User talk:Wikicontributor12

Hi Wikicontributor12! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Welcome to Wikipedia from Twitter! dogman15 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your information could be useful. However, I couldn't find an appropriate section for it. You can transfer the information to the characters' pages, like Anna.Forbidden User (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Wikicontributor12. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 03:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my mistake about the post-credits scene; I couldn't really tell what kind of bug it was. I'm not entirely sure that it's a fly, either, but you're right that it's definitely not a beetle. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You're welcome. By the way, I apologize if I sounded harsh in my edit summary. Part of me was thinking that it might have been vandalism, (I have had to clean up a lot of nonsense edits on various articles lately.) Also, you may be right about it not being a fly, I'll have to find some screen shots and double see if I can be more specific.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Penn Zero: Part-Time Hero has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Dcbanners (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Anna (Disney) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicontributor12, there is no ban on summary statements in film articles. Some WP:Film editors are for them, especially if they are WP:Reliably sourced, and other WP:Film editors are against them; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 52#Summary statement for "Reception" section. In some cases where you are removing these statements from film articles, editors might have reached WP:Consensus on the matter at the talk pages of those articles; I've been involved with a number of film articles where this is the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, whether we include a summary statement in the critical reception section or not, it's usually best to summarize the film's reception in the lead, per WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message. I'll keep that in mind. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, Wikicontributor12. The 2015 Fantastic Four film did not simply underperform; it bombed, as is clear by the sources. So I re-linked "box office bomb" under "underperformed" as a WP:Pipelink. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thank you for letting me know.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's always Disneyland Park, never Disneyland park. The entire phrase operates as a proper noun, or more correctly, a proper name, and hence both words are capitalized. See Noun phrase. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of all that. That's not the point. I never said that I objected to the edit. Grammatical typos happen. Like I said, still no reason to call it "weird". It come across as judgemental. That is all. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although there would have been no great harm to Wikipedia had that ep counter on The Lion Guard been one number too high for a few hours, things like TV schedule changes are one of the reasons for WP:NOTTVGUIDE and, more generally, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Thank you for understanding. Jeh (talk) 02:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Thank you for the message.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've noticed you've taken out the quick review summary line that is part of most film's "Critical Response" sections multiple times with the edit summary, "We do not need to summarize in this section. Let the sources speak for themselves." When you say "we", who are you talking about, exactly? It's long-standing practice to offer a quick summation of whether a film has received positive, negative, or mixed reviews, unless one of those descriptions is a matter of contention. It does seem like a unilateral decision to just delete that sentence or phrase from pages without a consensus being established first. Rockypedia (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to this discussion. I am well aware that if a consensus has been been reached on the respective talk page, then it shouldn't be touched. I usually check a film's talk page before I attempt to remove the sentence. And in many cases I have left the summary intact if I see that it has been brought up on its talk page. But sometimes I've noticed that the critical response summaries can be one's own personal interpretation, which I know is something that most editors want to avoid, especially when it is not black and white. On that note; Yes, I admit that I jumped the gun with Cell. I have generally found that many editors have adopted the "let the sources speak for themselves" approach, and it is often the safest approach, as I know that one of most important things for Wikipedia is to keep the tone neutral. That is why I often use the word "we", since I know that it is frowned upon for one to interpret something on their own. (Similar to one giving their own personal interpretation of a quote. The quote should just speak for itself.) Have I been overeager? Most likely, and I apologize for that. I am often quick to make sure that articles are as neutral as they can be, since there are a lot articles on Wikipedia that don't get as much attention (film or otherwise) that are absolutely horrid when it comes to neutrality. I will have to watch myself in the future. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion, but it certainly seems like a mess to me on first read, and maybe I need to re-read it, but I don't see that any particular consensus was reached, and even if it was, it's not like any points made there have been adopted as a Wikipedia guideline. I do try to stay away from summarizing reviews when they're mixed (I think "mixed reviews" is a statement fraught with WP:OR) but I also think that when it's clear that most critics have gone one way or another, it's reasonable to state a movie was received overwhelmingly negatively or positively. Cell is obviously a great example, given that 9 reviewers didn't just pan the movie, they absolutely pasted it, and if a movie has over 90% positive reviews and/or makes a bunch of critics' "Top 10" lists or something similar, it's safe to call the critical response "positive." I would only take that position in clear-cut cases, obviously, but I also don't think there's a need for anyone to run around removing review summary statements from every single film's page. I'd save that for when there's an obvious mistake - like a film getting 40% positive reviews being called "received negatively" - yeah, that kind of thing I'd remove myself. But mostly I just leave what's already there if it makes sense. It's a useful statement to have and it's been added to pages for far longer than I've been editing, which is like 7 years now or something. Rockypedia (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. It is certainty true that critical summaries are necessary for many film pages. Like you said, it is best to stay away from summarizing when critics are mixed, because then there is room for error. I think those cases were the ones that I was initially concerned about. Thanks for offering your thoughts on the matter.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikicontributor12. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, wikiacontributor12, can u please update the Rogue One page by updating it's runtime to 134 minutes long as this link from the BBFC recently confirmed: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/rogue-one-star-wars-story-2016-0? Please reply. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.77.225 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you just update the page yourself though? Wikicontributor12 (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the Lion King articles, I think it would be helpful to not use the term "midquel," since it's not very well known and therefore might be confusing to the average reader. Trivialist (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have a fair point there. Though I think that to say The Lion Guard "takes place within the time covered by the 1998 sequel, The Lion King II: Simba's Pride." is not an accurate statement. It makes it sound as if the series takes place during the events the movie, when it really doesn't. The time-gap in which the series takes place is not "covered" during the film. Perhaps it would be good to actually say that it takes place during the time-gap within the film. Just a thought. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey friend, just wanted to apologize for reverting you. Misread the change you made! Sorry, my bad. Xilech137 (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's alright, these things happen. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you work on Plot of Surf's Up 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YamiYugi (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have not seen the film, so I am unfamiliar with the plot. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikicontributor12. 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'd like to inform you that you did absolutely nothing wrong and I apologize for my actions. I read the edit wrong and i thought you made an unconstitutional edit that needed to be reverted.

Thank you for your time and I once apologize for the misconception and confusion and I hope you continue to make Wikipedia a better place.Marth The Hero King (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Marth the Hero King[reply]

Hi there. Thank you for your apology, I really appreciate it, and no worries, we all make mistakes. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why Walt Disney Animation Studios has franchises? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.77.120.238 (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you were trying to do, but I just didn't think that most of what was listed qualified. For example, I don't think that Fantasia or Lady and the Tramp were ever considered franchises; a film getting one sequel more than a decade later does not really qualify as a franchise. However, I do think that a franchise section could work, just perhaps not with as many entries. You should bring it up on the Disney Animation talk page. Wikicontributor12 (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikicontributor12. 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]

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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]