User talk:Filmomusico

Speedy deletion nomination of Resident Human

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Resident Human requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mysterium Tremendum (Lord Dying album)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mysterium Tremendum (Lord Dying album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Summon the Faithless

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Summon the Faithless requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Poisoned Altars

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Poisoned Altars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Desire (Desire Marea album)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Desire (Desire Marea album) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of All of Them Naturals

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on All of Them Naturals requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bbb23 (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Not listing films at delete sorting pages

Hello, Filmomusico. I noticed that in the nomination of Amara Deepam (1977 film) and several others, you simply added the text "Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions" and "India-related deletion discussions," without actually listing them at the delete sorting pages of WP:DSFILM and WP:DSI respectively. Therefore, please transclude the AfDs as instructed at WP:AFD#Deletion sorting so that the concern editors can actually see that these articles are nominated. Thanks -- Ab207 (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ab207: Hello. So they don't come off automatically? Good to know. Thanks. Will try to keep my eyes open for those.--Filmomusico (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Your nominations are also not transcluded/linked on the main nomination log pages as per nomination instructions #3. This means no one is actually aware of them unless they watch the articles (or follow article alerts). This is also why so many really old ones are not closed, because administrators are not aware they need closing.

They are all also slightly malformed because they don't have the section title with the article name (needed when listed for the main log page). I fixed some, but you have so many old ones. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: Thanks for the tip. I guess I copied it from somewhere and assumed "this is how it is". Sorry about the mess, I have started to add the header.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You should also not remove the AfD template from the article if you decide to withdraw your nomination per WP:WITHDRAWN. You should leave a note on the AfD discussion page that you wish to withdraw and someone else may close the discussion early if criteria for withdrawing are satisfied. But you should not close it yourself and removing the AfD template looks like the discussion is closing/withdrawn, but is not and may in fact have a different outcome, like "keep". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I have just spent a considerable length of time cleaning up these nominations (the ones old enough to show up here, anyway) to get them onto today's log page so that people will actually see them. (I didn't even bother to check if you'd gotten them transcluded to delsort pages as requested above.) In the future, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO so as to avoid making work for others. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Boy Behind the Door

Hello! Your submission of The Boy Behind the Door 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pamzeis (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Try WP:PROD

Hey, I was noticing many of your nominations of films. Wanted to suggest using WP:PROD which is used for uncontroversial deletions. I think most of your nominations would meet this. Take them to AFD if someone contests a PROD. I have always found it very useful. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: I tried that once, and my "speedy" was declined, that's why I chose to go straight to AfD, and, in fact, some articles were saved that way. I understand what you are saying though.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey Filmomusico, WP:CSD is different than WP:PROD. And don't be disheartened if speedy was declined. We are all on the same team here. Honestly, a lot of this is just procedural. You have to go through right process. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad: I understand. I just don't want to waste my time and your time. You see, I found no criteria for film articles at WP:CSD. Neither do I see it at WP:PROD.--Filmomusico (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Life (2005 film), (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

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.

And please use {{subst:afd2|pg=Article|text=Sample text}} for all future AfD nominations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: Thanks. Will try to use the template. As for me not signing the post, I copied the AfD from another user who also didn't signed his AfD comment. I personally sign everything. I just assumed that AfD is not a part of it.:(--Filmomusico (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Hi. I was using this account to write articles on films. How was it abusive?--Filmomusico (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Filmomusico, and thanks for responding. Are you also editing under the MollyPollyRolly account? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Sometimes. Why? According to your policy it is ok to use multiple accounts. If not, can you unblock at least one of my accounts? Many thanks.--Filmomusico (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it's perfectly fine to use multiple accounts (so long as they don't violate policy). :-) I was concerned regarding some similar edits that involved your account and another, and upon investigating, I found these two accounts and thought that they might be involved. Okay, no problem - what I'm going to do is unblock you. I apologize for the confusion and for getting your accounts tangled into this mess. A random recommendation that I have for you is to disclose on your user pages that you operate both of these accounts. By doing so, you shouldn't run into any more confusion such as this. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks for recommendation. I'll do that.--Filmomusico (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem. :-)  Done - you are now unblocked. Happy editing, and I apologize again for getting you mixed up into all of this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Oshwah: are you aware Film has continued to use both accounts on the same page(s) after this discussion? Often one after the other as seen at The Bird Seller (1935 film) and Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev. As far as I'm aware, neither account has disclosed they're the same person. Star Mississippi 00:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Star Mississippi: Hi. As you aware, those instances were accidents. How do you disclose that you use 2 accounts? Is there a similar user box to that of COI? Many thanks.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Film. It actually wasn't clear to me that they were accidents or otherwise. If Oshwah thinks this is an acceptable use of two accounts (personally, I am uncertain that it's the case), you can use templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of these userboxes: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Related accounts Star Mississippi 00:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Star Mississippi: From as far as I know (I read your policy on socks), as long as I don't use one of them for malicious intent, which, none of those accidents were, I can use as many accounts as there are, to confuse the vandals. :) I use one for greeting/reverting and and another (this one) for editing and writing articles.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I look forward to seeing Oshwah's interpretation as I read the guidelines differently, and I'm not sure which of us is correct. Star Mississippi 01:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK

