User talk:Chompy Ace/Archives/2021

Don't remove citations
Please don't remove citations or changed sourced content. See Template:Infobox film for sourcing instructions on production companies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I might just continue to ask this until I get an answer or figure out what's going on
Your edit summaries have started to include unrelated links again, and sometimes they aren't entirely clear as to what they mean, either. Could you please explain why that's occurring? (Of note, I skimmed your recent edits just to see if this is happening somewhere other than RBTI and for some reason this edit to an unrelated page with an edit summary I don't understand links to a diff where I performed something resembling a partial revert of you on RBTI? That's weird and actually making me slightly uncomfortable without any context, like you've targeted me for some reason.) Could you please provide context on why this occurs? I know last time I didn't get a response and you manually archived the thread in short order, and that other similarly-confused people have asked you about it to no reply, but I thought I'd give the question another try in the hopes of getting some sort of explanation because it's so thoroughly confusing that the first time I saw it back in December I assumed it was a detection-evading form of disruptive editing. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ...Hrm, actually, ruminating on it some more: I think these weird links, particularly with no context or clear reason for their inclusion... just are disruptive. Even now. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries. Again.
Why are you wiki-linking to outside sources and to other locations within WP in your edit summaries like here? Shearonink (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Rescuing sources
Hello – when we were working on the Can You Hear Me? article yesterday (thanks for the help on getting it promoted to GA btw), I noticed you "rescued" and archived sources by what I believe to be some form of bot (on this diff). Can you direct me to the page where I can do this? I did the other source archives manually yesterday and it took a while, and using that tool would be soooo much easier, especially as I plan to expand the amount of GAs I create. Thank you! – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 21:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Link for a tool Chompy Ace 21:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! —  The Only Zac  (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Star Wars: The Last Jedi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Tokyo Metro
Tokyo Metro's new socks.. Are there any other accounts of with the same ip and device? . --120.188.84.134 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Tokyo Metro
Tokyo Metro's new socks.. Are there any other accounts of with the same ip and device? . --120.188.86.56 (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:KAI Properti and User:KAI Bandara included. Also, I have reverted the edits of the user, then reported at WP:SPI. Chompy Ace 09:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tokyo Metro
, welcome back. Come on. Hh. Give up when?. --120.188.87.246 (talk) 11:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Just reported this account to WP:SPI. Chompy Ace 13:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

stay carefully. --120.188.80.136 (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Dunces and Dragons
Hey, Chompy Ace, how's it been? I wanted to ask you for a quick favor. I opened a GA-nomination for Dunces and Dragons a few days ago, and the reviewer says they want a second opinion in 3 days, or they're going to fail the article. Now, I think the page is already at GA-level, but I was just wondering if you could maybe give the second opinion that the reviewer is looking for. You don't have to, but it would be greatly appreciated. Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk? 14:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the second opinion. Chompy Ace 23:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Star Wars: The Last Jedi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matthew Wood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It's True about the plot for Hotel Transylvania 4, look and read at this Link?
https://studybreaks.com/tvfilm/top-family-movies-2021/

What’s better than a hotel filled with monsters of all shapes and sizes? You’ll be pressed to find an answer in the lovable fourth installment of the “Hotel Transylvania” series, which follows Count Dracula and his adventures with his monster friends and family. This movie leads Dracula and his motley crew to outer space in the wake of an alien invasion. The planned release of “Hotel Transylvania 4” is on Aug. 6.

