User talk:You've gone incognito/Archive 3

Getaway GAR
I noticed that you nominated The Getaway for GA. If you don't mind, I would very much like to take up the review. Really one of the coolest Steve McQueen films ever. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 09:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy if you do the honors. I expect your comments soon—you carry on, sir. Blue  sphere  09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll provide them tomorrow.  —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 09:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have managed to acquire the pages for The Getaway from Terrill's book. It is in my photobucket here. Help yourself. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 15:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I'll be damned.  Blue  sphere  03:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You can register for free (No need credit card payment at all) in Open Library to get such books. That's where I got McQueen's book. BTW, you can include Dennis Schwartz's and Emmanuel Levy's reviews. There are also some magazines and newspapers in the Rotten Tomatoes survey that you can use and are more reliable than the ones you have used.  —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 07:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've checked those reviews at RT even before adding those reviews in the article. Plenty of them are WP:LINKROT, and nowhere to be found when Googled. I'll just add another review that I was able to retrieve, also found in RT.  Blue  sphere  13:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Getaway (1972 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Getaway (1972 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Jerrold Tarog
Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Getaway (1972 film)
The article The Getaway (1972 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Getaway (1972 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The Raid
I didn't write the summary, personally. So is that a genuine request to collaborate (to re-edit the summary), or were you being facetious? Excuse me if I misinterpreted the tone of your message. DA1 (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Insiang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neorealism. 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) 10:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ai-Ai delas Alas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin-off. 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) 10:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Rachel Scott
Fixed those last two references. May add for GA. We will see. ;) All the best. Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mel Gibson: Highest-grossing R-rated film
Hello Bluesphere. First of all I'd like to apologize for not managing to review your FAN for Mel Gibson's filmography. I may be able to help with something else though. I noticed that in the description it says that The Passion of the Christ is the "highest-grossing R-rated film of all time" but I think that is incorrect. Deadpool made $783.1 million while Passion of Christ grossed $612 million. Unless of course we also take inflation into acount. (Which I'll be honest, I have no idea what inflation is.) PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , I stand corrected, lol. I had no idea that it got beat by Deadpool. I have deleted that one, thanks. Btw, I have a FLC here, take a look. :) Blue  sphere  11:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Blair Witch Project
The article The Blair Witch Project you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Blair Witch Project 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 Famous Hobo -- Famous Hobo (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Insiang
Hello! Your submission of Insiang at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK review of List of awards and nominations received by Sarah Lancashire
I've addressed the concerns you raised here, and I believe we should no be good to go. Thanks for the review! Eshlare (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Stop reverting please
I removed the "unreviewed" tag on that movie page as I had reviewed the page. One does not have to be an admin to review a page for problems. My edit was good, please stop reverting, as your edit is incorrect.SamanthaB55 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for posting to my talk page, really, as I was about to warn you in your talk page similarly. There's really no helping you, isn't there? Just for the record, I created the Muse article, and if, indeed, this article has been officially reviewed by a page admin (which I suspect you are not), then I would be notified that a page admin has reviewed it. Don't believe me, that's fine. But at least you have been informed. And you do realize that you can't revert the same page three times in 24 hours per WP:3RR? Unless you want to be brought up to the WP:ANI then I must advise you to stop playing this game. Oh, and that you say your edit is "good" is irrelevant, and at the very least beyond my comprehension. Deleting an unresolved template does not constitute a good edit on your part. Blue  sphere  14:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I would love to hear what a "page admin" is. There is such a thing as a "page patroller", but that is a dfferent kettle of fish. The tag we are fighting over is the Template:New_unreviewed_article template. I don't think you understand that tag. Please note the text on that page:
 * "The template should be removed manually by any editor, except the editor who created the page, as soon as the editor has looked over the new article and determined that the new article does not qualify for speedy deletion (e.g., for libel or copyright violations). Optionally, while the editor is looking over the page, they should consider cleaning up any major problems or appropriately tagging it for cleanup."


