User talk:Depauldem

July 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Ckatz chat spy  23:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, again, do *not* keep restoring the link to your site. Per the external links guidleine, it is not considered an appropriate link at this time - and you have a definite conflict of interest in adding it. Furthermore, you are in danger of violating the rules against edit warring in your insistence on restoring the link, despite objections raised against it.
 * To be honest, that's a fair bit of wiki-speak, and as you are new to the site it may well seem a bit overwhelming. However, keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia project, not a directory service. Your site's quality does not automatically earn it a spot in the external links section, and the presence of other less-than-optimal links does not mean we can add more. If you have material to contribute, you would find a much better reception if you discuss it on the talk page rather than repeatedly restoring your personal site. --Ckatz chat spy  09:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention this earlier, but keep in mind that your previous report has already been referenced in the article, and quite extensively at that. Given that you were the one using yourself as a reference, that is also a problem. Look, none of this means that you cannot contribute. However, it does require that you use extra discretion in doing so, that you openly declare your COI, and that you discuss your proposed changes rather than just making them. Please ask if you have more questions about this; I certainly don't want to discourage you from contributing, but at the same time we need to resolve these issues sooner rather than later. --Ckatz chat spy  10:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

March 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Star Wars: The Force Awakens, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   17:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   17:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Star Wars: The Force Awakens, you may be blocked from editing.  General Ization  Talk   17:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  General Ization  Talk   17:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

How on earth are the official audited financial statements of the actual production company, hosted on the the UK government filings site anything other than the word of God on this matter?? What's more, the contents of those filings were published in an article on Politico. You are refuting the literal company filings. I am only engaging in an "edit war" because I am right. Can you prove me wrong????

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This edit of yours is still not okay, and I suggest you self-revert to the consensus version. I won't because I am aware of the three-revert rule and do not want to engage in an edit war, any further than I already have. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe I am under fire for using the truth. I have pointed to the actual government website where the audited financial statements are and also a Politico article that reports on those documents. How is an unsupported link to BoxOfficeMojo, which is a blog, a better source????? I am sure they would correct their listing based on the article and the actual filings.
 * Engage the other editors in talk page discussion. That's all I can tell you right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Understood. And I apologize if I came across as hostile. I just left a note in the talk page for it.

Reference errors on 31 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=712940614 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F712940614%7CPirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales%5D%5D Ask for help])

April 2016
Your recent editing history at Avengers: Age of Ultron shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User block notice: Edit warring
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Listef (klat) 10:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Chrisw80 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Im sorry, but how is editing vandalism? The amount I entered had a different source. What exactly is the vandalism? Depauldem (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Huggle was a little aggressive in it's warning due to the previous warnings on your talk page. In this case, it wasn't appropriate for it to be so aggressive in warning, apologies. Chrisw80 (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. I have learned not to engage in the edit revision, quickly. I have several ongoing discussions about other edits and hope they will be resolved shortly. Depauldem (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that, and I see that you do seem to want to contribute constructively. I appreciate that very much.  I responded to your response on my talk page.  I've been thinking about this, I may have an idea to satisfy both of our concerns.  I will do some research and get back to you if I am able. Chrisw80 (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Amazing Spider-Man 2. ''YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADD ANY DISHONEST SOURCE. TEST YOUR EDITS AT SANDBOX NOT ON ANY PAGE!'' SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 10:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello . User:Depauldem and I discussed the edits on my talk page after some edits he made and he provided sources for his edits, with context. That does NOT equate to vandalism.  I'm not sure what you mean by a "dishonest source".  That can be discussed, but again it does not equate to vandalism.  Please also do not use all caps.  I am restoring the edit by Depauldem on the page and we can discuss it on the article talk page if you wish.  Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * that is not done. The article is currently a GA Nominee and foremost, wikileaks doesn't show any kind of reliability. Dont know why you restored it. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 11:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And the collections are case sensitive. Don't change it. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 11:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)
Your recent editing history at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, . Uh, I just looked at the page history for Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.  I don't see ANY edit warring there.  In fact, the page hasn't been modified for over 5 days, and nothing ever by ..  Was this a misfire or is there something glaringly obvious that I'm missing here? Chrisw80 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I inadvertently inserted the link to the book, not the film. My apologies. Fixed. Thank you for catching that. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the clarification., I thought you were going to be more careful about such things in future?  It's critical to the smooth functioning of Wikipedia to discuss matters with other editors when others are saying that they are challenging your sources. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please look at the talk page for it. Tenebrae is being disruptive and using personal attacks on me rather than making points or arguments based on the merits.  His disdain for me is driving this.  He started the edit ware because, and this is clear from his points in the talk page, he was arguing with me in another place.  Since when is that an appropriate response to revert an edit based on a reliable source???Depauldem (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

