User talk:Theironminer

QoS
1. See WP:BRD and stop edit warring on the QoS article: use the talk page if you want to reach a consensus. 2. "Mixed" covers everything: positive, negative and, well, mixed. It's utterly pointless and stupid to put mixed and positive: it covers the same points. This has been discussed numerous times in various places and at the film project, so if you want to change the consensus, you have to try and reach consensus through DISCUSSION, not brainlessly edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I consider your choice of words, saying I "brainlessly" edit the article. According to rotten tomatoes, any movie with 57%-69% means mixed-TO-positive reviews, meaning reviews were originally mixed and later became more positive. The consensus on the site called the film, positively, "an impressive entry to the Bond canon." I suggest you leave the article with the mixed-to-positive statement and not make a big deal about it. Just move on. - theironminer (talk). 12:10 AM, 16 June, 2014 (UTC)


 * Who gives a monkeys about RT, and what does that have to do with Wikipedia? There are many, many things wrong with RT, and We avoid the worst excesses of it, which includes how they describe the utterly brainless way they describe reviews. I see you have not bothered to read WP:BRD: you need to do so, or you may find yourself blocked for edit warring very soon. Briefly, you one of your edits is reverted, you DISCUSS on the article's talk page, rather than arrogantly trying to force your preferred version onto the page. I expect that someone will revert you shortly, because it's a bad edit, and if you decide to edit war yet again, I'll take great delight in reporting you in the appropriate forum. - SchroCat (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way, this is an official notification of WP:3RR, the bright-line rule regarding edit warring. You are at the limits of reverting with you edit warring, and you have not bothered to even try and discuss the situation on the talk page. When it is changed back to the long-standing consensus, do not make a big deal about it. Just move on. - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do me a favor: go to the wikipedia page for the Date Night movie, read the reception, and see the rotten tomatoes page. I'd be intrigued to see your reaction. You say my contribution to Wikipedia is "brainlessly [done]" and "poorly put together." I know you don't want to report me. It's just a page for a movie, what's the problem? Are you obsessed with the movie? Are you obsessed with Bond? Are you sensitive about what you edit? You are taking things so far that you're editing MY edits just to get even? That's not the way to go. We all want to contribute, yet you don't seem to be contributing. You just whine and make a big deal out of a James Bond movie article. Is it a fight you want? If so, it's a fight you WON'T get. Accept the edits and please move on. Because to tell you the truth, I'm American. Yep. Not British like in your world. And DON'T mess with my articles like Charlie Countryman. You just looked at that article just to tick me off because I was. That's an awful way to handle this issue. I like to share stories to the world like that movie, it makes me feel good. And when you go through it and say stuff about it, then you have a problem and you need help. Please leave my other edits out of this. - Theironminer (talk) 3:27 PM, 16 June, 2014


 * I have no idea about most of what you are on about ("I'm American. Yep. Not British like in your world": what on earth has that got to do with anything?!) Despite what you claim, that I have edited your edits "just to get even": I have edited none of your other edits, except the poor QoS one. That's it. I did comment on the additions to Charlie Countryman, but that's because the addition wasn't a good one (it's way too long, thus the tag, and it's not written in an encyclopaedic manner; it's also not your article: it belongs to everyone, and everyone is free to edit it, that's how this place works. That's something you need to learn very quickly). As to me not contributing, I see you've been around here for the grand total of two days. You need to try and learn the basic ground rules about how wiki works before you even think of lecturing people, or trying to compare "contributions": it's pointless, needless, and there are always bigger and better editors around than any of us. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I know that it's free to edit. I've heard that a million times and I meant to say my article as in my edits, not my personal article. Second, I said I'm American because you claim you're from London, and I figure that there's different things you see in London that are different from what Americans see, thus making you have negative feelings for the edit (not sure if my theory is right, I'm just thinking that). Third, have you ever seen Charlie Countryman? I remember every moment in that movie and perfectly plotted it on the article, despite a few misunderstandings. If you could give a list of what I screwed up then I would understand. On top of all that, I DON'T want to argue about this, I just want to deal with my more important personal issues and go back to watching 24. So if we both don't like each other's edits, I have a solution that HAS to work for both of us. Please deliver your feedback after you see the edit. - Theironminer (talk) 4:52 PM, 16 June, 2014


 * If you edit QoS without discussion on the article' stalk page BEFOREHAND, you will be reported for continued edit warring. You need to learn to discuss and gain consensus BEFORE you edit in many cases. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