I pinged you on this page, but I am not sure the ping got through. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The Boy Behind the Door plot summary

What do you mean by saying the plot summary can be expanded after the nomination? Per WP:FILMPLOT, a plot summary should only exceed the 700 word mark if absolutely necessary. Considering the simplicity and minimalism of this film's plot, it should actually probably be closer to the lower-end 400 word mark and definitely shouldn't exceed the 700 word mark. Instead of reverting to a previous version that is still too long, why not attempt to fix the problem by rewriting the plot summary? Throast (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: I didn't saw the film so I can't judge on what to remove and what to left alone.--Filmomusico (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, if an article has issues that one can't solve themself, one shouldn't nominate it for DYK. Throast (talk | contribs) 18:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: Well, somebody should write clearly that 1500 words long articles doesn't mean that they will be nominated because we somehow have a cap on a plot summary which is hidden from the main view of a nominator. Next time write it like this: The article must be 1500 words long (700 of which should be a plotline).--Filmomusico (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. WP:FILMPLOT is an official guideline and it is very clear on the 700 words cap. I added the "long plot" tag a while ago and provided a link to the guideline in my edit summary, so it couldn't have been out of your view. Like I said previously, as the nominator, the burden is on you to make sure that the article you're nominating is in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, it will be rejected. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: Yes, you wrote that in the edit summary, but most future nominators aren't aware that 700 words of those 1500 is deserved for a plotline. When I was nominating the article, I got the impression that as long as it meets 1500 words (excluding infoboxes, quotations, categories and tables), it will be considered for a nomination. At least, that's how it's stated at DYK nomination. It says nothing of a plot. Now, you come up, and you telling me that "even if it is 1500 words long, the plot should be trimmed to 700".--Filmomusico (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What's so difficult to understand here? Beside being at least 1,500 words long, an article obviously also has to meet Wikipedia guidelines in order to pass a DYK nomination. If you nominate films for DYK, you should be aware of at least the most basic guidelines pertaining to articles about films (like WP:FILMPLOT). This should be a no-brainer. Throast (talk | contribs) 21:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Throast: According to you, yes, but a newcomer such as myself doesn't have those skills. Thanks for the tip though, will keep it in mind.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedAfD‎

Hi...you don't need to manually add entries to this list--the bot regenerates a fresh list daily. --Finngall ^talk 21:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Finngall: Well, I tried to do it the way you suggested, but it created a mess, so I decided to do it via this bot. That way, at least you will know that I am not skipping anything. --Filmomusico (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The page you are editing is a bot-edited page which tracks the oldest AfD tags. It updates nightly, and the new AfD discussion pages you've been adding simply get flushed away at that time. What you need to do is transclude them to the current day's daily log page, as noted at Step 3 of WP:AFDHOWTO which I had referred to previously. These daily log pages are what the AfD !voters use to track discussions, and if they don't get put there, most people won't even know a discussion is taking place until some obsessive like me finds them on that other page and repairs the damage. (There's another bot that's supposed to track malformed nominations more immediately, but that bot has been down for weeks.) And you're still only linking to delsort pages and not properly transcluding to those pages. --Finngall ^talk 03:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Telugu film deletions

What you are doing is absolutely right. I'll try to salvage those I can using offline sources, the rest... off with their heads. Moreover, they were created by a sock. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Some were, others were not. I don't delete them because they are created by a sock - I delete them because they lack notability. If the sock would have used any other source, like The Hindu or The Times of India I wouldn't nominate it for deletion. --Filmomusico (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Day of Reckoning (2016 film)

Hello! Your submission of Day of Reckoning (2016 film) 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Rob Matheson AfD

