User talk:Agustinaldo

September 2007
While I appreciate you might be somewhat new to WP, your avrious edits to the Harry Potter characters can easily be seen as vandalism, which can get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please explain your edits in the edit summary, and if you are unsure as to how to proceed, please ask someone. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If noteworthy (and just bc it is spoofed in somethile like Epic Movie doesn't make it noteworthy), then it needs to be cited as to where someone reliable (a movie reviewer, etc.) had commented on it. You noting it isn't noteworthy. The reason why it appeared to be vandalism is that the same, uncited statememt was added to more than a few articles. If vandalism wasn't your intent, please accept my apologies. I hope I have addressed the problems with such statements. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  00:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

STOP adding unsourced or original content to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Most of your "spoofed by" edits are purley speculation on your part, which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. It's just more work for the rest of us to have to clean it up. If you continue doing this you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ward3001 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Agustinaldo, while we appreciate the effort you're putting in to your edits, you'll notice that the edits you've made over the last few days are being reverted for various reasons. You might want to reconsider if it's worth the time you're putting into it if your edits are all being undone. Cheers, faithless   (speak)  19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply
"I have actually SEEN "Shriek if You Know What I Did Last Friday the 13th", "Galaxy Quest" and "Not Another Teen Movie"."
 * That doesn't matter. It's your opinion that one thing spoofs another. I can see a thousand movies and have a thousand opinions about spoofing, but it violates Wikipedia policy for me to add it to an article because it's an opinion.

"Did you watch those movies? I think not, cause if you did, you would agree with me on this and not revertthe articles at your whim."
 * I have seen all of the movies. I did not revert on a "whim". I reverted because your edits violate Wikipedia policy.

"calling me a liar"
 * I did not call you a liar. I said that you violated Wikipedia policy.

"check the "movie connectionS" page on imdb."
 * IMDb's ideas about one movie spoofing another are one writer's opinions. They don't belong in Wikipedia articles.

Look, I'm not trying to call you a liar or trying to stop you from editing. I'm simply asking you to learn and abide by Wikipedia policies against adding unsourced statements, original content, and your own opinions to articles. And please note that I am not the only one reverting some of your edits. Several editors have done so, and several have left comments about your edits on this talk page. Ward3001 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the whole "spoof" thing: if you think it's really a matter of opinion, I give up. I promise I won't post any more spoof-related articles.

Edit Summaries
Please use edit summaries so other editors know what you're doing to an article. Thank you. ThuranX 11:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Amalgam characters
You're adding an awful lot of information on Amalgam characters without indicating the source of that material. Without sources, you could be making that stuff up. Cite the original sources. I looked up a couple of these. It looks like you're pulling information from some questionable online sources. Frankly, you've added so much stuff that unless you provide the original sources soon, we'll need to send a bot to undo every Amalgam-related edit you've ever made. Doczilla 17:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing that link. It's not the original source, though. You need to cite the original source (i.e., the specific Amalgam comic and issue) where each first appeared or was first mentioned. Some of those may have involved cases in which an Amalgam character name got mentioned and some reader inferred which characters had merged to form that Amalgam character. Including such speculation would be incorrect. Doczilla 17:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories
Please stop adding inappropriate categories to film articles. For example, a "Scary Movie" film does not belong in the catgory "War of the World films" or "Saw". The film "Treehouse of Horror X" does not belong to the catgory "I Know What You Did Last Summer series". It's really quite simple. "I Know What You Did Last Summer series" should only contain the film "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and its sequels, as well characters, soundtracks, etc. in each of those films. "War of the World films" should only contain films based on H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds. Look at the categories. You will not see any exceptions besides the ones you have added. Ward3001 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Enchanted
I've taken out your reference to "The Visitors" -- while aspects of what you report are true, there were several key facts which are inaccurate: The princess lives in a "fantasy" land, she's not medieval - hence, no time-travel. The characters all travel separately (and for different reasons) with the possible exception of the Prince and the chipmunk. Needs a serious edit before posting. Swango —Preceding comment was added at 00:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