So you reported me for trying to stop this argument. Very clever, boy. I've had no choice but to do the same. - Theironminer (talk) 5:50 PM, 16 June, 2014

Reply
With whom do you want to talk? There are already talk pages available for that. If you clarify your query a little bit more, I will be able to help you.--Jockzain (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I just want to ask if there's a talk page for The Rover (2014 film) discussing the critical reception and where I could find it, and if you are in any contact with a user named SchroCat, who edited my edits along with other users who might know him. - Theironminer (talk) 4:28 PM, 19 June, 2014


 * On the top of every article at Wikipedia, you will see "Article" and "Talk" sections at the left. Click on the "Talk" and you will go to the talk page of that article. You an start any topic you want to discuss there. I have wikified "The Rover talk page" here for you. I hope this helps. And, no I am not in contact with SchroCat. Have a good day. Regards--Jockzain (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2014 (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) 15:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Should Dawn of the Planet of the Apes be considered an action or sci-fi films
I don't have time to get involved in debates, but I'll have to go with both, sci-fi-action. However I'd ask you to consider finding some reliable sources (wp:rs)

Otherwise it might be a problem. If it's sci-fi action, then I'd also recommend you do the same for Battle for the Planet of the Apes because that's what the movie's about as well. Plus it'll be a little strange if Dawn is called sci-fi-action while Battle is not. My two cents.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Well I won't find any resources at the moment, I could find some later on. It is technically sci-fi due to evidence describing the film's certain plot elements. -Theironminer (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ridley Scott
I undid your edit. Can you explain what you were trying to do? --John (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I found out that Ridley Scott was an executive producer for Welcome to the Punch, so I just wanted to add that to his filmography. Not sure if his filmography was only for films he directed, but he still got credit for this one. Is there something wrong with my edit? - Theironminer (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be better to put this on the film article. What is your source? --John (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From the trailer, some text is shown sayinng "From Excecutive Producer Ridley Scott." I also found a source that I will put on the film's page in the production section. The source can be found here. - Theironminer (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That seems like an ok source for this. Filmography sections do not need to be comprehensive but I guess this would be ok. Why not restore your edit but with the source this time? --John (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can definently do that. Thanks for letting me know. - Theironminer (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit mistake
I am sorry about the incorrect edit, my son watched the film and decided to edit the page. It will not happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkerty (talk • contribs) 00:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, just make sure your son stays away from editing. Also, when you make an edit, also add an edit summary when completing it. And when you leave a message on a talk page, be sure to leave 4 ~'s to sign your message. Good luck with editing! - Theironminer (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Countryman
The Sundance version had a John Hurt narration. For the general release version the film was re-edited and the Hurt narration removed. The narration opening is also available on the BluRay. See:


 * http://www.vulture.com/m/2013/11/movie-review-charlie-countryman.html


 * http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/necessary-death-charlie-countryman/review/414231?mobile_redirect=false


 * http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/10326/charlie_countryman.html

I will restore the credit and add some explanation.

NoMatterTryAgain (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh, never thought of that. I wouldn't see this for myself because I hate the movie, but we should just add edits explaining a special version with Hurt's narration. Thanks for the evidence. - Theironminer (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

How to report edit warring
See the advice at the top of WP:AN3. Hit the button called 'Click here to create a new report' and then fill in all the fields. Usually action is taken only if the person has reverted four times in 24 hours. See diff or Simple diff and link guide for how to collect diffs. The policy is at WP:Edit warring. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

