User talk:Cigammagicwizard

NOTE: Previous versions of this talk page are available in the archives

January 2006 - March 2006

Scary Movie 4

Can you please provide me a link that shows where Andre Benjamin was in this movie? I saw the movie, I didn't see him, and neither the official site nor IMDB lists him in the cast. -RomeW 07:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw III continued vandalism

Please stop deliberately introducing incorrect information into articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.

I assume you are trying to be helpful by adding information to the Saw III article, but Wikipedia places a very high value on accuracy by means of citing sources! For some of the cast members (or release dates etc) you wish to add, a link to a press release or article on their involvement would be desireable. --Fxer 01:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk Page

The idea is that you archive your talk page after a few months not just selectively delete the bits you don't like. If you want I can create an archive for you. --Martyman-(talk) 02:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a copy of your old talk page, kept so that if people want to look back to find soemthing it is easily found. You can see my list of archives linked to at the top of my talk page. --Martyman-(talk) 03:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, archive created and linked to at the top of the page. It is pretty much just a matter of copying the content to a new page (in this case User Talk:Cigammagicwizard/Archive1) and then removing it from here and adding a link. Feel free to pretty it up any way you want. --Martyman-(talk) 04:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for three days

I'm not sure what on earth you were thinking with your recent edit to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film), but that is barely short of abject vandalism. It's clear from looking at your Talk page and your Talk page archive that you have been heavily criticised by other users and are frequently engaging in problematic edits. Therefore I am blocking you for three days for this disruption. You are welcome to return when the block expires, and I would urge you to be exceedingly more cautious in your editing. I will be the first person willing to help you if you make a good faith effort to improve your editing, but rest assured if you continue in poor behavior it will not be tolerated. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 23:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} Ëvilphoenix, why was I blocked? It was the same thing from the article. You can not block somebody who made edits. And my attitude was good. I'm not mad but why block me for 3 days? And evertime I ask this, no one answers: Are you an administrator? I did NOT vandalize because it still got the information. I also added the plot. I don't know why you block me. I always edit and this edit was not vandalizing. The info. in the article was still there but typed differently. I assure you can NOT block people who edit without vandalizing and added a plot for a movie. Cigammagicwizard 01:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why was I blocked?
You were blocked because you made an edit that reduced a well structured, formatted table of information, with multiple citations, to an uncited, unformatted, barely wikilinked list. That was a major change, which was entirely uncalled for, undiscussed on the Talk page, and innappropriate.
It was the same thing from the article. You can not block somebody who made edits.
Yes I can. You made a very very bad edit.
And my attitude was good.
Looking back over your contributions, I see that your editing, while problematic, does seem to be reasonably well intended. I don't believe you are editing in bad faith. However I do believe you are editing badly and disruptively.
I'm not mad but why block me for 3 days?
I considered unblocking you or shortening your block, but the fact is that your editing is still very problematic, and you have already been blocked several times already, and you do not seem to have gotten the message. Therefore I'm not going to unblock you. If another Administrator is willing to unblock you, that's one thing, but I am not going to lift the block.
And evertime I ask this, no one answers: Are you an administrator?
Yes, I am an Administrator. Only Administrators have the power to enact blocks, so anyone that has blocked you previously is also an Administrator. I'm sorry if you have had difficulty in getting responses from other editors and Administrators, part of what Admins are asked to do is be accessible for discussion with anyone we enact a block on, which is why I am responding to your comment and monitoring your Talk page.
The info. in the article was still there but typed differently.
No, it wasn't, some of the citations were removed, and the formatting was completely destroyed.
I assure you can NOT block people who edit without vandalizing and added a plot for a movie.
I assure you, I can. Vandalism is not the only reason for enacting a block, disruptive editing is another reason, and I find your editing to be disruptive.

I understand from some of your comments that you are 13 years old. Allow me to let you know that that is in no way an excuse for poor editing. Some of our best Administrators and high level contributors are themselves teenagers of 14-16 years old. Further, your work and contribution to Wikipedia will be judged on the quality of your contribution, not your age. You need to be very careful in the future about making large unannounced changes to any pages in the future. If you have further questions I will be watching this page. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 02:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So (this is off topic) are you excited of The Inside Man? I'm a huge Jodie Foster fan. And I'm really an intelligent 13 year old. You might seem I'm crazy but I'm not. I play the french horn and in the top Honors Band. I also (almost) get all A's and am in NJHS. Cigammagicwizard 03:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Movie 4

Hey, I really need to post this on the Scary Movie 4 article. Please unblock me so I could post the rating. I always keep things posted in that article. I'm a huge fan so please let me put it on.

