User talk:Facu-el Millo

This user prefers to receive notifications. Please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} when you reply to him on other pages. No talkback messages are needed.

AN/I Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sudipto Surjo - template disruption, unilateral page moves and disregard for collaboration. Thank you. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Loki's Timeline

Hello Facu, regarding Loki TV series timeline, I do not understand why it is set after Endgame. This Loki is from Avengers 1 timeline (2012) and he hasn't gone through the redemption in Dark World and Ragnarok. The main Loki got killed in Infinity War. And this version is a variant as confirmed in the trailer.

The Ancient One clearly said "the Infinity Stones creates the flow of time. Remove one stone and that flow splits". The Space Stone was removed from 2012 timeline creating a new reality where Loki is free with the Space Stone (only to be captured by TVA agents). Moreover, Banner said "Changing the past doesn't affect the future. If you travel to the past, that past will become your future and your former present will become the past which can't now be changed by your new future" Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mighty Asgardian616: I'll answer on El Millo's behalf, hoping he doesn't mind. The article states that it takes place 'after the events of Avengers: Endgame'. 'After the events' doesn't necessarily mean after it in the timeline. The event it is referring to, where Loki stole the Tesseract, happened in 2012. Therefore, the Loki series takes place after this event, even though the rest of Endgame was in 2023. Hope that helps. IronManCap (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It happens in after events in 2012, but not after events that occurred in The Avengers, but in Endgame's 2012. Without the events of Endgame, the events of this series wouldn't occur. —El Millo (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay so Loki is set after Endgame but within the alternate reality (2012) like 2012 within 2023 Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Eternals reversion

Hey. It looks terrible and inconsistent. The difference in length isn't sufficient to justify it. Someone needs to make a decision that's better than this one. You seem vested in the page. Maybe you can do it? Thmazing (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a common practice among these MCU articles that, when it comes to cast lists, the break space is used when the character description is more than one line. —El Millo (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Avenger members roster

There are also multiple editors who want the complete rooster not until Avengers: Age of Ultron in the table. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Start the discussion at the talk page then, see what everyone thinks. —El Millo (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

One World, One People VS The Dark World Tomatometer Scores

Yeah, I thought about providing a link to The Dark World's page on Rotten Tomatoes featuring its 66% tomato meter score for reference, but I didn't know how to do that and even if I did, I don't know if that would be enough to prove the point that I was trying to make. ‎ (User talk:73.9.43.42) (talk) 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that highlights that "One World, One People" has a lower Rotten Tomatoes score than Thor: The Dark World. If the fact is relevant, then a reliable source will have commented on it. If not, then it's not notable for us to include it. —El Millo (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Honest Question

So El Millo, At first, I thought your name is Milo. This is just a question, but can I say "Milo" to whenever I mention you? Happy Friday. ChannelSpider (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Haha, you can, but I think it may be confusing. Perhaps just use to l's, say "Millo", and it will be clearer to everybody. —El Millo (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe) category

Hi, regarding my category addition on the Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article, I should clarify that Loki is literally a Frost Giant. As stated in the article, we learned in the first Thor movie that he was born a Frost Giant and abandoned as an infant by his biological father Laufey, only to be found and raised by Odin. Because of this, I would argue that Category:Marvel Comics giants is absolutely defining, because it describes what the character literally is. Similarly, the category is also used on the article for Loki (comics), so I think it would make sense for it to also be on the page for his MCU counterpart.The Editor 155 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Editor 155: looking at the characters included in that category, it seems they all are literally giants, as in "very big size", or at least have been at one point. Reading Loki (comics), it seems he has been gigantic at one point or another in the comics, but the MCU version hasn't, and his denomination as a giant isn't relevant enough for him to be categorized in it. But I'm not sure now, I guess you can go ahead and add it and see if someone else reverts you. —El Millo (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll add it back in.The Editor 155 (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy interlinks

Hi, please see Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(soundtrack). I would appreciate a discussion. — Safety Cap (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Old Man & the Gun. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - wolf 15:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: did you honestly just gave me a {{Uw-disruptive2}} template for trying to improve a footnote with an outdated format, fixing it with a downside, then fixing it properly after your reversion and clarification? —El Millo (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I honestly did. Do you honestly believe that continuous edits with next-to-useless summaries are a better form of collegial editing and article improvement over simply using a talk page for discussion? If your first B was actually worthwhile, then when it was R, you should've gone to the talk page to then D. Instead, you decide to edit that content again (essentially the first step in an edit war), but this time making different changes to the same content, (essentially confirming your first edit as needless and/or incorrect), with yet another meaningless summary and still no engagement. Hence the {{Uw-disruptive2}} notification. It contains plenty of information that I believe you would find useful and instructive. Have a nice day - wolf 16:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You said in your edit summary to fix it according to the "very long footnote" part of the documentation of the template, and that's what I did. That was the only problem you had with my edit, and I fixed it. It was clear from your edit summary to me that your problem with my edit had nothing to do with the intent of what I did, but just with the fact that it cluttered the lead section instead of having the footnote be list-based. Using the talk would be a waste of time for both of us when your concerns with my previous edit were clear and easily fixed. This warning template was completely unnecessary. I didn't simply reinstate my edit as it was, I fixed specifically according to your correct clarification. Just so you know, I didn't put it in a list-based format the first time because I thought it would cause problems if the footnote included two references, as I've seen it happen before. —El Millo (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"You said in your edit summary to fix it according to..." - No, I didn't. What I wrote was: "See "very long footnote" example in template doc", to support my revert.

"Using the talk would be a waste of time" - using article talk pages to discuss issues instead of edit warring is not a "waste a time", it's a universally expected practice.

Your second edit was as needless as the first one. The note was working fine as is, the page was not experiencing any "problems". You claim the notice here was "unnecessary", yet you seemed to have learned nothing from it. This is a waste of time. In the future, I would suggest not fixing things that aren't broken, engaging before revert-warring and not deliberately misrepresenting other editors comments/summaries. I think we're done here. - wolf 18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As a closing statement, as this is a waste of time: the page, although technically "not broken", used an outdated system of references. All I did was update it. Thewolfchild reverted me, citing the "very long footnote" example at {{ref}}'s documentation. I took it as a clarification of what was wrong with my edit and needed to be fixed. And so I did. I didn't deliberately misrepresent the comment, I interpreted they weren't in disagreement with updating the outdated format, but merely with having the content of the ref be inline instead of list-based, which cluttered up the lead. I didn't say that using the talk page is a waste of time per se, I said that, as I got from the edit summary, there seemed to be no need for further discussion when the user's problem with my edit was clear to me. Lastly, things don't need to have problems, or not work, in order to be improved. Things can be updated not because they don't work, but because something else works better, or because the community at large has agreed it should be changed, as it is with {{ref}} which, according to the notice placed there, is a deprecated method of footnoting. There's no need for Thewolfchild to respond here, in order not to waste more time and put this behind, hence the absence of a ping. —El Millo (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Reversiones Thor: Ragnarok

Hola Facu, por qué reviertes mi edición en Thor: Ragnarok? Puse algo que es cierto: En Captain America: Civil War (2016), Tony Stark menciona que los eventos de Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) tuvieron lugar el verano pasado, en cambio en Thor mencionan que fue 2 años después, créeme mirate las dos películas o si no anda a estos enlaces dónde dice "Where does the MCU take place", es un sitio confiable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeXEDMEQMH0 (El de Civil War) y el otro de Thor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32s0rXkVJVc. --Lil Pablo 2007 (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)