X-Men
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ottoman and Powell composed their own themes for the sequels. Each X-Score is utterly unique. Alientraveller 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've not seen any of the Alien movies, so I can't comment on whether Horner reused Goldsmith's themes, but X-Men for sure never reused Kamen's themes. Alientraveller 13:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoofs

 * Hey there, Augustinaldo. Thanks for dropping me a line to ask about spoofs and the like. The key to almost all of your questions is citation. You are clearly intelligent and observant, and that's not me pissing on you and telling you its raining. You are polite, which has you being a lot better than roughly a third of the folk making their way onto Wikipedia.
 * That said, Wikipedia identifies information as fitting one of two categories, either primary or secondary knowledge. Primary knowledge is your impressions of a painting, or mine, or some other editor here. Secondary knowledge are the culled impressions of a lot of people, or by people who have managed to both write down what they think and get it published in a noteworthy publication (blogs or forums aren't noteworthy, btw, bc they are not reliable). Wikipedia uses secondary information exclusively for its articles. This protects Wikipedia from potential lawsuits if negative (and cited) information is added to an article (ie., Dumbledore is gay" is actually citable, as the author of the Harry Potter books recently revealed that, but calling the author gay without citation is not allowed). You saying that that something is spoofed in Scary Movie cannot be included, but finding someone else who has published a review of the movie who says "Scary Movie spoofs such-and-such movie" can be included, because it is not you'' or Wikipedia saying it, but someone else saying it. Wikpedia's content does not come from Wikipedia; it comes from people pulling together sources from outside Wikipedia to create something larger than the individual sources alone.
 * I hope that explains matters more clearly, but if not, please feel free to ask more about it or any other subject. We are all in this together. Btw, don't let rude or officious folk get you down. Some people are just rude and come here to blow off steam. keep editing because its fun for you, and you will be able to enjoy it. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please comment.
Your attention would be welcome at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics because the discussion going on there very much concerns you and your contributions to Wikipedia. You refrained from adding more Amalgam characters without propering sourcing, which is great. I appreciate your efforts and the cooperation you have shown since our previous exchange. However, someone else keeps adding unsourced Amalgam characters despite requests and warnings, thereby creating a problem that runs through hundreds of articles. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Doczilla 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OR
Please read the page No original research. You cannot make speculations or assumptions without citing reliable sources. You can't compare Michael Myers to Batman, because you're making that connection youself, thus making it original research. As for the canonicity of 4, 5, and 6, you must cite a reliable source where the producers confirm that, we can't just take your word for it. It doesn't matter anyway, because Michael still appeared in 4, 5, and 6, even if they don't follow the same continuity as H20 and Resurrection, so canonicity is irrelevant.  Paul    730  13:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * IMDb is not a reliable source because it's information is provided by users and cannot be verified. We don't know if the producers actually said that, or if some fan just inferred that.  Regardless, canonicity is irrelevant because Michael still appeared in those films.  Wikipedia does not exist to provide fans with a canon biography of what superpowers Michael has, it's an encyclopedia article on the character, and retcons or no retcons, Michael appeared in 4, 5, and 6.  I'm not trying to say that those films are canon, but we can't play favourites with what is canon and what isn't.  It still exists, whether it's in continuity or not.  That entire section that you're editing is unsourced anyway, so it'll all get deleted eventually. Oh, and don't shout at me in CAPITAL LETTERS, it's rude and doesn't help your case one bit.     Paul    730  13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to say that Michael is superhuman, what I'm trying to say is that we cannot dismiss three entire films from the article just because they were retconned from the fictional universe. As I said above, Wikipedia does not exist to create a database of Michael's fictional life and abilties.  Halloween 4, 5, and 6 are major big screen appearances by the character, so canon or not, they are just as relevant as H20 and Resurrection.  Look at the Jason Voorhees article.  Granted, that character's continuity isn't quite as fucked up as Michael's, but the article encompasses all of his appearances, including books, comics, games, even parodies in other series.  All the info on the character and his powers are sourced.  That's what we need the Michael article to be like.  If we want to comment on Michael's abilties, we need reliable sources discussing them.  We can't say "Oh, he broke that guy's face in whatever film so he must be superstrong" because that would be us making assumptions.  