User talk:Mazewaxie/Archive 4

__INDEX__

December 2019
Your addition to The Irishman has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)



Betty Logan (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy New Year Mazewaxie!
Happy New Year! Hello Mazewaxie: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, ★Trekker (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Infobox discretionary sanctions alert
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I removed some sources because they are redundant, the things they mention are referenced multiple times in the article. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Stop it. Now. I'm warning you, as an administrator, to stop blanking citations. You seem to think they're duplicated; I say they're not. So stop it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Warning!? I literally explained to you why I removed them and you warn me? Why? -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I apologize, actually I realized that I must have misread some citation. I'm really sorry for my misunderstanding. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, if you think the citations are unnecessary or duplicated, explain why on the talk pages of the articles. The sources that you are removing are databases maintained by professional film scholars, and the information found in them is frequently not found anywhere else.  For example, it's common for one aspect of film production to be mentioned in passing in a newspaper article, but the detailed information that Wikipedia reports in the infobox is only found only in these specialist sources.  This sometimes includes detailed lists of production companies, distributors, etc.  One or two of them might be mentioned elsewhere in non-specialist sources, but the complete list is unsourced outside of the specialist source.  Some otherwise reliable sources are not also not considered reliable for technical details.  As an example, The New York Times includes technical information on films in all of its reviews, but this is licensed content reprinted without editorial oversight from the IMDb, which is user-generated content.  So, we can't use New York Times reviews for this information and instead cite it to the American Film Institute.  This may look redundant, but there's a reason why we're doing this.  I'm sorry for not explaining myself very well on this point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not your fault. I was sure they were unnecessary, but I was wrong, I must have misread, I'm really sorry about my attitude. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now I made some changes because they were in fact some redundant sources, but again I shouldn't have removed all of them in the first place, I apologize again. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Oscar season
Only some short comments during the Oscars season. Could you let me know how you are counting the "most Oscar nominations for Scorsese" which seems to be comparing him to Billy Wilder here ? Regarding the top ten lists on The Irishman, this is getting on the long side and might look better as only covering #1 and maybe #2 on top ten lists, though not beyond that; its just very long and the main info is on the accolades page anyway. Let me know about the Billy Wilder question above. CodexJustin (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Could you please link me the "diff"? I don't understand precisely what you are referring to. For the top ten lists I think that we are done, I don't think there will be many additions, but if you prefer to switch to only #1 and #2 for me is fine either way. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is your diff from this morning editing that sentence: . That sentence as it stands in the lede right now does not seem to agree with the hollywood reporter article I just linked above. Its fixed now as I have listed William Wyler as number one of most noms. CodexJustin (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I only changed "Best Director Oscar nominations" to "Academy Award for Best Director nominations", I didn't write it in the first place. Anyway, Scorsese is the living director with most nominations for the Academy Award for Best Director with 9 nominations, and the second overall behind William Wyler. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Killers of the Flower Moon (film) has been accepted
 Killers of the Flower Moon (film), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! GeneralPoxter (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Killers_of_the_Flower_Moon_(film) help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * Sorry, moving this back to Draft:Killers of the Flower Moon (film). Principal photography has not begun, and thus this article's subject does not meet WP:NFF. signed,Rosguill talk 21:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Some peaches for you!
 Sdkb has given you a bowl of peaches! This delicious and typically non-allergenic fruit promotes WikiLove and has hopefully made your day juicier. Spread peachiness and WikiLove by giving someone else some peaches, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, by adding {{subst:Peach}} to their talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks for your contributions to Parasite! - Sdkb (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings grosses
Hi Mazewaxiem, I have temporarily reverted the updated grosses at List of highest-grossing films. When BOM was revamped in the Fall some of the grosses were corrupted (see Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_74 and Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films. There is nothing wrong with your edit, but there may be something wrong with the source. If you could hold off from updating the grosses until we can substantiate why they have changed I would much appreciate it. They may turn out to be correct, but we need to make sure given the problems at BOM. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Don't worry, it's fine. Anyway, I'm aware of the situation related to BOM, but for The Lord of the Rings it looks like its different. I verified the international grosses of them and they actually add up to those new figures, so they aren't wrong. Also, for The Fellowship of the Ring, The Numbers reported a gross of $887 million for at least a year, so it seems that BOM just updated it with more data, and also did the same for its sequels, while The Numbers didn't. Let me know what you think, and check the figures yourself if you feel to. Anyway, I wish you a nice day. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for letting me know. I will restore your revisions then. If we discover they are wrong down the line we can always fix them then. I should have asked you first really, but I have just become used to BOM being wrong lately! Best regards. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please rewording sentence in coronavirus outbreak
Please change words in 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak from:
 * Numerous educational institutes have temporarily shut down, including dozens of kindergardens in Daegu and several elementary schools in Seoul. As of February 18, most universities in South Korea had announced plans to postpone the start of the spring semester. This included 155 universities planning to delay the semester start by 2 weeks to March 16, and 22 universities planning to delay the semester start by 1 week to March 9.

