User talk:SassyCollins

Welcome!

Hello, SassyCollins, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Pirates of the Caribbean (film series). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SassyCollins. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man: Homecoming / Oxford comma's

I saw a few changes of yours to this page. One comment mentioned "Oxford comma's" [sic] and the later one said "my apologies," but it didn't seem to revert the earlier changes. There was confusion because there was at least one intervening change. At any rate, whatever you think of serial commas, my changes (as I clearly explained) served not only to decrease ambiguity in several locations, but they also made the entire article more consistent in its use of serial commas. After your change, the article once again has a mix of serial commas and no serial commas. Will you please change the text back to include the serial commas that I painstakingly searched for, or at least revert your changes and then discuss on the talk page, explaining why the article is better with a mish-mash of forms? Thank you. Holy (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. As far as I can see, you placed three (Oxford) comma's which I then mistakenly removed. I then reverted my removal, which placed the three comma's back again. I'm not quite sure what the issue is now. Please let me know if there is something you do not agree with. Cheers. SassyCollins (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

It was hard to tell what transpired because of the intervening edit (or edit's). At the time I wrote you, yours was the last edit, and there were still several serial comma's missing that I had previously added for consistency. I couldn't piece together from the history who had deleted or added back in which one's. Thanks for explaining! Cheer's! (Just joking around with the apostrophe's, by the way.) Holy (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edit of Black Panther (film)

I don't understand why you reverted this. There doesn't appear to be any other mention of Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in the Black Panther article, so many readers may not know what the term Phase Three refers to. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remark. Please see the adjustment made. SassyCollins (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think I see, you may have objected to the preposition I used. Your change is certainly an acceptable resolution of the problem. Thank you! --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job with all the box office updates! Surge_Elec (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MCU films

You've twice reverted my edit to the page for MCU films, because you said I removed the references. As I said in my description of my second edit, I did not remove the references. I just moved them to the top. Check again here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films&oldid=846102253#Critical_response the reference is after the words "Audience rating". The information for all the movies is on a single page, so there's no need to cite the reference a dozen different times. One time is enough. - 173.171.160.127 (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

173.171.160.127 Every film has its own RT reference, as every film has its own RT page, which in turn can be updated when RT-info for a certain film changes. With your edit, all 19 references (and therefore all access-dates) are removed and replaced with a single reference for "everything MCU". Because this is such an extensive revision, I would suggest taking this to the articles' Talk-page to gain consensus. I personally don't mind your proposed lay-out; if all 19 references could be put back in the RT column (as in the Metacritic column) plus keeping the single "everything MCU" reference, I think you'd have a winner. SassyCollins (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The single reference for everything MCU contains the information from all the individual RT pages, and is updated when RT-info for each film changes. There's no need for links to dozens of different pages if there's a single page that has everything. - 173.171.160.127 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]