You say he isn't superhuman in the first film, well I would say differently (he gets shot six times).  It's subjective, so we need a reliable source confirming it.  John Carpenter has stated that he deliberately left it ambiguous as to whether Michael was superhuman or not to make it more frightening.  It's up to the audience.  That's why you saying that he's not superhuman in any way is original research - because it's your opinion about something which is not confirmed.  The Michael Myers article is being rewritten by User:Bignole (the guy who wrote the Jason article) so I'm sure we'll find sources for everything eventually.     Paul    730  13:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't read your full comment (you don't need to make a new title every time you leave a comment). I realise Wikipedia can be frustrating but please try to be polite to other editors.  Losing your head and shouting is not constructive - people aren't going to listen to you if you're throwing a hissy fit.  I'm not recklessly undoing your edits - I've explained my reasons in detail.  The second source you provided does not mentioned Michael as far as I can see, just something about Rambo.  Anyway, my above statement still stands in regards to canon and superman human abilties.  As for the Superman and Batman analogies, those powers should be mentioned.  The Bat-Shark-Thingy is mentioned at Batman and the time travel is mentioned at Powers and abilities of Superman.    Paul    730  14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not defending the current state of the Michael Myers article - it's terrible, hence the maintenence tags at the top of the page. I reverted you not because the information you deleted deserved to be there, but because your reasons for deleting it were invalid ("it's not canon").  As I said, Bignole is rewriting the page (he was the one who replaced the "Character history" section with the current "Appearances" section) so I'm sure it will all get rewritten and sourced eventually.  You say that "you need to have a better explanation than "the Curse of the Thorn did it".  Well, if the writers say that he's strong because of Thorn, then we have to accept that, we're not here to analyse the films.  However, I don't actually remember them saying that he's strong because of Thorn... did they even confirm he's super strong?  If we wanted to say he's super strong, we need a source.  The current article is unsourced - if you removed that info because it's unsourced then you would be right to do so.  The only reason I haven't bothered is because I know the page is being rewritten elsewhere.  The entire "Characteristics" section is original research - even if it's accurate.  If we found a source confirming that 4,5, & 6 are non-canon then we could mention that fact - but any information related to those films should still be included, we can't ignore them (and I realise that you said you don't want ignore them).  I think part of the reason for this misunderstanding is because you think I'm defending the current page.  Far from it.  Bignole's sandbox should give you an indication of the direction the article is moving in, although please don't edit it without his permission.     Paul    730  15:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Myers
Please participate in the discussion on the Michael Myers Talk page regarding the or exclusion of the content you have removed. --Black Butterfly 13:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 13:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Those Amalgam characters
Consensus at the WikiProject Comics talk page is to remove every "other versions" or "other media" mention of Amalgam merges which lack (a) publication information to confirm that the characters ever appeared in print at all and/or (b) sources to confirm the publishers' intentions regarding which specific characters were merged. No matter how obvious it seems, unless DC or Marvel explicitly stated which characters were merged or showed them merging/diverging, stating it as fact violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:CITE. I've gone through one person's additions and started working back through yours, but this is wearing me out. I've worked as far backward as some of your September 25 edits. Please help remove these entries, of which you inserted such a huge number. Doczilla (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. I refer to these edits which were reverted by another user. David Broadfoot (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. ''You have been asked before to use edit summaries to help others understand your edits. Can you please explain why you deleted (the properly cited) "Woody Allen" from the list of atheists?'' David Broadfoot (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dare The Terminator
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Dare The Terminator, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. -- Good Damon 17:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ''You are spamming that link all over Wikipedia. Please stop.'' -- Good Damon 18:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I noticed you're removing those links voluntarily, and I wanted to let you know I appreciate that. -- Good Damon 18:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundant categories
Please stop adding them. Category:Spider-Man films already is categorised under Category:Films based on Marvel comics. Alientraveller (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which in turn, is listed under Category:Superhero films. Alientraveller (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