 * I am "any editor". Have a nice day. SamanthaB55 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, just a note that saying unnecessary things like "There's really no helping you, isn't there", and "I'll be the mature one here" is considered to be unprofessional and uncivil in Wikipedia. It's also really, really not needed. You created a new page, I reviewed it and removed a tag. I'm trying to work with you here.SamanthaB55 (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * , I feel sorry you got offended with my being the mature in this situation you're trying to aggravate any further. Please stop posting here just to counter-argue with me. Adiós Blue  sphere  02:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Insiang
Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Getaway (1972 film)
Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article The Getaway (1972 film) has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Good luck with the FAR.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Blair Witch Project
Mifter (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Steve McQueen and Ali MacGraw in The Getaway (1972).jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Steve McQueen and Ali MacGraw in The Getaway (1972).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) 17:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:24X36 A Movie About Movie Posters official poster.png
 Thanks for uploading File:24X36 A Movie About Movie Posters official poster.png. 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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Album q
Hi! Per MOS:ALBUM, it suggests that if an album was first released on vinyl or cassette, you should list it noting which tracks were on either side of the album. Something like.

Side 1 Side 2
 * 1) "Song Title"
 * 2) "Song Title"
 * 3) " Another song"
 * 1) "Side B Song
 * 2) "Last Song"

Just mention which song is on each side. Good luck with the Carrie article! Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

GAN review trade?
Hi again. Just letting you know I'd be happy to review 13 Assassins (2010 film) in exchange for 21 grams experiment. As always no worries if you're too busy. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm interested! But would it be okay if you review On the Job (2013 film) instead? It's another film article I plan to nominate for evaluation against the GA criteria, along with 13 Assassins. However, I'm not advising you to initiate the review immediately because a GOCE volunteer is still in the process of copy editing it. I will ping you once the copy edit is done. Now with regard to 21 grams experiment, I will initiate the review once I'm done with an article I'm reviewing at WP:GAN. Cheers, Blue  sphere  14:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, just ping me when you're ready and start 21 grams when you're ready too. :) Freikorp (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Also just want to be honest, the hardest part of writing this article was choosing what to call it. '21 grams experiment' just seemed like the best title, considering the popular culture references (the experiment doesn't have an official name). Feel free to suggest the article name be moved in your review, if you think that is appropriate. Freikorp (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

you may initiate your GAR of On the Job (2013 film) at WP:GAN, sorry it took longer than expected. P.S: I saw 21 grams experiment be featured on the main page, garnering 6k views. Not bad. :) Best, Slightlymad (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there. No worries about it taking a while. And I was quite pleased with the amount of DYK hits for 21 grams too :). I've just completely my initial review and have placed you nomination on hold. While I've got your attention, I tried to ping you (and several other people) back to the FAC for Jill Valentine. Firstly, can you let me know if the ping worked? None of the six people who were pinged replied which I can't help but think is odd and now I'm not sure if it worked. No worries if it did work and you were simply too busy. Secondly can you weigh in on the discussion there? The editor I am in a dispute with is disagreeing with me on four points which I have highlighted underneath where you were pinged. Your opinions on any or all of the points would be greatly appreciated, but don't feel obligated if you're busy. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Drive (2011 film)
Hello:

I have just begun a copy edit of this article posted on the GOCE request page. I notice that throughout the article the director's name appears as Winding Rfen. I thought this was a bit unusual so I checked and discovered that Variety refers to him simply as Refn and this is how he is named in his WP biography. I changed the name in the lead but then thought I had better check with you. Do you have some reference that shows he refers to himslef as Winding Rfen, or should his name be shortened throughout the rest of the article? Look forward to hearing your thought.Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To start with I wanna thank you for taking interest in copy editing this one. According to his own article under Early life, Refn possesses both his parents' surname which is why I appended both Winding and Refn as his official surname. If various reliable sources refer to him as simply Refn, then I believe it's completely fine. Slightlymad (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In the Directors' Guild article cited in the "Early Life" section, the writer refers to him simply as Refn - so that's two good sources to support shortening the name. I notice in his WP bio his name starts out as Refn but soon becomes inconsistent throughout the rest of the article. Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Drive has been completed.