RE
Unless you can find a source supporting your claim, I'm afraid it's simply an action film. Have a problem with that? --Valkyrie Red (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * With what sources? I'm afraid that the original genre before I edited it was thriller, which users accepted, along with my action thriller edit. When I changed it back, you mistaken it for an action film, yet don't have a reliable source! Also, your choice of saying "cute" in your message doesn't make sense. - Theironminer (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You need sources for a genre, otherwise anyone can put anything. The film was an action film, nothing more nothing less. And it makes perfect sense to the initiated.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It's funny how your edit never has a source, so don't just revert my edit because it also doesn't have a source. Bottom line, it's a thriller. So don't continue to brainlessly revert my edit again. - Theironminer (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited You May Not Kiss the Bride, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romantic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What? Proxy stuff?
I've been blocked from editing for some proxy thing, and I'm blocked for 2 weeks and 3 days. Question, WHY? What did I do? What's with this proxy nonsense? This has to be a mistake... - Theironminer (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What's a proxy server? Tbh I don't understand how this is conficting... - Theironminer (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Try editing now - your underlying IP has changed. Otherwise, I was using http://whatismyipaddress.com/ to look up information about your IP, and it said "confirmed proxy server". PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm able to edit on my phone, I mainly edit on my phone and not many times on my PC. Could this have been an issue between both my phone and computer? - Theironminer (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's a problem relating to the underlying IP address used by your PC. PhilKnight (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So I'm guessing the block doesn't matter for my phone but does for my PC. Btw, what caused the addresses to be reported as proxy servers? - Theironminer (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably disruption coming from that IP range. PhilKnight (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I actually found out that I accidenly had my hotspot shield uninstalled on my pc so it's screwed up now. I'm gonna call the Geek Squad for this. - Theironminer (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead section
Hi there. I noticed that you've been working on film-related articles. Per WP:FILMLEAD, we need to give a brief plot summary of films in the lead. You removed one such summary from the lead of The Cold Light of Day (2012 film). I have reverted your edit, as the lead was left too short and without enough information on the film. If you believe that the summary is not concise enough, that's alright; you could probably prune it down to a single sentence, which is generally what I do. However, there needs to be something. If you need any help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page, or you could post to WT:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, I can edit the summary to make it sound more sensical. - Theironminer (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations
I see that you've recently been adding plot summaries that are copyright violations. You can't just copy-paste text into Wikipedia like that. It's against U.S. law. If you're restoring prior plot summaries, then you should check first to see if the plots are copyright violations before you restore them. Usually, long-time editors have a very good reason when they remove text; they're not typically engaging in wanton vandalism.

It's not too difficult to judge when a plot is a copyvio. They all basically sound the same and follow the same format: "In a world gone mad, only one man can restore order. On a journey that defies belief, he encounters wondrous sights and accomplishes near-impossible tasks." Etc. Whenever I see a plot summary like that, I do a Google search for a representative phrase (or sentence). Usually the first hit will be the film's official website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Gee, never thought of it like that. It just seemed like that from the small summaries given, they were never accurate from the story that the trailers showed. Is there an option to change the summary without using copyrighted plot summaries? - Theironminer (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Usually what happens is that someone gets annoyed that the plot is a copyright violation and does a half-asseed job of summarizing it, just to get the violation off of Wikipedia. I'm certainly guilty of that.  If you notice that the synopsis is poor, you're always welcome to improve it.  Just be careful that you don't restore a copyright violation.  You can explain it as well as you like, as long as you use your own words.  There's some good advice in WP:PARAPHRASE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Foxcatcher
At Foxcatcher it now has the box office value that you want in the infobox on the right. Please don't undo my last edit, because all you will change is other material. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The letter is a note, you can click it. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for adding the additional source. I now see where you got the extra gross from. :) --82.136.210.153 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Foxcatcher "Notes"
The eight detailed and extensively sourced "Notes" I have added to the plot section in the article on the 2014 movie Foxcatcher are there to document the differences between events as they are depicted in the film which have been conflated or fictionalized for dramatic purposes and the actual events as they occurred -- or didn't occur -- in real life. The majority of the citations are to the first person memoir by Mark Schultz entitled "Foxcatcher: The True Story of My Brother's Murder, John du Pont's Madness, and the Quest for Olympic Gold" as well as to contemporary and subsequent news accounts published in The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, and a variety of other local and national news media.

Neither the film nor its script are the sources for anything in these notes as their very purpose is to document where the film and real events differ from what appears in the film. The scene showing John du Pont walking to the mansion's garden house through an underground tunnel just before his arrest is fictionalized in the film as is confirmed by both Mark Schultz's book at pages 272-273, and in Jere Longman's news story entitled "Stepping Out of a Frigid House, Du Pont Heir Is Seized by Police: 48-Hour Standoff Is Ended With No Shots Fired" which appeared on page A1 of The New York Times on January 29, 1996 cited in footnotes #23 and #24.

The account of du Pont's actual arrest in "Foxcatcher" reads as follows:

"Wearing a dark Bulgarian team sweat suit with a light blue Team Foxcatcher shirt underneath, du Pont exited the house and took his first steps down the path toward the greenhouse. A SWAT team member, concealed behind a tree, waited for du Pont to walk far enough that he wouldn’t be able to turn and run back into the house. The officer then pointed his gun at du Pont and ordered him to stop and raise his hands.

