User talk:Warner REBORN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Warner REBORN, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Warner REBORN! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

British English move proposal[edit]

Please start a move proposal if you want to move British English. This has been discussed previously and is contentious. See Wikipedia:Moving a page for further guidance. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 13:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for Advice --Warner REBORN (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LOTR motion picture Logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LOTR motion picture 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Country[edit]

Unfortunately it appears the BFI database should not be used for the Country field. It includes every country, even those of minor companies only listed in a film's end credits crawl. And it lists them alphabetically, so as we saw with World War Z (film) a minor country can be listed before the principal country. If a company is not in the film's main titles or the poster's billing block, we should not list it or its country on WP.

This is also true with The Wolverine (film). The three production companies given in the film's main title credits - 20th Century Fox, Marvel Entertainment and The Donners' Company - are all American.

If you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, you'll see consensus is to not list the countries of minor companies not named in the billing block. The BFI includes every minor company, so it is not a good source for the Country parameter. The AFI is much more reliable, the single best database, but none is perfect. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not 100% disagree with your views however, in my time on Wikipedia and well before it BFI has always been used as the most reliable source. The BFI has fact and establishes neutrality (including foreign countries and not just BRITAIN) - AFI has been shown to be the opposite, ignoring most apart from AMERICA. It is fact that co-production countries should be listed. I am sorry if for some reason this angers you. Other users that I have come to respect such as User:SchroCat have strongly alerted me to BFI's accuracy, that's why we use it so often and frequently. Please do not edit war. I'm sorry but in this case the facts speak for there self. Thank You --Warner REBORN (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
That is not a reply. The AFI is correct more often than the BFI, and you have not demonstrated otherwise. But let's look at this case in particular. I explained to you that the three production companies listed above for The Wolverine (film) - 20th Century Fox, Marvel Entertainment and The Donners' Company - are American. You have not responded to that or explained which one you think is British. You further have not explained why the UK should be listed first, even after I told you the BFI always lists countries in alphabetical order. Instead you apparently intend to blindly follow whatever the BFI says, are are now WP:edit warring to enforce your point of view. You have been reverted. You should be aware of WP:BRD and WP:3RR, and stop putting that in the article. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
"The AFI is correct more often than the BFI"—unsubstantiated and opinionated nonsense. You got anything to back that up? The AFI Catalog has more holes than Swiss cheese, and reliance on that without other sources does you and the project a disservice. - SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The AFI is very reliable in listing credits by how they actually appear on screen, while the BFI bundles together the director, the second unit director and the assistant directors with no distinction between them in the Direction section. The same with other categories. It mixes together cinematographers with camera operators and camera assistants. Take a look at their listing for The Wolverine: http://explore.bfi.org.uk/51c0dcee596d2. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
That makes the AFI more detailed NOT more reliable: there is a massive difference that I don't think you appreciate. - SchroCat (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
So listing the credits by how they actually appear on screen is not reliable. Good argument. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have to agree with both sides in parts. Gothicfilm, you're still making your unsubstantiated claim of the AFI being more accurate, when this isn't shown to be the case. On the other hand, only listing the countries of those mentioned in the billing block actually makes sense to me too. I think the article needs to be reverted to just United States for the moment, since that's the long standing consensus and it's not got a solid argument for inclusion. According to Template:Infobox film, we should only report universally reported countries, and the BFI seems to be the only one mentioning the UK, and one reliable source doesn't override two. Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 23:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added UK Production company Ingenious Media which is listed as "made in association with" in film credits. Therefore making it a US / UK co-production. The basic fact is Wikipedia is designed to present facts not opinions. I have added facts and they should be left instead of a clearly up factual opinion. US is listed above UK as I presume it was slightly more American than British. Though from past experience, it should not be listed as "American-British" or "American". It should be left, what User:Gothicfilm is trying to do is childish, And I will be the first to admit, I used to behave in similar ways but learnt from editors such as SOCK and SCHROCAT. I would recommend Gothicfilm does the same. I would in this case disagree with User:Sock and don't get what consensus he is leading to. It should be left. Thank You Warner REBORN (talk) 10:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm not even going for a consensus right now, I'm saying everyone needs to stop reverting and changing it until we're done discussing. The article should remain how it was, with only the US listed, until we reach a consensus. That's how these discussions are able to work, so no edit wars start up and people don't get angry. It's in poor faith to change a subject of controversy to a suggestion, not what has been long-standing and agreed upon. I'm personally unconvinced that Ingenious Media's involvement makes it noteworthy to say it was a British-American co-production, because like Gothicfilm said, the main production companies are all American. But the primary point I'm making, the most important one, is that the article go to how it was before this dispute until it is resolved, not keep getting changed until everybody's angry. If the consensus is to add the UK, we will. No rush. Sock (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 11:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Credits[edit]