You Know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:264A:2900:A447:BC9:8110:1C83 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Just reverted the edits. Chompy Ace 02:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Tokyo Metro
, train model name.--114.5.245.238 (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reported this user to WP:SPI. Chompy Ace 06:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Reassessment of GA-status for 1917 (2019 film)
1917 (2019 film), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Sprachraum (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! TheHotwiki (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ralph Breaks the Internet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Samurai Jack
Hey, here I am again asking for a favor. Wanted to ask if you were interested in addressing my suggestions at Talk:Samurai Jack/GA1. I put the article on hold a few days ago, and I don't want to fail the article simply because the nominator went on break for a few days. That's why I came to you so I could ask if you could address those small yet crucial issues stopping the article from reaching GA-status. Like with most of your work, it would be greatly appreciated.  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you decide to do so, also take a look at Talk:Morgan Freeman/GA2. Again, your choice.  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Justice League (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Chompy Ace 06:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Copyvio?
Hi. Why do you think this is a WP:Copyvio? We're allowed to include such quotes. Please see WP:Blockquote. Right now, your removal has left that area incomplete. He was asked, okay. But then what? That's what readers will wonder. 107.77.233.198 (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Possible violation is above 40-50%. Chompy Ace 02:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back
It's been a while. Cheers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

NAC at RfPP?
[Bot archived just as I was typing this:] I've protected over 6,000 pages, most by way of this board, and throughout all these years, I have never seen a NAC close a request [t]here. Just thought it was worth noting. El_C 12:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Chompy Ace 12:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Warning
Why are you overwhelming the revision history of Star Wars: The Last Jedi? You need to stop and not repeat this practice in any other page. I'm puzzled, truly. El_C 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that that series of edits may be indicative of a compromised account, so I have blocked this account out of an abundance of caution (until what's what is determined). El_C 17:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears Chompy Ace was moving various references by using two edits for each one. Don't know why, but I'll finish what they started while they're blocked.  Some Dude From North Carolina  (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds plausible, but this level of revision history flooding is so beyond the pale, I just can't risk it yet. Needless to say, please do not flood the revision history as well, Some Dude From North Carolina. El_C 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * I don't think it's compromised; I think you did something that set off red flags but was an understandable attempt to do something not incorrect, but unnecessary. If I were starting an article from scratch, I might consider the WP:LDR approach (which I didn't know about until you mentioned it.) But retroactively converting an article into this format -- especially one with this many references -- is WP:BOLD as hell, and probably not a good idea. And it's definitely not a good idea to do it en masse with no comments and no explanation of what you're doing other than in on edit summary. I am inclined to unblock; convince me. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will never fluff any edit in one article and I will use consensus to have the pages the WP:LDR. This account is not compromised. Chompy Ace 21:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "fluff" here. If you mean WP:FLUFF, you're not blocked for that. Also, do you see how your 250 consecutive uncommented edits to that page caused concern? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes (as in the case of The Last Jedi; (Special:Diff/1017944854, which I undid in a manner of the MCU articles format, used to prevent clutter and easier maintenance)), most of them, but sometimes no (Example is the articles relating to Marvel Cinematic Universe do always with LDRs as already placed in a longer time to have MCU articles easier maintenance). I will avoid that unless having consensus to use LDR format. Use list-defined references linked 1,400+ mainspace articles but others (6,000,000+ mainspace articles) did not. Chompy Ace 22:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Show preview
In a space of only 10 minutes, you made seven different edits to Loveless (film). These are difficult to sort through. Please review the Help:Show preview function. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Chompy Ace 22:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Ikaw ang Liwanag at Ligaya: The 2020 ABS-CBN Christmas Special for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ikaw ang Liwanag at Ligaya: The 2020 ABS-CBN Christmas Special 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/Ikaw ang Liwanag at Ligaya: The 2020 ABS-CBN Christmas Special 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. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Thank you for making those ref edits. I have questions. Should we ideally replace subscription services? I don't have subscriptions go those services yet I was able to access them. I think they give a limited number of free articles per month. Also, is there a way to note that and if that's the case do we still say subscription required? Also should we ideally replace "limited access" refs? I'm not entirely sure what that means. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Some film articles have limited access refs, including Inside Out, Crawl, Kidnap, and Bad Times at the El Royale, as examples. Vulture, The New York Times, South China Morning Post, Adweek, Esquire, Rolling Stone, The Wall Street Journal, Time, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Los Angeles Daily News, The New Yorker, GQ (including its British version), Wired (including its British version), The Times (including its Sunday edition), Screen Daily, Ad Age, New York, Chicago Sun-Times, Bloomberg L.P. (including its news and Businessweek magazine), The Daily Telegraph, Chicago Tribune, Quartz, Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Chronicle are the examples of websites have limited/subscription access per WP:PAYWALL. This was established in the GA review of Tomorrowland (film), and eventually the review of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Chompy Ace 01:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info. The link to WP:PAYWALL was very helpful. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Mistake.
I received your message as I've deleted some details. Actually I'm new to here and if I have deleted valuable information, definitely it's a mistake. Fortunately you mentioned it has restored. Thanks SandunK04 (talk) 11:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frozen II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Soul (2020 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critics' Choice Award.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Frozen II
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Multiple refs
Hi Chompy, do you know how I can combine the multi refs in the Modern Reception section of Empire? I know you can do it with one off refs but if I try it with existing refs it makes them appear as unused and breaks the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Darkwarriorblake, you mean ref bundle? See the source code for example ref 102 or 109/ Wingwatchers (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I realizes what the real problem is. Sorry, not helpful. Take that back. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It's technically not possible as far as I know, just try to repeat the template in plain form instead of reuse. Wingwatchers (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