I have a suggestion concerning the Top Ten Lists section.

I would delete this list, which is overkill, and instead replace it with this paragraph:

It was picked as the best film of the year by: Peter Travers, of Rolling Stone,  Richard Roeper, of the Chicago Sun-Times,  James Rocchi, of BoxOffice,  Joshua Rothkopf of  Time Out (New York) and Neil Miller, of Film School Rejects.

It's hardly important who was number two, let alone number seven! :)

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Good luck with the FAC review.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * were you able to check if the prose observes proper logical quotation style? I think it might raise concern at FAC. With regard to the top-ten list, I think it's best to seek consensus in the article's talk page first. Slightlymad (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe the article does observe WP's guidelines on logical quotation. As to the list, it's your call. If you created it, then I think you'd be within your rights to edit it; if not, I guess you can try for a consensus. I'm pretty sure any FAR would say it's unnecessary. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * well since no one responded to my query in the talk page regarding this, I might just change it. But where do you think it should be placed? Slightlymad (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would remove the heading Top Ten Lists and insert the paragraph at the end of the Critical Response section.Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

FAC review
I know you never actually agreed to do anything, but is there any chance you could throw a FAC review my way? I'm getting worried that it's not gonna pass—not because it isn't good enough, but because it's down at the bottom of the nominations page with one support too few. If you have the time, I'd be grateful if you could review it. And even though I already reviewed your article, I'd make sure I'd remember to review your next FAC. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe this is why you performed a source review of my FAR. Very well, I'll see what I can do and make sure to do it soon before the FAC coordinators lay their thoughts on it. I feel terrible that this article has had trouble getting promoted to FA, it's a pity.

Update I gave my thoughts on your FA nominee. It definitely satisfies all the criteria and it's a shame some editors won't give it a chance and give their thoughts on it. I do really hope it makes the cut. I might get in touch with you when I'm ready to nominate an article for FA in the future. Be seeing you, and good luck getting Holy Wood promoted. :) All the best, Slightlymad (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I'll keep an eye out for your username at the FAC page for a few more weeks. After that, feel free to leave a message at my talk page, because I'd be happy to throw another source review your way (They seem to be the kind of reviews holding up most nominations–I don't know why, they're actually easier than regular reviews). Thanks again. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 13 Assassins (2010 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 13 Assassins (2010 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 JohnWickTwo -- JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