dude. Go back and revert all of those category adds. ALL of the films you edited already had the right categories. You went and added th bigger categories the movies were already in subsections of. Look at X-men Last stand. It was in XMen Films, which is in Marvel Comics movies, which is in comic book movies and on and on. An article only needs to most specific subcategory, it automatically fits in and is put in all the others. Go revert yourself, because cleaning all that up can take a while, and it's not fair for others to clean up your mess, especially as you were warned about it already. ThuranX (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't place an article in both a category (e.g., Category:Films based on comics and a subcategory (Category:Films based on Marvel comics) of that same category, as you did on X-Men: The Last Stand‎ and a lot of other articles. You didn't help clean up your Amalgam additions when asked. Please clean up after yourself on this one. Doczilla (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Original Research/libelous statements
I notice that a lot of your edits are classed as original research. Original research is, to put it briefly, where an editor has believes something to be true and edits the article to state that this is true without citing any references to prove that it is true. A lot of the articles do suffer from this problem, and it isn't only you that edits in this manner. Most of the time these edits get ignored, or a citation tag gets added requesting that someone adds a source.

However, when you make edits like those you made to Dakota Fanning (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakota_Fanning&diff=prev&oldid=190608536), I believe it should be commented on. Imagine that your statement had been made by a journalist in a newspaper or on TV. This included accusing the director Deborah Kampmeier of being a criminal, along with police bribery. An unfounded accusation like that would have resulted in law suits for libel, not only from Deborah Kampmeier, but the film studio, the relevant police department and from Dakota Fanning's parents.

This is not a newspaper nor a television programme. However, making libellous statements like the ones you made could still have unfortunate results for yourself. At the very least, if you continue making edits like those, you may end up getting blocked, either temporarily or indefinitely. At the worst, you may even end up being sued for libel.

Please note that I am not trying to threaten you - I have no axe to grind, and am not in any way connected with Deborah Kampmeier, Dakota Fanning, the police, or any film studio. I am merely a Wikipedia user who (like you) would like to see articles improve. It pains me when I see good editors getting blocked for policy violation, and I would hate to see it happen to you. With that in mind, I would suggest first of all you read the Wikipedia policy on original research. If you have in the past, then I suggest you re-read it to remind yourself of its contents.

In the future, when you make edits, please ask yourself if the edits you are changing are actually fact, or just something you believe to be true. For example, a child might believe that Father Christmas exists, but it does not make Father Christmas exists. Or, (seeing your edits to Hounddog (film)) believing that Wikipedia protects criminals is not proof that they do.

If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tanya Grotter
I'm sorry, but I've reverted your edits to Tanya Grotter as original research. While I don't disagree, unless this comparison of TG with other parodies has explicitly been made in a published source, it's introducing your own theory on the topic - hence original research. As you've been advised above, I recommend reading the No original research policy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not original research. The author clearly stated that his work is supposed to be parody. This is backed by the Legal disputes over Harry Potter page.


 * And I was using examples to prove the point. Since when is against Wikipedia to use examples? Don't be so anal-retentive and demand research for EVERYTHING.


 * However, Wikipedia has a tricky past when it comes to parody. They are unable to tell what's a parody or what's not (for example, they stubbornly believe Epic Movie spoofs X-Men: The Last Stand when they actually spoof the entire film series as a whole), or wether it's "relevant" to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs) 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But the OR is that it's a novel synthesis: advancing a viewpoint at length by putting together a set of examples that have never previously been cited in relation to TG. It's not merely a nitpick, but well against two core policies, WP:V and WP:NOR. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research
Hi! I have been looking back over your edits you have been making over the last month. You do a lot of editing, and have made a huge effort to make improvements. However, nearly every single edit you have made has been reverted. The two main reasons for reversion is because of adding original research/unverified claims, and adding redundant categories.

