User talk:JohnWickTwo

Welcome!
Hello, JohnWickTwo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Sky Warrior  19:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Othello in popular culture) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Othello in popular culture, JohnWickTwo!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"I appreciate this article has been moved over from the main Othello page. Although it was not discussed in that article's Talk Page, there appears to have been no dissent to your move, which is good. Please review all the references you have copied over, and, having ensured they still function, please update their 'retrieved' date. It would be helpful to see a few more inline citations to support some of the statements made in this article, but as it stands, it's a nice piece, well linked from the main page."

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. There are more comments on the Talk page there as well. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

AK material move
Hello JWT. First off thanks for your work on the Kurosawa articles. To cover any copyvio concerns I made this edit and its summary and added this template to the talk page. I think this covers everything but I am going to ask to check my work and she will fix anything that I have messed up. My first AK film was Seven Samurai which I saw in 1970 and my appreciation of him as a filmmaker has grown with each passing year so I thank you for the work that you are doing on the various articles. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The original editors for that material really put some time into it, and I also added the links to the article for the subject in the main article with notations in the edit history that the move was done. The article on Seven Samurai is notable for Wikipedia and it was nice to see your effort there. Any thoughts of moving it toward peer review? JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, in spite of the number of years that I have been editing I have only been a part of helping on handful of reviews. Thus, I am not up on all that needs to be done. OTOH I am always happy to help if you or anyone else gets one going. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Good editing by you for your successful GA peer review. Cheers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Your username
Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created John Wick: Chapter 2, and I noticed that your username, "JohnWickTwo", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a change of username, by completing this form, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 16:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 15:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting in touch. The name you are referring to I don't think is promoting anything and I have not edited the page at all since last February when I made some minor edits. Also there appears to be a long tradition at Wikipedia for names that align with films that have come out including several admins AfterMidnight, Metropolitan and TommyBoy to name a few. It's a really long list of editors and if your need more names like these then let me know. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any of your examples are unambiguously film titles (the "promotional usernames" policy only applies to names that unambiguously represent a company, group, institution or product). "After Midnight" is a generic enough term that it's been the title of 6 unrelated films, an unrelated musical, three unrelated albums, and two unrelated songs. Metropolitan is equally generic term (as evidenced by the long list at Metropolitan (disambiguation)). TommyBoy, while the name of a film, is also an acceptable nickname for someone named Tommy (and according to that editor's user page, their real name is "Thomas"). In addition, TommyBoy registered that username on November 9, 2004, before the policy on promotional usernames was created (see ), and is therefore covered by the grandfather clause. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * In response to the comments in this discussion regarding my UserName, my thinking is if it was in violation of applicable policies and guidelines, that issue would have been addressed during the process which resulted in me being granted administrator privileges back in November, 2012, and that administrator privileges would not be granted to a Wikipedia account with a UserName which is in violation of applicable policies and guidelines.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If User:JohnWickTwo has any involvement with the John Wick film series, then he is required to disclose that on the talk page of any John Wick-related pages he edits and should also disclose that on his userpage, in accordance with Conflict of interest. That said, if his interest in the John Wick films is just that of being a fan, I don't think his username should be considered unambiguously promotional, and in such a situation I would support allowing him to keep it. As indicated at Wick (surname), there are real people with the name John Wick, among them John Wick (game designer) and a British whistleblower. If we can't come to an agreement on this, maybe we will need to take this to Requests for comment/User names. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Kajiro Yamamoto
Thank you for editing Kajirō Yamamoto and other film pages. Since you are relatively new to Wikipedia, I thought I'd mention a few things. First, it looks like you copy pasted from IMDb to fill out his filmography. That can be a problem because the IMDb is not a reliable source and can have many mistakes for especially foreign films. It is usually not complete and has errors in the titles. Many editors think it gives a complete list of a person's films, but that is rarely the case with foreign films (Japanese film databases, for instance, list Yamamoto as having made more films than IMDb lists.) One other problem is that IMDb lists films with the newest first while the style on Wikipedia is to list oldest films first. I just thought you'd like to know. Michitaro (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at that. For the chronological issue on the list of films, there is apparently a way to create the list in order that it can be sorted either by title or date. I have not done this myself though the List of neo-noir titles article has some lists that have this feature and possibly you are experienced enough to transfer it over. Your correction to the lead section also helped the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sortable tables (WP:SORT) are one solution to the problem of list order, though I believe the default still should be earlier first. They can be a pain to create from scratch, so if I use them, I copy paste from an article with a similar table and fill it in. Michitaro (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct that its a long list. My thought was that the list might be hatted and copied on to the Talk page there. Then one of the long sortable lists from the article called List of neo-noir titles can be also hatted and copied over into the same Talk page entry there. After that then possibly one of us or both of us can chip away at getting the individual items transferred into the sortable list one-by-one over time before then returning it to the article when done. Any thoughts? JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Akira Kurosawa
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Akira Kurosawa you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Narutolovehinata5 -- Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Akira Kurosawa
The article Akira Kurosawa you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Akira Kurosawa for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Narutolovehinata5 -- Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

FA Nomination for Akira Kurosawa
Thank you for your kind words regarding my edits of the Kurosawa article, which was a labor of love for me. I am glad that you kept the biographical part of the article largely intact, as it was worked on extensively by myself and another fan, Vili, who runs the excellent akirakurosawa.net website.