Didn't mean to remove votes! from the nomination, that was completely not intended and I apologize for that. I was just trying to fix the nomination for the daily log because it was transcluded incorrectly, but somehow it did an 'undo' rather than accepting my intended change. Nate • (chatter) 19:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: I kind off got it. I was going between warning or not warning, and decided to assume good faith instead. --Filmomusico (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; just realized it today double-checking and then I saw I removed stuff and...yeah, not what was intended at all; I'm completely neutral on the nom otherwise since it's not in my interest field. Nate • (chatter) 19:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: Well, I too have no interest in it, but my nomination is based only on severe BLP violations, which is writing an unsourced article.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

IMDb

Please make sure you are not using IMDb as a source. You indicated here to check IMDb for an addition to the cast list, and I see that you corrected it later. Even if listed at IMDb, that website is built on user-generated content and should be used as a source per WP:IMDBREF. You can use IMDb as a starting point, but make sure you are verifying with a reliable source. BOVINEBOY2008 10:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: If I corrected it, that means there is no reason for you to message here, right? I know what IMDb is and who runs it. I use it as an external link, no more.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Just trying to communicate! I apologize for repeating info you already know! BOVINEBOY2008 15:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: Pretty much, I get all my cast from there, without using IMDb as a source. IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes are the only sites that list cast with IMDb list the fullest.--Filmomusico (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

PROD and Twinkle

Hello. You might find Twinkle to be helpful in your editing. I assume you intended to PROD Bart Gatling and Vipers (film), but you ended up using CSD. Twinkle can help you PROD them properly, and allow you to easily send notifications to the page creators (which you are supposed to do). I hope this helps. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: The difference between the two? I used CSD four times so far, and got 2 articles deleted. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are using CSD when you know they do not fit the clearly laid-out criteria, then you are abusing the process. You are required by policy to notify page creators when you either tag pages for CSD or PROD or nominate for deletion. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: What is the template for PROD then?--Filmomusico (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You add {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} to the page, while adding {{Proposed deletion notify|Name of page}} to the page creator's talk page. Twinkle semi-automates this for you with a drop-down menu on the page. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz:  Done--Filmomusico (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Filmomusico, if you don't know the difference between Speedy deletion and Proposed deletion, then you shouldn't be tagging any pages at all. Please read over the relevant policy pages I have linked to, you held responsible knowing it if you want to be doing any deletion tagging. And it is mandatory for you to inform the page creator whenever you tag a page for deletion, whether CSD, PROD or AFD/MFD/TFD/MFD/etc. Do not skip this step. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks. Your comment was late but informative, never the less. I always inform the creator when I propose a deletion. Either way, I probably won't do any tagging for a while as I will be busy getting accustomed to the policies. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Day of Reckoning (2016 film)

On 9 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Day of Reckoning (2016 film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a television in the film Day of Reckoning includes scenes from Big Ass Spider!? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Day of Reckoning (2016 film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Day of Reckoning (2016 film)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please research before writing an article

A lot of information you added to Aloners is plain wrong. Jeong Da-eun is not Hong Sung-eun's daughter. They are not related at all. Moreover, the movie premiered in Jeonju were the main actress, Gong Seung-yeon was awarded for her performance. It later was screened in Toronto, San Sebastian, Hamburg and Zurich as well as Frankfurt and Chungmuro. Jeong Da-eun is also not the main role, but one of the two bigger supporting role. The film clearly focuses on Gong Seung-yeon's role of Jina. --Christian140 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Christian140: Sorry for all that. I assumed that if the ending is the same than they are related. Similar to Danny and Richard Elfman.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. The family name of Hong Sung-eun is Hong. The family name of Jeong Da-eun is Jeong. -eun is a syllable of the given name. Actually, Seongeun and Daeun would be the prefered romanization of the names, but wikipedia chose to include the hyphen which is quite old-fashioned but also still present in news articles. A Korean name usually consists of a one syllable family name followed by a two syllable given name, usually based on Chinese. But nowadays, native Korean names get more and more popular, as well as biblical names and simple "English" names. Two syllable family names also exist that are then followed usually by a one syllable given name. It can also happen that you have a one syllable family name followed by a one syllable given name. But nowadays, it is getting more and more diverse. E.g., you can have the family name of both your parents. Biblical names are often longer than two syllables.