Don't change credits on films without discussion or edit summary, like you did with Superman (1978 film), as seen with this dif here. The cast order is well established by the onscreen credits and the poster, and that's what we go by. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Interstellar[edit]

The official website is interstellarmovie.com, not interstellar-movie.com. The owner of the fan site is very clever in making it look official, but there is a disclaimer saying that it is not official. The "Synopsis" section references the official synopsis, which is much simpler. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Erik (talk | contrib)cheers for the head up. I didn't see that when I researched that. Thanks again. PS. Glad your back from your holiday. --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I'm still on my holiday. :) Today is a rest day for my family. Hence my series of edits today! I will be back in a week. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, then hope you enjoy the rest of your time :) --Warner REBORN (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pavel Parkhomenko[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Pavel Parkhomenko has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. j⚛e deckertalk 21:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I will delete it now. I'm sorry. I planned to expand with references but haven't, because moved on to other areas. Thanks again. --Warner REBORN (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't, i'm not an administrator. But please do delete it. --Warner REBORN (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Overlinking[edit]

You've been reverted by at least three different editors for linking London in multiple film infoboxes, yet you went and did it at least two more times today. Check out WP:OVERLINK (point 2). London is a common name. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok --Warner REBORN (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC The Dark Knight trilogy was accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
The Dark Knight trilogy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Huon (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Cast list credits again[edit]

I see you are still at it, changing credits to suit your own view, as seen at Fast & Furious 7 with this dif. You ignored the hidden note to promote your favored actor. You actually wrote in your edit summary Changed cast based on what is likely order. Jason Statham is a very high profile actor. And as antagonist won't be out ordered by the likes of Lucas Black. - which shows how hollow your claims to always follow reliable sources are. And you jumped JS ahead of not only Black but other franchise regulars. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Gothicfilm, This message resembles no importance to me. I am only editing on the basis of what will likely happen. Do not keep posting pointless messages to me. JS is a very expensive actor that I can guarantee Universal Pictures will be keen to have him high up the billing board. Since we have no evidence at the moment - I think neither us our suited to comment. I will not change it for the time being. --Warner REBORN (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PaddingtonPOSTER.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PaddingtonPOSTER.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:DWdeepbreathBR.jpg[edit]

Copyright-excl.svg

Thanks for uploading File:DWdeepbreathBR.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 16:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Gagarin: First in Space for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gagarin: First in Space is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gagarin: First in Space until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Cowlibob (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've withdrawn this nom. Another editor did some great work in proving its notability. Here are sources that you could use to improve the article that were identified by the editor. Some are non-English but can be transliterated.
IE: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16],[17]
entry at the Russian Wikipedia (For additional references.)
Critic reviews Hope you find these helpful! Happy editing. Cowlibob (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cowlibob, I have Warners page on my watchlist, you could have phrased that "Here are sources that we could use to improve the article", as per WP:BEFORE. Warner is relatively new, he admits being a bit rash in his earlier edits, but has put in some good edits and is very co-operative of late. Creating an article without expanding it is not in itself a fault, I am sure he will learn as he goes along, like all of us. Murry1975 (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I apologise if I appeared discourteous that was not my intention. I'll try to improve my phrasing in the future. Cowlibob (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will keep expanding it. As I go along I want to try and steer away from the article like most editors so it can be edited by a wider range of editors. Thanks again. --Warner REBORN (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:PaddingtonHEADvfx.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:PaddingtonHEADvfx.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa Please help. Where do I add the summary. --Warner REBORN (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PaddingtonHEADvfx.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PaddingtonHEADvfx.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:InterstellerWORMHOLE.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:InterstellerWORMHOLE.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

At Stefan2, it is being used on Interstellar (film), however I believed another editor changed or re-uploaded the image. --Warner REBORN (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
That image is not in use in that article. The article uses a different image. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Stefan2, corrected, it is now being used, so please do not delete it. --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Warner, I removed the image. It is too high quality, and the image that was already used was perfectly appropriate and correctly sized. Your image, at its size, violates fair use. No reason to change it. Sock (tock talk) 18:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
(tock talk), I added my image before the other one and was re-uploaded for no reason. --Warner REBORN (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of United kingdom relations for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article United kingdom relations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United kingdom relations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. EoRdE6 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of United kingdom relations[edit]

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on United kingdom relations, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, Speedy delete contest button.svg. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. EoRdE6 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You want to delete it then sure go ahead. --Warner REBORN (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Hang on, did you say promoting a COMPANY - You need to look again and possibly go to Specsavers. --Warner REBORN (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Interstelar-Nolan.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Interstelar-Nolan.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)