I do not object to your moving the bulk of the Style section to become its own separate article, which made the main article much less unwieldy. Unfortunately, there are three main problems with the main article as a result of these changes. The first problem is that the Style part of the main article now appears as "Legacy of filmmaking technique," which unfortunately seems to imply that: a) Kurosawa invented such devices as the wipe transition and the axial cut, whereas these were common devices long before he started his directorial career, and that b) filmmakers abroad widely adopted his techniques, which is simply not true. His influence on moviemakers abroad mostly involves his epic scope, dynamic approach and certain plot conventions (e.g., the Seven Samurai group-saves-a-community story line), not techniques like the wipe. I strongly urge that the Style heading be restored for that section.

The second problem is that "Legacy of general criticism" doesn't make sense at all, since a legacy implies a positive influence and the criticisms are all negative. I actually included that section only to maintain NPOV for the article in order to qualify it as a featured article, because as it was, the article was too complimentary to Kurosawa without it. To put it succinctly, a pan is not a legacy. The heading should be something like "Major criticisms." On the other hand, "Reputation among filmmakers," "Posthumous screenplays," "Kurosawa Production Company" and "Film studios and awards" all seem to me valid entries under "Legacy."

Lastly, all the sections that were added after the Style section was given its own article have been awkwardly written, and need to be significantly polished before the article can be promoted. I would oppose its promotion to FA as it exists now. I can try to work on it myself, but please keep in mind that I only have a limited amount of time. Best regards, Dylanexpert (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice comments from you above and I am supporting your new additions and rewrites in the Kurosawa article. There has been a final call from sysops at FAC for final support and oppose indications if you have a chance to visit the FAC page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

13 Assassins (2010 film)
Greetings, you must be an experienced reviewer. Would you be interested in reviewing this article I nominated for GA? Blue  sphere  10:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Summer backlog seems to slow things down at Wikipedia and its possible that someone might respond to you on the GA announcement page soon. If the assessment does not start by the end of the month then let know and I'll try to see what the best options are for the article. Cheers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Silence (2016 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Silence (2016 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a very fine page indeed, and I think you should take it to FAC in due course. I may assist in a peer review, if you so please. --Gertanis (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an interesting possibility. I currently have two GA reviews going and one FA review moving towards final stages which you may have seen. If you have a support or oppose for the FA candidate article for Akira Kurosawa this might be a good time to add any additional comments there. Once these other reviews are wrapped up, then it would be nice to enhance Silence further for additional FA review. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The article Silence (2016 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Silence (2016 film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Your "heads-up" regarding IP editor
Hi. Thanks for the warning, but I did look carefully at the insect-related edits by this editor, and they were all proper edits except for changing "life cycle" to "lifecycle". I suspect that it is a shared IP, used by a few responsible editors and a few vandals. Dyanega (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice of you to confirm that. Separately, do you have any background in the various genome projects for insects and related articles? JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Nope. I know about insect phylogenetics in general, but not specific projects. Dyanega (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Your peer review of Global Buddhist Network is waiting for your answer
Would you mind to continue the peer review, as soon as you are available? I think the points of improvement you have listed have all been addressed. If you think there is nothing more to be said, then please wrap it up, so we know you are done. Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Request to Stop Good Article Review
This is TheGoodIndian, the person who had (not very intelligently) nominated Battle of Stalingrad for Good Article status. It was actually a done-out-of-curiosity act. A veteran editor has pointed out to me that the article has many weaknesses. So I request you not to spend too much time and energy on it, and quickly fail the article. I apologise for the trouble you took. TheGoodIndian (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop
Good afternoon (Japanese time). Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your recent comment on Talk:Black Panther (film)/GA1. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend.