Anyways, there are not many family names in Korea. One Korean term for "people" is "baekseong" which literally means "100 names". Korea has only some 200 family names. 25 % of the population are named Kim. You can never assume a family relation based on the family name. If you look up Kim Hye-jun on Google, it sadly says, that Kim Yoon-seok is her father. But they are not related at all. It could be that the Google algorithm falsely assumed it because Kim Yoon-seok is playing her father in the movie Another Child. Additionally, Koreans do not change names after marriage. The wife does not take the family name of the husband. So, children usually have other names than their mothers. --Christian140 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

PS: For Thai names, you might could assume a family relation as Thai names are really unique, probably the most unique in the world by far. --Christian140 (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Christian140: Got it. I read it wrong I guess. Either way, thanks for a thorough explanation. I also come from an assumption that if there is a family name that is popular among actors than their daughter, son, or wife becomes entangled into the business. Again, I will refer to the Elfmans. Richard Elfman's son is an actor Bodhi Elfman, who is married to a renown actress and producer Jenna Elfman, and who is a nephew of Danny Elfman, a renown composer. So, it all runs in the family. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Studio six six six xlg.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Studio six six six xlg.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) 18:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Responding to sockpuppetry alerts and unblock requests

Hi Filmomusico, while there is no strict policy or guideline against doing these two things, there's also none against me saying "please don't yet; it made a negative impression in both cases". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Ok. Why I went there is because I see no outcome from the block. You see, he wants to prove that he have changed his editing habits, but because he is blocked he can't prove it. How on earth will you trust an editor if you don't give them a chance? As he said, "And if I do, administrators are free to block me permanently. Please!" It seems reasonable to me, give him rope and tomorrow he will be blocked, if he will violate copyvio policy again.--Filmomusico (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I can understand that position and hope to have addressed your concern in Special:Diff/1054726687 now. I may also simply be overly cautious, which is why unblock requests are always reviewed by other administrators who didn't decline a previous request. So we'll hopefully get a third/fourth opinion soon. Unfortunately, CAT:RFU is usually very full and it may even take a month for an answer to happen. Or fortunately, as in this specific case, this may be a positive side effect increasing the likeliness of an unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I should probably also provide a reason instead of just saying so, sorry. Regarding the unblock request, see above; regarding the sockpuppetry notification, I was quite happy to be notified about it, as I was affected by the sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Tajbakhsh (2nd nomination) and had previously been discussing this user's global contributions at Special:Permalink/1053996363#Spam?. I was a bit upset about the request to ignore the sockpuppetry and not to waste time with it, as we do value such reports and have a dedicated page for them (WP:SPI) and various policy sections and exemptions regarding this kind of reverts (WP:3RRNO#3, WP:BE, WP:BANREVERT, even WP:ROLLBACKUSE#4). I am usually very happy about people responding to messages on my talk page, and 90% of the time, I click "Thanks" after seeing the response. So this is not meant to be a general rejection of help; I'd be silly to reject help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The thing is, is that it have been shown numerous of times that blocking one sock, creates more socks. Which bags a question, why we need to block them if they will continue to reappear? Who is winning in this battle? Speaking of battle, even though user Hoseinkandovan was the sole initiator for WP:BATTLEGROUND, the attacks from other admins by WP:POINTing the obvious enraged him. Take a look here, the editor's official language is Persian, and Persian Wikipedia have many articles that we don't. What he wanted to do is to expand Iranian diaspora on the English Wikipedia, which is totally fine. As for him calling admins - managers, there should never be an offence to that. Wikipedia is an organization, and like any organizations we have "managers" of some sort. We just call them differently. 😅--Filmomusico (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

In cases of repeated sockpuppetry, checkusers and stewards create rangeblocks behind the scenes. They don't announce this publicly, and they ideally don't create rangeblocks for accounts they have blocked, to avoid disclosing the connection between IP addresses and accounts. In the end, the amount of work required to keep creating sockpuppets becomes way higher than the amount of work required to block them on sight, and to prevent them from editing and creating accounts at all. This is also why we revert their contributions and delete their articles: Over time, the lack of a permanent influence on Wikipedia and the repeated wasting of time becomes too boring to keep sockpuppetry up. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Don't know how to say it properly, but is the deletion of articles by socks is a form of oppression? Like, sometimes they come from countries where Wikipedia is banned but they want to help us (such as the case here), but instead of saying that you, we delete their contributions putting their precious time in jeopardy and possibly even their lives in danger???--Filmomusico (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hm. There are very rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation actually bans people from all Wikimedia projects (meta:WMF Global Ban Policy). However, these bans usually protect others, not the banned users. There are also very rare cases where the Wikimedia Foundation removes advanced privileges from editors, such as when the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned about state-forced misuse of the permissions. This has recently happened in the Chinese Wikipedia ([1]). None of these measures, however, are related to the English Wikipedia community's general practice of deleting articles created in block evasion (WP:G5) or reverting sockpuppets' contributions. It is also unrelated to the physical location and language of editors. We can't decide whether someone's participation in Wikipedia is a danger to their lives. If at all, the WMF deals with such topics (e.g. via WP:Emergency). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The reason why I raised this is because the sockpuppeteer is an Iranian journalist. Journalism in Iran is a taboo, and Wikipedia there is nothing like here. What I am saying is that some of the articles that he contributed to us and are deleted per WP:G5 are rather good articles and we might not see similar contributions.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay, I wasn't aware of that. I'm sure that we're not deleting the contributions to save their life, though. That's just the usual approach to sockpuppetry. Regarding the articles, that's a frequent concern with many reasonable arguments for both positions. My personal view is that we can afford to wait, as there is no deadline for the creation of articles. The longer we wait, the more likely it becomes that an article about a notable subject is created one day. My personal preference is waiting multiple years for this to happen instead of letting sockpuppetry have a permanent effect on Wikipedia, but I may have one of the most extreme viewpoints in this regard. The community is in two minds about this topic, and currently actively discussing it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:PROXYING_(banning_policy):_Clarification_needed. There seems to be no clear "right" or "wrong" in this debate; it's a philosophical question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: My proposition would be to scrap WP:G5 altogether. I'm sure that we're not deleting the contributions to save their life, though - no by deleting we endanger their lives. I hope this makes sense.--Filmomusico (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's the other side of the spectrum. I don't yet understand how deletion is supposed to endangers their lives, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Since now I am blocked, we can continue this discussion. :) Ok, so, how does deletion endangers someone's life? Well, if an editor edits from a country where Wikipedia is banned, he is a subject of torture. Instead of helping such people, however, we end up blocking their accounts and spitting on their grave. We delete their contributions which they spend maybe years to make. Makes sense?--Filmomusico (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

