User talk:TheJoebro64/Archive 8

Joker - Biggest September Monday and Tuesday
You have made a mistake, as I added tags to those two records - as supposed by Deadline and Forbes magazine (which you ignored); Joker also beats September Monday B.O. record, which is owned by New Line/Warner Bros.’ It ($8.76M); Similar to its Monday, Joker yesterday came in ahead of the highest September Tuesday, which belongs to It ($11.4M); it beat It records; refer to the links.--Bartallen2 (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Joker (2019 film)
To ensure Wikipedia is applying the same standards of information capture, like was done for Avengers: Endgame where once the Box Office Mojo production budget was verified that article used this as the defacto reference point. The same should apply with Joker (2019 film). Changing the results just to continue edit warring is only going to lead to each of us being dissatisfied and not friendly co-contributors. At this point Box Office Mojo finally confirmed the production budget was $55 million. And since even :WhiteAngel has also clarified a final budget has been validated, this is more than just my opinion. Be consistent with standards and posting expectations. Thanks.

Yamla and 331dot will clearly be able to observe I am attempting to talk through this with you like a respectful adult. Hopefully you can do the same so we do not experience pass-aggressive reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco685 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You are also disregarding that Box Office Mojo (the defacto film box office tracking site) has now confirmed $55 million as the final confirmed production budget.


 * yes, and that's why I'm saying this needs more discussion. As reliable as BOM is, it still isn't the end all/be all for budgets, and reliable sources don't seem to agree on the exact amount. The Endgame example you used was WP:OSE and not always going to be the case. JOE  BRO  64  11:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * and others are clearly attempting to reference the fact like was done with Avengers: Endgame where once Box Office Mojo (the defacto film box office tracking site for the entire industry) posted the confirmed production budget, that became the number referenced. Changing it back to what you want it to be out of whatever motivation right now does not follow consistent Wikipedia practies, and will lead to disruptive co-contributor engagements. : and : may want to assist directly in sorting this out to ensure standard practices are followed as was applied to Avengers: Endgame (2019 film).
 * Responded at the article talk page. JOE BRO  64  23:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

My Joker (2019 film) edits
I replaced my edits because I disagree with your reason for removing them. The final paragraph of the plot section was TOO concise in that it was confusing. The small amount of detail I added makes it easier for readers to understand the sequence of events. This is the second time you've reverted my edits. Also, I've noticed you edit with a rather heavy hand. Remember, nobody owns a WP article. Let's not get into an edit war over this. Chief Red Eagle (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * responded on the talk page. JOE BRO  64  23:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

My Joker (2019 film) edits
I reverted your edits for the following reasons: Chief Red Eagle (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The words "and" and "but" are conjunctions and therefore don't require commas.
 * I removed a superfluous "that" because it added nothing the understandability of the sentence. Using fewer words in writing anything is always best.
 * Adding the expression "and how" destroys the flow of the text and makes the sentence awkward.
 * I don't disagree, but the previous version was more concise. I think I've come up with a good middle ground. JOE BRO  64  00:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

3RR
Ok, Joe, you've demonstrated that you can't tolerate even the smallest changes to the plot section of Joker and this is not the first time you've done this to me. You don't own this article. Nobody does.This is your first WP:3RR warning. Chief Red Eagle (talk)
 * what? I reverted you once, and multiple editors have reverted your changes to the plot in the past (and opposed them on the talk page). I apologize if I come off as a bit harsh, but I don't see how your edits have improved the summary in any way. All they've done is just add trivial details and clarification where none is necessary. JOE BRO  64  16:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that you've reverted me again. This is your second 3RR warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief Red Eagle (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * uh, you reverted yourself... JOE BRO  64  16:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops. You're right about that. Sorry.Chief Red Eagle (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019
Hello ,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon. There are now holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action. Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays. Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox. Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards. Admin has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers. Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources. Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13. The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights. There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion. To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Getting the queue to 0
 * Coordinator
 * This month's refresher course
 * Tools
 * It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
 * It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
 * Reviewer Feedback
 * Second set of eyes
 * Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
 * Do be sure to have our talk page  on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
 * Arbitration Committee
 * Community Wish list

Joker lede
Hi there, first of all, thank you for the multitude of great edits you provide to Wikipedia. I just wanted to let you know I reverted the order you gave to the rank and record in the lede of Joker. It is common practice to mention the rank during the year of release before any other records that may be achieved during its theatrical run. Cheers. SassyCollins (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's far more important that it's the highest-grossing R-rated film than the yearly ranking, so therefore it should go first. JOE BRO  64  11:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying. However, the importance (albeit subjective at best) is of no relevance here. The rank it reaches for the year of release is a static one. The highest ranking R-rated, contrarily, can be surpassed. If you feel this passionately about it, you can always take it to the Talk-page. SassyCollins (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Once Joker reaches the $1B threshold, the box office sentence in the lede will turn out in your favor (first r-rated to reach this), and the above will become a moot point. Cheers. SassyCollins (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Breaking the budget-to-gross-ratio, 25-year-old record of the Mask is not a small feat. I also think this should be mentioned in the lede, or at the very least at the box office section. What are your thoughts on this? SassyCollins (talk) 08:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * see the talk page. There was a discussion that it's not necessarily accurate. JOE BRO  64  23:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