And just to clarify User:Chrisw80, can I never edit a page without first making an entry on the talk page?? When I made the change to Harry Potter, it was not to revert anything that Tenebrae had done. This started when he went there and reverted my edit. Is one forbidden from editing because someone might come in later and revert it?? My engagement on Wikipedia is rather new, and I apologize for my inexperience. Depauldem (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a process called Bold, Revert, Discuss, please see WP:BRD. The idea is to be bold in making changes, then discuss when someone disagrees. If and when that process fails, there is are a variety of dispute resolution processes, please see WP:DR. Best wishes. Chrisw80 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly what I did. Yet I am the bad guy.  Depauldem (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Except you started edit warring when discussion failed instead of pursuing dispute resolution. Again, please see WP:DR. I'm taking no sides here, just attmepting to help you learn about processes here on Wikipedia. Chrisw80 (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, and your guidance is appreciated. You are right.  We both acted poorly.  Depauldem (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't change the wording of an RfC!
An RfC remains in place for 30 days as written. You want to call your own RfC, then do so separately. But you cannot change the wording of an an RfC or say, "I refuse to acknowledge the question and I'm substituting my own here instead." That is incredibly disruptive and one more attempt at such a stunt will result in an administrators' action.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The policy states: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template." Apologies, as it was meant as a suggestion to change the wording to an alternative unbiased statement.  Depauldem (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Groves
I do indeed think we're in agreement about this particular writer — we can't just go by his own capsule-bio claims, but I did see this — and I think all we need now is the wording on that one template field. I offered a wording in the discussion, but we should make sure other editors are onboard with it or have their own suggestions. At the moment, I have a deadline thing for the next 15, 20 minutes.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad to be working with you
Just want to say, with our sometimes-spirited conversations behind us, that it's a pleasure and gratifying to work with someone as knowledgable as you and who strikes me as, for lack of a better term, a grownup. When people of good will can get past their differences and find a middle ground, that's not just Wikipedia at its best but life at its best. I sincerely look forward to seeing you around WikiProject Film, and I'm glad you got a chance to meet some of the other good and dedicated editors here. Onward, my friend! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the very kind words. I feel 100% the same and look forward to working with you and everyone else. :) Depauldem (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

RE: FIlmguy
I don't mind at all, and it's very collegial of you to ask. If there's anything that doesn't work regarding those edits, I'm sure one editor or another will jump in. It's good to have you back. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome User:Tenebrae, many thanks. It's good to be back.  I just joined the film project page.  Are you not in it?  I looked for you, but maybe I missed you.  Also, thoughts on Civil War?  Depauldem (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * LOVED Civil War. Saw it at a press screening Monday and as a guest at the Marvel screening Tuesday. I'd even pay to see it again! : )   What did you think of it? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I loved it too, but thought Winter Soldier was better. You are/were a reporter, correct? Depauldem (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

BvS budget
Two things. First, "Gross" and "Net" are not supposed to be used that way, and I'm going to the infobox page to address that. Secondly, your source says "Sources", which means that it's a rumor and we don't post rumors. Lastly, it says "taxed and rebates may put it closer to 325". It says "may", and taxes and rebates mean that they saved 75 million. That's something for the body of the article, not the infobox where a reader is going to get confused by the "gross" and "net" concept that is being used.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, almost all reported budgets are estimates (aka rumors). Depauldem (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But we usually go with more than "sources say", especially when it differs from what everyone else is saying.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  11:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Maleficent (film) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=726399699 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F726399699%7CMaleficent (film)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Film budgets
Per earlier discussions at WP:FILM tax incentives are not included in the film infobox budget figure. BOM is a commonly used source. So please stop replacing it with figures from state or local boards like louisianaeconomicdevelopment.com or FilmL.A. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, they are included:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_film. In any event, my edit didn't include them on that page, so I am baffled why you are calling it out.  And the Louisiana is a state page for the program that gave the film its credit.  It is FAR more reliable than BOM.  The FilmLA annual movie reports are also way more reliable than BOM.  Depauldem (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with, that while agreement to include the incentives, they don't necessarily have to be in the infobox. Additionally, info as presented at Avengers: Age of Ultron is better suited in the body of the article, than the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 July
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Pixels (2015 film) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=730955065 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F730955065%7CPixels (2015 film)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Deepwater Horizon
Hi! There was nothing wrong or biased about your own editing, but the article itself. My apologies if I somehow implied otherwise (length problems while editing).

The information provided on the film's budget and the tax break is facts, that's for sure, but the quote I later left out was misrepresentative of the situation with this film (that's why I found it necessary to note that filming of this movie happened more than a year ago). The article is basically a think piece, laced with these other facts, that argues for the State of Louisiana to not only give up on the film industry they invested in, but also renege of their financial obligations for the sake of an action producers may or not choose, in the wake of a terrible disaster they had no way of anticipating. That's the bias on the author's part reflected in that specific quote that I think better to leave out of the filming section. Perhaps, if more articles in the same vein trickle out in the following weeks, it would be convenient to create a new section, rather than use "Filming" for it? Not really sure about that, at least until we see how the producers and the promotional team choose to provide counterarguments for this or the shape of the possible controversy the film may spark, but I'm going on a tangent.

Bice24 (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bice24 got it. I don't think you are wrong. Appreciate you adding the other info back in.  And I agree that "filming" isn't the best place for that info, should we decide later that is worth adding.  We can cross than bridge then.  Many thanks.  Depauldem (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The claim that 7% of the spending was done in Massachusetts has been inserted by you at least six times between September 16 and 21, beginning here. That appears to make six reverts, though they are not all on one day. In my opinion, the AN3 report might be closed without a block if you will agree to wait for a clear talk page consensus before adding your contested material again. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston sounds good to me. Bear in mind, some of those edits were endorsed. But I am certain we will reach an agreement in the talk page.  Depauldem (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, the edit warring complaint is closed with a warning based on your agreement to wait for consensus before reverting again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston Thank you. I was a little troubled that Softlavender went in and reverted the section again while the talk page discussion (and this complaint) was still ongoing. Her edit today at 05:53 claimed her reversion was "per current consensus and talk-page information", which is patently false.  Still no consensus. I don't feel like logging a complaint on her, but shouldn't that also warrant a warning for her? Depauldem (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list