We can't help people with their off-wiki problems, and we shouldn't attempt to. Article deletion does not cause editors to be physically harmed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Well, not really, but in theory, article deletions could lead to suicides, depending on the psyche of a person. But then, why should you care? WP:NOTTHERAPY, you would say, while my believe is that WP:Emergency applies. Again, if couple of people in another country will die due to our actions, is not our problem. I like this attitude of Wikipedia "If we have blood on our hands, we will just wash them as nothing happened". How would you feel if somebody will delete your article, especially if you worked hard on it?--Filmomusico (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hm. You may call it shutting my eyes to what you believe to be a fact, and I'm fine with that, but my position is: I don't have "blood on my hands" for the actions I take. This idea is absurd to me. If a beloved article is deleted, I have a local copy and can publish it on my own website instead. I can even do this for my translated articles, as everything here is freely licensed. The idea of the content's usability not being dependent on this specific platform is fundamental on Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Well, not every country has the same access to the Internet. Some countries have a freedom to express their views, like USA and most of Europe, others, like Iran and China do not. I never said that it's a fact, but every theory can be either get debunked or be proven. :) Sometimes, even the most absurd one. I have nothing against you personally, fyi. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Just saw in Recent changes how Materialscientist blocked an anonymous account for 9 years and 364 days for vandalism. That's even more then indef (which is usually 6 months). :)--Filmomusico (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

(Regarding temporary block durations: {{anonblock}} and {{school block}} are not directed at a specific person, and the affected person is invited to create an account at home and to use it in the public institution. Long-term temporary blocks that are directed at specific people can be appealed just as any indefinite block can be appealed. So no, that's not "more" in any regard.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Filmomusico repeatedly editing others' comments. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Content

Don't mind me posting again the draft Draft:Film009 test to be moved as it got deleted again. Thanks. 218.147.176.163 (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rashevski's Tango.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rashevski's Tango.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) 18:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Your other accounts

Hi @Filmomusico, I noticed that you operate more than one account on Wikipedia. As a courtesy to other editors, would you kindly add some information to the user pages of your accounts which will identify which accounts you own? This information could optionally include a short note about what each of your accounts is intended to do.

It can be confusing and potentially problematic when accounts operated by the same person interact. This is especially important given that you seem to be using accounts for special purposes - for example one account for welcoming and another account for fixing film and music related articles. It's a small thing, but it would help other editors understand your personal goals on Wikipedia and most probably reduce any confusion that might create. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@Salimfadhley: Hi. Well, I can't do it now, can I? :(--Filmomusico (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You can list your other accounts here. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Only this one and MollyPollyRolly.--Filmomusico (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Why can't you do it now? Salimfadhley (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Salimfadhley: Because I am blocked.--Filmomusico (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Filmomusico, I've created userpages for you and MollyPollyRolly with the required userboxes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Thanks. Can you please see if it's possible to lift the block or scale it down? I had read and understood the policies, because according to your policies the blocks are meant to be preventive not punitive.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You can make an unblock request if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: That's fine. I will wait 3 days. :)--Filmomusico (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)