DisneyMetalHead
Heads up, seems DMH is making moves at the Universal Monsters page again to make it seem DU is still going on. Rusted AutoParts 17:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've left them a warning. I'm really hoping it doesn't come to this, but if DMH continues to be problematic I'm probably going to bring it to ANI. JOE BRO  64  18:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping I got this call right anyway, I can't recollect off the top of my head if there was another subsection after the Dark Universe one. I just noticed an edit where DMH actually restored the table to where the consensus had it. The wording of his newest edits seemed to infer he was doing his old DU edits again but now i'm not as certain. Rusted AutoParts  18:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * alright, I've removed the warning. Might've been premature. JOE BRO  64  18:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for that. I'm not big on jumping to conclusions and yet i feel I have done so. Rusted AutoParts  18:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Users: Rusted AutoParts and TheJoebro64 - please remember, that when you are making claims/accusations about an editor; a good practice would be to notify them. I'm not sure what your goal was in contacting only Joebro64, but next time - please ping me in comments such as these.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what they goal is here, this issue has been a dead one for three months now. Rusted AutoParts  01:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit reversions to Joker (2019)
Why are you reverting edits to the plot of Joker (2019) with no talk comment? The history shows this isn't the first time you've done this. Miraculouschaos (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * see WP:FILMPLOT. The plot is fine as it is; it doesn't need to be expanded. Your edits added far too much in-universe/trivial details that were better as they were before. JOE BRO  64  00:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding AGF and the DCEU talk section
Your comments suggesting that I "followed" you to the article and went about "blindly" reverting you are pretty bad manners. Please remember to use AGF when interacting with other editors. You will find that being polite is a far better way to work collaboratively than being salty. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * see my response at the DCEU talk page JOE BRO  64  19:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, I am glad we were able to address that. Good on ye, as my pops would say. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you! Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! JOE BRO  64  18:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!


Argento Surfer (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. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Merry!


★Trekker (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. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Holidays!
Have a great rest of your holiday season! If you do not, then you should know that I have acquired a very particular set of skills on my time on Wikipedia. Skills that make me a nightmare for people who do not enjoy themselves. If you do not have a great time this year, I will find you... And I will block you.

But seriously, happy holidays.  Dark Knight  2149  22:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * did you ever hear the tragedy of Santa Claus the Jolly? JOE BRO  64  21:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

BRD
If you're going to jump into a conflict, actually see what happened first. The bold edit was adding this material on the 13th; I removed it. Since then, other editors have reverted to force it back into the page, while other editors have tried to remove it. This is a clear dispute over inserting material, not retaining it, and to say that the people revering to the status quo are the ones violating BRD rather than those attempting to force it in during the middle of discussion is patently ridiculous. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , TME's edit was a completely different revision compared to what you're reverting. You seem to be unable to understand what WP:3RR is. You're the only one who's trying to force in your revision when it's clear other editors disagree (you've already reverted four times within a day), and not providing a source when others have. I also ask you to read our policy on assuming good faith, because if I recall correctly this is not the first time you've been needlessly antagonistic over an issue that multiple editors disagree with you on. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  15:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not reverted four times in a day. I urger you to retract that false claim. As for the edit, again, that's an instertion of content. Per BRD, the insertion needs to be removed while discussion is ongoing. I'd advise you to read WP:BRD. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 15:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , and . That's four reverts in around a day. It's still a 3RR violation. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  15:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * TIL three days is "around a day". <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 16:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you're just being obnoxious. The time period I linked above was just over 24 hours - so yes, around a day. I kindly ask that you stop commenting on my talk page. You violated BRD and 3RR. Live with it, even if you don't like it when you're told so. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  16:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are misapprehending our 3RR policy. While it is indeed that a person can be blocked for blundering past the 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, a contributor can be blocked for several reverts that game the system by going right up to the electric fence, or revert without using the discussion page. IOW, you can be blocked for ever two reverts, if you are only using edit summaries to make your argument.
 * And, while I am here, I would point out how you should use Joebro's usertalk page to point out personality conflicts, not discussions germane to the article topic. I would urge you to use the article discussion page, as what you are doing here could be considered harassment. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Notifications sent to select editors
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Talk:DC Extended Universe. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. To avoid any kind of canvassing implications, notify all recent editors of a new discussion that you have brought up on talk-pages for articles. Wikipedia guidelines state that you cannot/should not reach out to individual editors. Please be aware of this.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't canvass; it's perfectly appropriate to reach out to other editors in a neutral manner. I pinged editors who had been involved in previous discussions similar to the talk page for input. Canvassing is the selection of editors you know are going to support your viewpoint, which I did not do. See the guideline itself: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following... The talk page of one or more directly related articles. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  12:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to notify everyone. Including myself - which you did not do.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't notify you because you were already involved. Pinging you was not necessary. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  17:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume WP:GOODFAITH in your edits, but per WP:BOLDness simply wanted to remind you.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with TheJoebro64 here; he was most certainly not canvassing, but rather bringing more eyes to the article. That is essential when there is a solid disagreement on the path to pursue. Joe will be the first to tell you that we do not necessarily see eye-to-eye on subjects addressed within the article in question. I think he is to be commended for taking the time to widen the circle on the discussion after sensing the looming impasse in discussion.
 * And, as an aside, I would point out that BOLD only applies to articles, not discussions. There, AGF and CIVIL should serve as your Polaris. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Batman
I don’t really feel it matters that their characters are of an unknown status. The official Warner Bros. press release includes them amongst the other actors, so I feel it should be billed in accordance with that. Rusted AutoParts 01:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Joker
Your plot summary makes it seems like Arthur confronted Mr. Wayne in front of a large crowd, when in reality it was just the 2 of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack butler505 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't agree. All that's relevant is that it was at a public event. That's it. Anything more is bloat. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  21:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing at all public about the confrontation though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack butler505 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Symbrock
I have posted a discussion on the Venom page about this subject, and why it is unnecessary. Aardwolf68 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
 * Source Guide Discussion