11B-X-1371 GA Nominaion
u Hello Slight. Just saw your message on my talk page about the GA nomination for the article on 11B-X-1371. The article is very interesting for me as a filmmaker and it seems to be good enough to warrant a GA nomination. I will be glad to review it, however that might take some time as I am currently working on expanding my own article for FA status. I will point out that you should probably think about using other External Links besides other Wikis and the video's youtube page (wiki's aren't exactly the best external links). Also Make sure that you can use all possible information made available on the video that are from reliable sources, I've learned this through my own expansion of articles. I will get to reviewing the article as soon as I can, it's looking pretty good so far with the only (minor) issue being the external links. Take care.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good to know! However, you could have said this to the article's nominator so that he could put up a note saying that you are interested in picking it for review. Best of luck getting your FAC promoted, too. Slightlymad (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thought you were the nominator... Interesting. Thanks. I'm always looking for collaborators so if you're interested in working with me on expanding the article I'm working feel free to let me know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 13 Assassins (2010 film)
The article 13 Assassins (2010 film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:13 Assassins (2010 film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JohnWickTwo -- JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of On the Job (2013 film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article On the Job (2013 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of On the Job (2013 film)
The article On the Job (2013 film) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:On the Job (2013 film) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of On the Job (2013 film)
The article On the Job (2013 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:On the Job (2013 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 Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Erik Matti OTJ behind camera.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Erik Matti OTJ behind camera.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) 17:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Godville
Slightlymad, do you intend to return to your review of this DYK soon, or should I put out a call for a new reviewer. The nominator pinged you back in mid-July. Please let me know your plans. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Taken 3 OST.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Taken 3 OST.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) 17:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK Buy Bust
Hello! Your submission of Buy Bust at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --GRuban (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 13 Assassins (2010 film)
The article 13 Assassins (2010 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:13 Assassins (2010 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 Tintor2 -- Tintor2 (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Kita Kita
This is the English language Wikipedia. All non-English article title must be translated to English (literal translation if it doesn't have an offcial English title/name) for the benefit of readers. I don't see any reason why the incorrect Japanese characters must be included in the article since 1) it is incorrect, 2) this is the English Wikipedia, and 3) the film is not a Japanese production. The Japanese characters in the poster is obviously used as a decoration to signify the setting of the film (Japan). Hollyckuhno (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That the Japanese title is incorrect is your synthesis. Even though you claim it to be the truth, that will have to be verified by a reliable source, anyway. Thus regardless of how trivial or incorrect that is, it still warrants its place in the article. Further, the literal translation template is only used for non-official English-language titles, and italics vice versa. Since the English-language title is I See You in the poster, it is de facto the official English title.  SLIGHTLY  mad   03:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Buy Bust
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Dilim images?
I noticed you removed the title and actor images from the article on the film Dilim. Can you say why? Any objection to having them restored? --GRuban (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well the way they were placed in the article were eyesore; they overwhelm the article as you scroll. SLIGHTLY  mad   14:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, let me try a few things, and I'll write when it's ready for you to take a look at again. --GRuban (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Btw, I didn't remove the title; after adding an infobox, I simply moved the lede below it. SLIGHTLY  mad   16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you compile the actors' photos like those in the X-Men: Days of Future Past article? They look identical by how they were taken. SLIGHTLY  mad   05:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That would have been a lot of work; and wouldn't be responsive (the last few images are pretty poor quality, someday someone will lighten them and make them higher resolution, and we'd have to remake the tall image). But take a look at the gallery, I think that doesn't overwhelm the article. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There, it looks cleaner! That'll do, .  SLIGHTLY  mad   14:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Undoing My Pope Francis Edit
Ten days ago you undid an edit I made a while back to the Pope Francis page, saying that I was cherrypicking information. The reason I didn't remove the Kate D'Annunzio from that article was because it added context to better understand the original statement and its intent. It didn't judge whether the Pope's statement was good or right, it just explained how it was meant to be taken.

The other quote didn't offer any new information besides "some people liked the decision." I think including every significant compliment or condemnation of Francis's teaching would make his page unreadable, so I though it best to stop editors from going down that path. If I'm wrong or ignorant of some of Wikipedia's policy on this, please let me know.--Qswizzle (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Well Go USA logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Well Go USA logo.png. 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) 17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting 'We Are X' FA nomination
Hi there,

I just wanted to say a personal thank you for supporting my FA nomination for We Are X. If you happen to know anyone who would be able to also help with this nomination, please let me know.

Cheers,

ISD (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , it was my pleasure. If you want my advice, be willing to trade reviews with other editors' FAC nominations: review theirs and they might do yours. Just ask them when you're done reviewing their FAC, but don't make them feel obligated. Wish you luck mate. (P.S. Your FAC still needs an image review, which can be requested atop WT:FAC) SLIGHTLY  mad   11:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the advice. Cheers, ISD (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with Nightcrawler
Hi again,

Recently I've had my edits reverted by TheOldJacobite on Nightcrawler, specifically the inclusion of a cast section, and to a lesser extent sourcing the budget and gross income of the film in the infobox. You brought up a good point that we aren't an indiscriminate provider of information, and that actors important enough to the film should be included. I just wanted to check if you still agreed with that, and whether I'm in the wrong or not. Also, just so that I'm not crazy, the budget and gross income are already sourced in the article, there is no need to source them in the infobox. The only reason the run time is sourced is because I didn't think it needed to be mentioned in the body of the article. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chiara Badano in 1987.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chiara Badano in 1987.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) 18:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)