'Further reading' sections
Hi, I see that you deleted some 'Further reading' sections from movie articles, with the justification that they are not used anywhere in the article. However, that is exactly the point of the section, per Further reading. Some cleanup is probably called for, but for example I think all the items removed here are worth keeping. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 16:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just referring that in Talk:The Empire Strikes Back/GA1 told them that removing this section as they are not "used anywhere within the article, then I see no point in listing these entries here." Chompy Ace 22:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you comment on this? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 22:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When not cited anywhere in the prose, such works serve no useful purpose. We should link to pieces attributed within the article so readers know where its content comes from. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't that exactly what 'Further reading' is according to Further reading? Is this Wikipedia policy or your personal preference? –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 23:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS is a guideline, in this case "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." A "personal preference" is meant for The Empire Strikes Back GA. As MOS:FURTHER uses as a provenance of the "Further reading" section, these should normally not be duplicated in "See also", "References", or "External links" sections; or References section must be long enough as is the case in some featured film articles, in particular the upcoming The Empire Strikes Back, Die Hard, and Raiders of the Lost Ark; otherwise use consensus in articles' talk pages, in which users can discuss improvements. Chompy Ace 23:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

What does Template:Cbignore do?
Hi Chompy, I'm the creator of RT data and I noticed you using Cbignore. What does do exactly? The documentation isn't very specific. I have a bot proposal going on to use and  could be included in citations if needed. Just not sure what it does. Winston (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "It is a flag that informs participating bots not to fix a dead link or to otherwise leave a citation alone for whatever reason. For example if the bot is making alterations to the reference that it shouldn't make. This template is used to prevent adding archive links such as aggerators Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic; these are fluid (changed anytime especially the media after their release) and not stable. That practice is usually used for Marvel Cinematic Universe media (example: Avengers: Infinity War, Avengers: Endgame, and Black Panther (film)). Chompy Ace 01:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But, for example, the ref in Infinity War is . It doesn't contain a link. Does Cbignore have an effect? Winston (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes within the English Wikipedia for website-specific citation templates (and Cite web), especially archive urls; and no for, in which that website where bots (and users) are editing such statements. Chompy Ace 06:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Star Wars: The Force Awakens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Whyte.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Question on revert
Why was this edit reinstated given the actor was not a significant part of the film? Critical praise should include a citing that shows a consensus amount critics that praise a particular actors performance but I see none in this case. Clarification would be great. 125.237.253.90 (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this edit was reverted and may cause edit warring. Please discuss changes at Talk:Groundhog Day (film). Chompy Ace 12:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)