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
 * Refresher

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent reversion - February 2020
I won't contest this, but I do have to raise the question as to whether we should mention Tails in the plot. We may *know* it is him, but for general interest purposes, should he be named in that detail on the mid-credit scene? I raised a discussion on the article, but I do have to question this - I found the film's official credits, and they don't have him listed in it (along with the voice actor). GUtt01 (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , common sense should trump the fact he's not credited. The filmmakers have identified him as Tails as well. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  13:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sonic the Hedgehog
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sonic the Hedgehog 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 Indrian -- Indrian (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussing about Trials of Mana → Seiken Densetsu 3 move
Hello TheJoebro, I'm sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could you weight in in this move discussion. I ask you because I think this is in a similar situation to the Mother article that you voted on a few years ago. Alt (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Not Edit-Warring - Responsible Editing
When someone begins to notice something is not conforming to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and removes it, that is considered careful, responsible editing. What you did was to address the issue and correct it, which I applaud. Thank you. GUtt01 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I was probably wrong to remove some of the lines in the lead, while that other one I contested could have had a Citation Needed template to highlight the issue. I hope you will forgive me for trying to do the right thing. GUtt01 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries. I just wanted to remind you about WP:BRD. Things can get settled a lot quicker through discussion than constant reverts. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  20:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Your recent entry on Talk:Fox News (Revert)
Save your (figurative) breath, bro, the lefty cabal here vastly outnumbers people who think logically. While I completely agree with you, you can't win. Don't even bother. I've fought those wars time and again, only to be outvoted and ridiculed. It is pretty depressing, that on certain subjects, wikipedia is not a very reliable source of good information because of people like the them. --rogerd (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , it doesn't surprise me, sadly. I've long tried to avoid political subjects on Wikipedia, and the attitudes I encountered there certainly weren't ones I'd like to see on a regular basis. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  23:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Gumball T. Waterson
TheJoeBro64, Please stop deleting my edit to List of Sonic the Hedgehog Characters. I'm not kiding, Sonic's full name is Sonic Ogilvie Maurice Wentworth the Hedgehog.

Gumball T. Waterson (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , in the comics it's his name, but that list is about the video games. It says so at the start. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  18:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * TheJoebro64, the list is not about the video games, it's about the characters. It might mention a few video games from the franchise, but whether Sonic's in the comics or in the video games, his full name always is Sonic Ogilvie Maurice Wentworth the Hedgehog. You might see him in the cartoons and video games introduce himself as just Sonic the Hedgehog, but it doesn't mean he doesn't have middle names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumball T. Waterson (talk • contribs) 10:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, it's not. That's Sonic's full name in the comics only. He doesn't have a full name in the games. The top of the page says The Sonic games keep a separate continuity from the Sonic the Hedgehog comics published by Archie Comics and other Sonic media, which should make it clear that the list only refers to what's present in the games. Please stop edit warring. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  12:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

TheJoeBro64, we have to stop this editing. Sergecross73 noticed that we are in an edit war. If we don't stop, we'll be blocked from editing. Please stop deleting my edit. I'll prove to you that the comics are related to the video games: Sonic Boom is a TV show, and it also has comics that don't face a different plot. As the edit waring Wikipedia page says: "If an edit war develops, participants should try to discuss the issue on the talk page and work things out". I really don't want to be your enemy. I wanna be your friend if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumball T. Waterson (talk • contribs) 12:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

<br style="clear: both;"/>

March 2020
Hello, I'm Ixocactus. I noticed that you recently removed content from God's Not Dead (film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ixocactus (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I explained in my edit summary why and explained on the talk page. Also, WP:STATUSQUO applies; when there's a dispute, we retain the status quo until there's a consensus. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  22:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JohnConstantine134.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:JohnConstantine134.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)