PG-13 for crude and sexual humor throughout, some comic violence and language. Go to boxofficemojo.com or comingsoon.net! Cigammagicwizard 03:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't really need to post that. No, I'm still not going to unblock you. No, I'm not at all excited about Inside Man. Also, you may consider yourself fairly sharp for your age, but your grammar does not impress. Consider forming your sentences more carefully. Lastly, why not go ahead and provide a citation for the edit you want to add? It's as easy as just providing a weblink to where you got your information, by enclosing the URL with [ and ], such as [http://en.wikipedia.org], , which would render out like this: [1]. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:1237.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1237.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. 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 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 OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 09:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for 3RR

You've been reported for violation of 3RR on Scary Movie 4. Please see the report and do not do it again. Also remember you are not entitled to 3 reverts per day: you may indeed violate the spirit of the 3RR by "gaming the system" as you expressed intent to do. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?! This was my FIRST revert in ONE DAY! You live in a different time than mine! I didn't break a rule! I'm telling you the truth. This was my first revert in one day. Not three in one day!

I'm not trying to be mean but 4 people are against me and that's unfair. Now I didn't break a rule so I must object!Cigammagicwizard 00:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not blocked yet, but 4 reverts in a 24 hour period is a 3rr and that what you did sadly, you know what you were doing in Scary Movie 4, so you should take a break and think about it. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use as overload of fairuse images are copyvios. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You very much did break a rule. The edit history does not lie. You may want to consider that if 4 different people are against you, you might be wrong. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on Scary Movie 4. The reverts were at 00:38, April 5, 2006, 02:25, April 5, 2006, 12:33, April 5, 2006, 21:43, April 5, 2006. Just so you know, living in a different time zone has nothing to do with this. Wikipedia uses UTC. The rule states that no more than 3 reverts to one article may be made in a 24 hour *period*. So, if there is less than 24 hours between the 1st and 4th reverts (and it is here), then you are in violation. This isn't dependent on which "day" the reverts occured on. It's the time period between reverts that counts. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I get it. I can handle that. Bye! Cigammagicwizard 12:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw III

Please stop introducing speculation and fancruft information into the article. If you have sources to back it up, then post it.--CyberGhostface 12:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

! This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — FireFox • T [13:54, 9 April 2006]

Vandalism

It was actually this edit. — FireFox • T [14:00, 9 April 2006]

You inserted "CHINGY IS GOD" as shown by the link above. — FireFox • T [14:03, 9 April 2006]

Don't worry about it, be more careful to check your edits in the future though. — FireFox • T [14:08, 9 April 2006]

Keep it up.

From the discussion page via Zsinj;

"Until a verifiable source is cited with the addition on that information, it is not to be placed in this article. Wikipedia is not the place to "publish" anything, hence our No Original Research policy. This prevents false information and hoaxes from being allowed on Wikipedia. If you want to publish something, go through the studio and make a press release. If this information keeps being edited in, administrator action will have to be made."

In other words, quit posting your thirteen year old bullshit speculation theories or you will be blocked.--CyberGhostface 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Movie 5

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that they decided to delete the original Scary Movie 5 page as most of the info can be found,or put, on the Scary Movie 4 page. I voted to keep. The page you created last night will probably be deleted again. Sorry... (Pally01 08:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It's not one person who is doing it, it is the Wikipedia admins. When the original article was put up it was marked for deletion and people were asked to vote on it. It was decided 4-3 to delete it. Talk to an admin and ask them what to do or you might get blocked .... (Pally01 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Do not recreate deleted content and threaten to do so "forever", disruption of wikipedia can lead to you ability to edit being removed, if you believe the deletion was not conducted properly take it to deletion review --pgk^(talk) 16:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to stop calling people names [2]. You may not agree with the decision but that's life. Listen to the arguments. Do you really think calling people retards will make them put the page back? (Pally01 07:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

npa

Regarding this edit summary: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Banyan Tree 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1235.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1235.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cholmes75 20:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:1237.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1237.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cholmes75 20:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1000 Words (2008 film)

Please do not remove the deletion sign, this is considered vandalism. If you want to keep the page then provide reasons under its entry on the deletion page (Pally01 13:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The film is only in development and may not get made. Only films that are actually in production should be put on here. (Pally01 06:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Scary Movie 5

The difference between Scary Movie 5 and 1000 Words, in my opinion, is that those involved in the Scary Movies confirmed that there would be another one, especially as 4 did so well whereas 1000 Words isn't definitely getting made. (Pally01 09:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Scary Movie 5 is only in development at the moment so, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it might not get made. Same for Final Destination 4 etc. (Pally01 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Kate hudson2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kate hudson2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:1239.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1239.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight

Please fix the film article on the Batman sequel. It's The Dark Knight, not The Dark Night. I don't have any familiarity with redirects to do it on my own. --Erik 02:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix oon the page. Erik and I have been working hard on it for a while, good to have the assist. ThuranX 03:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Movie 5

For your continued recreation of this deleted material and declaration of war I have blocked you for a week. You know full well that if you have new material ten you can discuss that on the real Scary Movie 5 page in order to get that undeleted. --pgk 07:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Didn't realise it was you as you've been away for a while. I reverted it as you had given no reason as to why you had edited it back to the previous version. It's good to have you back, even if you still insist on calling people names. (Quentin X 11:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:DeathProofScriptCvr.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:DeathProofScriptCvr.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Eragonpostersample.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eragonpostersample.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 01:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw III

Now that Saw III has finally come out, would you kindly tell me why you were posting false plot information in the film page before the film came out swearing back and forth that it was true?