to


 * Numerous educational institutes have temporarily shut down, including dozens of kindergardens in Daegu and several elementary schools in Seoul. As of 18 February, most universities in South Korea had announced plans to postpone the start of the spring semester. This included 155 universities planning to delay the semester start by 2 weeks to 16 March, and 22 universities planning to delay the semester start by 1 week to 9 March. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.187.159 (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

About your request for protection
Hello, User:Mazewaxie. I wanted to explain why I declined your request for protection of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. There really hasn't been much vandalism recently, and the last time the article needed protection was ten years ago. But I wanted to say: I see that you have a repeated problem with people changing the British spelling "instalment" to the American spelling "installment". There is a "British English" tag on the article, but most Americans have never seen this alternate spelling, so they think it's a typo and are changing it in good faith. They are likely to keep doing this. What I suggest you do is put an invisible tag right next to the word, saying something like "instalment is the British spelling, do not change." Thank you for your devoted attention to this article! -- MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Irishman GA
Hi. Hope you and your family are doing well during this time. Just notifying you that the GA review of The Irishman has begun. Please tend to anything you can: Talk:The Irishman/GA1. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for your concern. Luckily my family and I are doing well in this difficult situation. Thanks for notifying me about the GA review. I wish you a nice day. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like it went through rather painlessly. Anyway, regarding your edit on The Godfather Part II which added that the initial title was The Death of Michael Corleone - I could not verify that by the source you added, and it seems strange that it would be the title for Part II since Part III had been titled the Death of Michael Corleone. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here it's the source. Maybe they wanted to use that title for Part III again, I don't know.-- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it in one of those pictures? Which one? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I see the script. Image 18 "PUZO'S ORIGINAL DRAFT" <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 17:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Pope Francis. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. ''I had to partly undo your WP:ENGVAR edit, because it was very sloppy. You changed several items which were not supposed to be changed, such as "synagogue" and "revised" and "centre Sable" (the last one was in a heraldic blason). Please be more careful when applying search-and-replace to English variants.'' Elizium23 (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Kind Strangerr
The fact that the 390 was not updated and doesn't justify the act of adding multiple Oricon sales to that same number, when those Oricon sales are already included in the circulation number. What I mean is, we can't add numbers that are already added in the previous one, even if we know it's not updated. And so, if the number is not updated, the latest one with reliable sources should prevail, instead of doing non-sensical math over numbers that shouldn't be added together. Those 5 million copies that Oricon states ONE PIECE has sold are already included and considered in circulation numbers. Circulation numbers are data that includes both copies sold and copies not sold, in bookstores. That means, every single copy sold will already be accounted in circulation numbers, and so there will be no logic in adding a certain amount to a number that already includes it. We can only state that ONE PIECE has a total of 390 million copies in Japan given that it's the latest number ever given by an official source, even if it's the direct same number that was peviously stated in an old update. Even if the number has grown, we can't do hypothetical maths about how many more copies does the series have in circulation, and even less when those numbers added are from sales, not printed copies themselves. Trying to figure out the amount of copies the series gets when new volume reprints are announced and adding those to the circulation numbers stated officially would make more sense, but as you can probably figure out, it's impossible to do.

As you can see in my latest undo, I included sources proving my points, so I hope we can leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindStrangerr (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * One Piece reached 390 million copies in circulation in December 2019 (see here and here), when volumes 95 and 96 weren't released yet. So how it's possible that their circulation numbers are included in that 390 million figure? Please explain. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to be able to explain why did they rounded a number or not with circulation copies, but those are the official numbers given. Since we don't know how many copies were rounded up/down (most likely down) when those numbers were given, we can't make conclusions such as adding copies sold when we don't know how many of those exact copies are included or not. Giving a fake, made-up number out of calculations with no logic behind them should have no justification. Leaving the number as it has been latest reported and waiting for a new one that updates it should be the most correct outcome in order to not misinform people with higher numbers than in reality.

