also be subject to the same problem.

And on top of that, the current pandemic has more or less shut down all film production and distribution for the foreseeable future, and nobody knows when things are going to get back to normal (TIFF will even have to be cancelled if this doesn't end soon!) — so there is a very high possibility that the categories will have to be collapsed again at next year's awards for the first time since 2001, simply because there aren't enough eligible submissions in one or both categories. And that will break context for the reader again, because there will be no way to list next year's winner directly alongside either of this year's winners.

If there had been a consistent break point, then we could have handled it differently — for example, if the CFAs had always presented just one screenplay category, and then the CFA to Genie transition had been marked by the introduction of separate original and adapted categories that had been consistently presented as separate awards after that, then we would have done three articles because the breakpoint was a clean one. But in reality, the CFA and Genie eras bounced back and forth like a ping pong ball between the two models, so it's not helpful to the reader to break them up into three separate articles.

I'm not going to revert you arbitrarily, but I am going to initiate an WP:RFC for outside opinions on whether splitting the article up is justified or not. But even if consensus does favour separate articles, it has to be three, not two. Bearcat (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've got all of the Jutra/Iris ceremonies by year done, I've been actively working on getting the category articles into place — as you may have noticed, I got six of them finished just this past week alone, and the other ones are all going to be finished within the next couple of weeks. But it's not productive or useful for me to have to repeatedly go back to every film every three days to add a link only to the specific category I've just finished — for example, it's not reasonable to expect me to edit Antigone to add only a link to the Screenplay article, and then have to go back to it again 24 or 48 hours later to add only a link to the Revelation category, and then have to go back to it again another two days later to link only the Editing category, and then yet again another two days later to link only the Casting category, and then again another two days after that to link only the Music category — the moment I've got the project actively underway, I'm entitled to minimize my workload by smashing through all the new links in one edit so that I don't actually to go back to the same article twice.

So could you please just leave the redlinks alone in articles where I've added links to one or more Prix Iris categories whose articles aren't finished yet, given that they're coming? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave msgs w/o a SUBJECT - aka - which article? I'm a former admin and seasoned editor (since 2005) and I don't make "frivolous" changes - if I removed a tag, it's going to be removed! 50.111.5.65 (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about...go f yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.32.73.78 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mindless reversions to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-Life_Alberta_Political_Association

You keep reverting back to your version of the page - mindlessly so. Two things: Your reversion changes the terms of how the organisation describes itself so your reversion presents out-of-date information (see: comparisonProlife Alberta ) Secondly, your reversion removes relevant and attributable No other pro-life organisation in Canada can issue Tax-credits AND engage in political activity. This is due to Prolife Alberta's unique status as a registered political association with Elections Alberta. So please, refrain from making mindless reversions. Thanks, Ray

On 14 September 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aline Chrétien, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you replaced the ending into the opening paragraph of the article. No other Wes Anderson film's page or any other film's page from what I've seen contains the ending in the opening paragraph. Is there something unique about this particular film that requires the ending to be revealed in the introductory paragraph? Incerto501 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read that article already, but what I'm asking is what specifically makes The Royal Tenenbaums unique, requiring it to be the only movie on Wikipedia (as far as I can see anyway) to have the ending in the opening paragraph. For example, why isn't the ending of The Grand Budapest Hotel in the opening paragraph? Or why isn't there a notation that Darth Vader is Luke's father in the opening paragraph of The Empire Strikes Back? Incerto501 (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but Darth Vader is a character, not a film - like The Royal Tenenbaums. If Royal Tenenbaum, a character played by Gene Hackman, had his own page, then I could see why his character arc would be included in the page's opening paragraph. It seems silly to quibble over one sentence, but I'm just wondering if there's some sort of universal manual of style for movies. If there isn't, there should be one so these issues don't come up. I've asked twice now if there's a particular reason why The Royal Tenenbaums is the only film on Wikipedia that has its ending revealed in the opening paragraph and I haven't gotten an answer yet. How do we resolve this? Can we take a vote among some kind of committee? Incerto501 (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ribbet32. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan☺️ Talk to the monster 07:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ribbet32,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you made a number of reversions that aren't related to Fisher's pronouns, such as edits that I thought were productive like the linking of Christopher Storer and minor copyedits. Is there a reason for this? Can I restore the non-pronoun related changes you undid? — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilorv, go ahead. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, done. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CAPTAIN RAJU Ribbet32 (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for clearing up my error on the C.R.A.Z.Y. page. In my edit, I only intended to add the film to the Category:LGBT-related coming-of-age films, and was not aware that I accidentally caused some typos in the body of the article while making the edit. Spectrallights (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ribbet32. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see you recently reverted my edit to The Virgin Spring with the summary "rv genre removal due to POV". I still think this film should not be treated as being a part of that genre (which is a pretty narrow niche as genres go - not a broad genre like "western film" or even "spaghetti western"). I think it's fine to mention its influence on the genre in the lead (which the article currently does not do) but I don't think there are many sources that would consider this film itself as belonging to said genre. Even looking at the article on that genre, this film doesn't fit the definition. KFP (contact - edits) 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently participated in the Charles III requested move discussion, I thought you might like to know that there are two other discussions currently going on about other British monarch article titles here and here. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Richard Comeau has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not appear notable.

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. Avishai11 (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you like Canadian cinema so let me know if you want to review Terror Train for GA!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Ribbet32! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]