"John did as instructed, then dropped his hands and made a run for the house. The officer stepped out from behind the tree and again ordered du Pont to stop. Du Pont stopped for only a second before dashing for the door again.

"The officer chased him down and grabbed him. Other officers converged on du Pont and handcuffed him."

Therefore please do not add fictionalized material from the film to the Notes as if it were true as this defeats the very purpose of the Notes which is to document what in the film has been fictionalized. Centpacrr (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I see. However, I hope you knew that all I wanted to edit was how he walked from his house to the estate's central heating plant. The film showed him running through a service tunnel to the heating plant, with police standing on the sides of the outside of the plant. When du Pont walked out, police ran to the front of the plant and tackled him to the ground. Is that really different from what actually happened? Did he go through a service tunnel or not?


 * I also did understand what you said about the film's script not having any sources, since the film got nominated by the Academy for best ORIGINAL script. - Theironminer (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you will read the eight detailed and sourced "Notes", you will find that they document that many of the events shown in "Foxcatcher" did not actually happen the way they are depicted and/or implied in the film. In real life du Pont never reached the service tunnel but was arrested while attempting to walk along an outdoor path from the mansion to the garden greenhouse as is described in both the Mark Schultz book (see above) and in the Jere Longman news account published in the New York Times the day after the arrest. The reason I wrote and added these Notes to the article was to make readers aware of those things that are shown in the film and included in the script that did not happen that way (or didn't happen at all) in real life. If you want to include a reference to du Pont walking through the tunnel, the only appropriate place to do that is in the article's "plot" section because that fictional event appears on screen, but not in the Notes section because the event did not happen in actuality. Centpacrr (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2016
Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles, as you did in the article Zootopia. It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for informing me with this. However, is there any way to label the top of the plot section for confused readers to not continue reading? Like a spoiler warning? Just until the film is released in America? - Theironminer (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No - per the above spoiler guidelines, Wikipedia doesn't include spoilers. We assume that if someone has made the decision to start reading a section called "Plot" in a movie article, they will want to discover its plot, in encyclopedic detail. --McGeddon (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Infinity Train
Hi, I noticed that you reversed my removal of the sentence in the Infinity Train article regarding fan speculation of a potential greenlight. Wikipedia does not allow unverifiable speculation, so what the fans think is not relevant to the article. I read the source article that you provided, but the Cartoon Network executive being interviewed didn't mention anything about Infinity Train or shorts like it. If you know of any direct sources from Cartoon Network staff concerning Infinity Train's future, please let me know. I haven't followed news of Infinity Train closely, but I do know that the creator has said that he is legally barred from talking about its development status or lack thereof (source). In the mean time, I will have to revert your most recent edit. Soren121 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You do make a good point that any news and updates on the show is so limited. It’s kind of annoying because the opposite should be happening for a show with such potential. But yeah, other than fans in the forums taking the comments from the source I added as an indication of the show’s possible development, there is nothing else I can provide. Thank you for bring this to my attention. - Theironminer (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's disappointing. TV show development can take years though, so it'll probably be a long while more before we hear about it. Personally I think it has a good shot considering its online popularity! Anyhow, have a nice day! Soren121 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of film director and actor collaborations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Gray ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_film_director_and_actor_collaborations check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_film_director_and_actor_collaborations?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tokyo Godfathers, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Looking through your edit history, you seem to have a bit of a history with increasing the run time of various movies by 1 minute. You never leave an edit summary, add a source or otherwise explain your change. This is a problem.

Actually, at Inuyasha the Movie: Fire on the Mystic Island, you added a minute, subtracted a minute and added a minute again in two minutes of editing. How you could be looking at a source and not know what it says is a mystery.

There are two problems here. First, you are not explaining your edits: what are you changing and why. If you have a source, you need to explain that. If you are randomly changing the numbers, you simply need to stop. Wikipedia does have a few vandals who randomly change game scores, heights, dates, run times, etc., often by small amounts to avoid detection. Otherwise good editors correcting these figures need to use edit summaries so editors know who the vandals are and who is correting the vandalism.

The second issue is sources. Various sources on films will show slight differences in run times. This can be a matter of whether they truncate or round, using slightly different cuts of the film, different criteria, etc. Which source is "right"? All of them and none of them. Time spent "correcting" them is time wasted. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)'' Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)