Basically, as a rule of thumb, do not mix sources, adding Oricon sales numbers to Shueisha's circulation numbers is not something you can do. The latest known number for One Piece is 470million, which includes all volumes and yes, this includes volume 96, as I have already proven with the sources linked. KindStrangerr (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

RafGL12
Could you seriously refrain from adding random, not official, not contrasted, and made up numbers in the circulation number of One Piece? Could you please stop spreading misinformation when actual official data is provided periodically by its own publisher? Circulation numbers and sales are not concepts that you can mix together in the same calculation when sales are already accounted for in circulation. Its own publisher is giving the exact numbers of the series, which are 390 million copies in Japan and 80 million copies worldwide, information that was covered in different and reliable media in Japan such as Natalie or Oricon. Even the own page already states that sources that provide the number of copies a series has in circulation/print, rather than actually sold are denoted by a "†", and One Piece has that same symbol. You're just doing calculations with 0 basis based on a hypothesis of the series not having that amount of copies in circulation, but instead of actually looking for numbers that could account for circulation copies, you're using sales, which is a totally unrelated metric. Please, either stop modifying the number stated in the page by official sources, which is 470 million or start adding sales numbers to every single number and change the whole purpose of the page itself, showing numbers that have no reliability or sense whatsoever.

Even going by your point of the number given by, I repeat, official sources themselves, the same publisher of the series, not being accurate or real, you can't still add sales to it. You'd need to look for every single reprint the series get, extract every single number of copies reprinted, and then add those to the actual number. And I can assure you that that's literally impossible. The math you're using is completely non-sensical and only generates misunderstandings, misinformation and confusion to people who is actually looking for reliable numbers. Please, stop.

Disambiguation link notification for June 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Theravada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mongol invasions of Burma ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Theravada check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Theravada?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael Jordan weight
current is way out of line, and unsourced. 218?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/15/michael-jordan-playing-weight-espn/1922419/

http://www.nba.com/historical/playerfile/index.html?player=michael_jordan JCJC777 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not unsourced. Basketball-Reference.com lists Jordan at 6-6, 195lb. Also his weight wasn't always 195lb obviously, but that's the listed one. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 10:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo
, please be aware that Box Office Mojo's current numbers are very screwed up right now. I reverted your edit on Fight Club. Compare this to this. Find a related discussion on WT:FILM. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you're absolutely right. I forgot about the Box Office Mojo situation. Thanks for the reminder! Mazewaxie  ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the other edits, though! Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo
Hey, for next time please update only once the match is actually over. I know Ronaldo was subbed off, so the match was over for him. But it's always best to wait until the very end. You never know what could happen (the match gets annulled for some weird reason?) <b style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:80%;color:#000080">Nehme</b><b style="font-family:Verdana;color:#27B382">1499</b> (<b style="font-size:80%;color:#a9a9a9">talk</b>) 20:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ballon d'or dream team nominations
Hi there, I noticed that you have been adding nominations for the Ballon d'or dream team to player articles. Unless the player actually makes it into the team then unfortunately, it's not notable enough to make it into the article. I would advise keeping an eye on it, and when the actual dream team is announced then by all means add the information to the articles of the players who made it in. But adding the nominations does seem to be stretching it a little. Cheers! REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 16:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I appreciate your opinion, but honestly I disagree. Using that logic, we should also remove Ballon d'Or runner-ups and third places from every article. That doesn't make sense. Being nominated for a France Football all-time team it's still notable, since only 110 players in the history of the game were chosen, leaving out names like Dani Alves, Paul Scholes and Frank Lampard for example. It's like being nominated for an Academy Award in a sense. It's still notable in my opinion, but if other people disagree we should open a discussion about it. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also understand and appreciate your opinion and respectfully disagree with it. I would agree to raising the matter at WT:FOOTY. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 16:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, but could you please do it? I'm not an English native speaker, so I'm not comfortable in creating a similar thing. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 16:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Is it ok if I/you remove the nominations per the consensus at WT:FOOTY? REDMAN 2019 ( talk ) 18:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I will remove the nominations, don't worry. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 10:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 18:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of international goals scored by Ronaldinho for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of international goals scored by Ronaldinho, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Ronaldinho until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of international goals scored by Ronaldinho for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of international goals scored by Ronaldinho, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Zico until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Merry!
I wish you Happy Holidays! Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello Mazewaxie: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:darkred; border-width:3px; text-align:center; padding:3px; height:262px; width:800px;" class="plainlinks"> Merry Christmas! Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten! ¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua! God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus! Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce! Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством! শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스! สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành! Hello, Mazewaxie! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! <b style="color:orange">Linguist111</b><sup style="color:purple">talk 23:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Happy New Year, Mazewaxie!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Mazewaxie, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

WP 20
Thank you for good wishes! - Happy Wikipedia 20, - proud of a little bit on the Main page today, and 5 years ago, and 10 years ago, look: create a new style - revive - complete! I sang in the revival mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

... and today Jerome Kohl, remembered in friendship --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)