If I were in your place, I'd be feeling rather depressed that all that hard work was going to waste. If you like, I'll help you. You have the potential to be a great Wikipedia Editor, but at the moment, your efforts are going to waste. You added a lot, for example, to Tanya Grotter, but the next editor removed it all. The arguments given for removal were completely justified. It was Original research. Please let me help you (or if not me, perhaps someone else - we are all here to help, after all)  StephenBuxton (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very much agreed. We're not out to get you. If it would help to discuss how the "original research" idea works, I'm also happy to talk it through. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comics Articles for Deletion
One or more articles you’ve been involved in editing (Melter, Ringer (comics), Ego the Living Planet, or others) has been nominated for deletion. If you feel you can make contributions to the article to improve it and make it worth keeping, please do so. BOZ (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits such as this are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Benji boi 16:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research
I've noticed that you are still posting a lot of original research/personal opinion into the Wikipedia articles, and the vast majority of them are being reverted. I said it before, and I'll say it again - you have the potential to be a really good editor here, but all your work is going to waste. The offer of assistance still stands: feel free to respond here or on my talk page. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information.  freshacconci  speak to me  15:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. --Allen3 talk 14:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. --EEMIV (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. NrDg 15:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Vandalizing", huh? That's the pot calling the kettle black, since you edited my TRUTHFUL additions to the What You Waiting For? article out of sheer anger at this. Using an article to take revenge on an user for an entire different article IS vandalizing. And assuming all recent edits of an user are wrong just because of ONE page is ALSO wrong.

I'm reporting you AND editing back the What You Waiting For? page.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''It's quite obvious that you do not understand our original research policy, despite multiple blocks and warnings. Do not add your opinion or evaluation to a featured article again. '' — Realist  2  14:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to not understand the concept of what original research is and why it is prohibited by policy in Wikipedia. Please carefully read the article WP:OR. Wikipedia is NOT a publication of original thought of editors. We create articles from careful selection of information from reliable sources. Whether or not your evaluations are correct is not really relevant. Also, since my motivations for editing your contributions is being called into question, generally I have found that people have certain patterns when editing. If a mistake is made in one article, it is likely that similar errors will be made in others. I usually go over edit histories checking for that. This is not being done for for purposes of "revenge". You are, of course, within your rights to report me. It is generally more productive, however, to just ask me for my reasons. --NrDg 16:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The most reliable source is the material itself, rather than any article.

Therefore, I'm not gonna back fdown until I hear this from someone who watched the music video and read the book.

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

February 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thedarxide (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my edits are disruptive. That wasn't my intention, at all. I swear I will stop and think about what I'm writing before editing Wikipedia.

Toontown
Agustinaldo, I was just wondering, remember your entry edits to the list of residents section of the Toontown article? The list is no longer there due to the fact that it was useless, but were all the character entries you put into the list seen in the "Roger Rabbit" movie? Or were they just put in there for fun? Also, on the Peter Lorre article, you stated that the Looney Tunes' mad scientist character based off of him can also be seen in the film. Is this true, and, if so, when and where does the character appear? I'm just wondering.-Endor chicken


 * That's handy, thanks. But you left out a few characters. The past lists also mention Faline from Bambi and the Martain Brothers from Hillbilly Hare as well. I think you forgot those.-Endor chicken

Re:Evanescence edits
Please see Evanescence before making edits to the genre. Thanks --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  21:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I dont care. I was giving you a polite heads up because the "consensus" (sad, i know) came to the conclusion it came to at the page i pointed you in the direction of. Every time you change the genre from one thing to another it will get changed back however your views will be taken into consideration on the talk page. Also eventually it will cross from innocent genre changing to disruptive so i implore you not to change it again, regardless of personal feelings about the band --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  21:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Actores de doblaje
He visto que estas agregando algunos datos falsos como el doblaje de "Camp Rock 2", "Harry Potter 7", "Tron Legacy", además de poner en el artículo de Salvador Delgado que participó en las 3 películas de High School Musical (cuando es imposible ya que tuvo doblaje argentino, y claramente no es él), y borrar la participación de Liliana Barba en Spider-man 3 (en reemplazo de Claudia Motta). Agradeceria que dejes de agregar datos si corroborar o datos falsos.Clau444 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)