I know you probably meant well, but I have history of other editors trawling through my edits, talk page history, and even doing off-wiki research on me, so when I saw that you were essentially requesting an administrator who recently threatened to block me for an unrelated issue to block me for the issue with which you have been involved ... well, it was very disturbing, and, honestly, per WP:HOUND, you probably shouldn't be doing so to other editors in the first place. I have already made my point on the Black Panther GAN and have tried several times to withdraw having made that point. Please do not follow me again.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Your user account recent edit history appears to indicate that you are prepared to continue your personal attacks against User:Adam and User:Favre on the Black Panther film page and elsewhere. has requested that you stop doing this by stating to you: "You, on the other hand, seem to thrive on such little drama fests. So, again, my sincere advice to you is to completely abandon that mode of behavior and style of interaction with other editors. It is disruptive, unseemly and unwanted by the broad community. Do not get into a single solitary editing dispute for nine years. Just walk away. The alternative is an indefinite block. " Instead of listening to him, your first edit after receiving his message appears to continue your discussion of the Black Panther film article here on my Talk page. May I ask again for you to please stop your personal attacks against User:Adam and User:Favre on the Good Article review currently in progress. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would ask you to define what you mean by "personal attack". I think the article has serious content issues, and those editors apparently don't want to acknowledge or fix them. You apparently want to auto-pass the GAN despite the concerns expressed by several editors, not just me. Why you are choosing to single out me and directly request that I be blocked for disagreeing with you is beyond me.
 * I have already said multiple times that I would rather just walk away. You can auto-pass the GAN if you want. I think it's a bad idea and it would be a disservice to the encyclopedia, but if the alternative is continued harassment, I simply don't care enough to fight over it. So please drop the stick already.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are being blinded by your personal feelings Hijiri. If you were paying attention, you would see that John has no wish at all to auto-pass the review, as he is clearly putting a lot of work in to getting the article right which has lead to the very thorough review that anyone can plainly see. Just because your trolling is being ignored does not mean he isn't putting the effort in. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ironic that you can accuse me of "trolling" and I'm the one getting accused of "personal attacks". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been asked to drop the stick on this matter by several editors. Please drop the stick. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Nice edit from you at the end there at the assessment which brought things together well. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Skyscraper
For the record, I was not just adding in excess text to the Synopsis for Skyscraper; I was modifying the existing plot summary to correct a couple of key misinterpretations of the film's actual plot. Contrary to what it says in the guide, Sawyer was in full support of the condition of the Pearl, and when he was climbing up the Pearl from the outside he climbed up a crane that was part of another construction project near the Pearl, rather than climbing up the Pearl itself; all I was doing was replacing misleading text with a more accurate summary, rather than just adding in excess words out of nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.240.59 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can always share your ideas with other editors on the Talk page of articles if needed. In this case you might be helped by reading MOS:PLOT. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Margot Fonteyn review
Hi there, John! I'm just popping by to thank you for your GA review of Margot Fonteyn. While some of your queries seemed rather unusual, the result was that after a few relatively minor changes, you were able to pass it for GA and encourage development for FA. I hope you will be ready to undertake further reviews of the biographies of outstanding women. We plan to continue to improve quite a number of them over the coming months. Thanks also for your work on film. Your Filmmaking technique of Luis Buñuel adds quite a bit to his biography. It looks to me as if it is almost ready for GA.--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The nominating editor for Fonteyn put in multiple editing sessions into improving the article yesterday with a much better article as a result. Separately, Bunuel was quite a filmmaker and maybe you have some contributions you can make to enhancing his articles at Wikipedia. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Scarface (1932 film) review
Thank you for your prompt response and review of my article Scarface (1932 film). I appreciated your helpful and polite comments. I have plans to further improve the article for Featured status, so if you have any suggestions for me to progress the article forward, I would appreciate any ideas! Thanks for your contributions on Wikipedia! If you ever need an editor to do a GA review for you, please do not hesitate to ask me, I would be much obliged. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just noticing that you are continuing to edit Scarface. You might note that the Analysis section you are reformulating now usually goes after the Reception section; chronologically, Reception comes first and then Analysis/Themes/Interpretation. Separately, if you do have an interest in filmmaking then one of the editors directly above on this Talk page thinks that the article for Filmmaking technique of Luis Buñuel might be ready for a GA-Nomination if you feel that you might be able to do the GA review for it following a nomination from me. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will definitely review your article, just let me know when you nominate it! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it might work. My plan is to nominate it tomorrow at about noontime and to do another read through this evening. If it works for you then you can pick up on the review tomorrow afternoon whenever you are ready. Looking forward. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Filmmaking technique of Luis Buñuel
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Filmmaking technique of Luis Buñuel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Skyes(BYU) -- Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Filmmaking technique of Luis Buñuel
The article Filmmaking technique of Luis Buñuel you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Filmmaking technique of Luis Buñuel for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Skyes(BYU) -- Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations
Congrats on the good article! It was an easy pass and I enjoyed reading it. I know that you involve yourself with articles related to film, so if you need another article to review and are interested, my article Max Steiner, the "father of film music" is currently a good article nominee. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review your article, best of luck with your future projects! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that and for doing a thorough read through of the article from top to bottom. Your article on Steiner looks interesting and has been in the queue for about 2 months. If no one picks it up over the next day or two, I can try to see if I can do something over the week-end. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me add my congratulations on this Good Article. I'm particularly interested since I actually wrote nearly all of it myself, when it was part of the general article on Luis Bunuel.  It's instructive to know that a big slab of text can be cut and pasted into an entirely new article, making it appear as if it sprung from Zeus' forehead directly onto the screen.  I know WikiPedia is a "team" effort, but I'm learning that we're dealing with a curious kind of teamwork here. --Jburlinson (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Jared Kushner/Archive 2
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jared Kushner/Archive 2. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Good to hear from you after the assessment. Interesting comments while the enhancements were being added to the article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Brett Kavanaugh Notification
Please see this. KnightLago (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2018 (UTC)