I'm very interested.--CyberGhostface 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero!

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Superhero!, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 04:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero!

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Superhero!, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superhero!

In a recent edit summary, you recently asked why Superhero! was deleted. The reasons are thoroughly discussed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superhero!. You'll note that I was maginally in favor of retaining the page, so please don't take this personally, but I've retagged it for deletion because it is not appropriate to recreate deleted pages, especially without any new information/no stronger case for its existence under WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTE. Note that the Leslie Nielsen source you cite is completely unverifiable, as it does not cite any reputable source and appears to be primarily a rumor site. Furthermore, his participation and level of participation is very much in question, as you will see if you review the director's blog. Please direct any arguments against deletion of a deleted page and against the rationale presented in an AfD discussion here: Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thanks, MrZaius^talk 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Scary movie 4 unrated DVD.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Scary movie 4 unrated DVD.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:See no evil.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:See no evil.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Photos08.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Photos08.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wicker-man-poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Wicker-man-poster.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media ({{{1}}})

Thanks for uploading [[:{{{1}}}]]. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media ({{{1}}})

Thanks for uploading [[:{{{1}}}]]. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Scary Movie 5. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Scary Movie 5, you will be blocked from editing. Ward3001 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"What you've done is making the page have little to no info". The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. The cast and other details are not finalized and therefore cannot be verified. And that is not something that I've done. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or rumor mill. You are violating Wikipedia policy. If you revert again I will make a vandalism report. Also, you should inform yourself about the three-revert rule. Ward3001 (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:{{{1}}}

Thanks for uploading [[:Image:{{{1}}}]]. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Uploading

Please stop uploading non-free images that are deemed unnecessary. Please read WP:NFC before further uploads. Thank you. σмgн gσмg 11:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No fair use rational on Image:Youmeanddupree4.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Youmeanddupree4.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Youmeanddupree4.jpg is an unfree image with no fair use rationale uploaded after May 4, 2006 which has been tagged as not having a rationale for more than 7 days (CSD I6).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Youmeanddupree4.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kate hudson2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Kate hudson2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Youmeanddupree4.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Youmeanddupree4.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dupreeposter.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Dupreeposter.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thirdship (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Superhero Movie 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Superhero Movie 3.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Superhero movie.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Superhero movie.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Scary movie 4 unrated DVD.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Scary movie 4 unrated DVD.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Sm4-trailer11.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Sm4-trailer11.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:FD4 logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:FD4 logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

STOP. Before you announce any so called "warnings", make sure it's for a good reason. You took off all the sources in the cast section because they were all the same. If you actually took the time to go through them, you would see that not all are the same. By the way, shocktilyoudrop is not reliable in this case. That "plot summary" they listed is a rumor. It hasn't been confirmed that the film will actually be about workers on a retreat. It's the only site out there with that summary, so there for it can't be accepted there. It was obviously made up by a fan who is able to manage the site. Yes, the worker retreat thing is where their getting at, but it hasn't been confirmed. The main source for the fastest FD5 updates has to be Bloody Disgusting. If this happens again, I will REPORT you for false accusations. Thanks. CloudKade11 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

k. But lets just keep the plot summary simple. Thanks. CloudKade11 (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers on Devil (film)

Please stop reverting the addition of information to Devil (film) because it's a "spoiler." Wikipedia's content guidelines explicitly permit comprehensive information on the plot of books, movies, etc. To quote from the guideline:

Wikipedia has previously included [spoiler] warnings in some articles on works of fiction. Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers.

In other words, no, the correct action is neither to remove information you deem to be spoilerific from an article nor to plop a (disallowed) spoiler warning into the article. The correct action is to include comprehensive information in the article, with the expectation that if someone is reading an encyclopedia article about a topic they, you know, want to know about the topic.

~~I am again reverting~~ Someone else has reverted your removal of the information. Please don't remove it again. If your objection is that the section heading gives no particular warning of what's coming, I suppose we could dig into whether the information belongs under a more descriptive section heading, in which case the correct place to have that discussion is on the article's talk page. If, on the other hand, you just disagree with our spoiler guidelines, your options are either to discuss on WP:SPOILER and try to get the guideline itself changed, or to edit another wiki that has different rules. Repeatedly removing "spoilers" because they are spoilers isn't acceptable behavior here on Wikipedia and will be deemed disruptive if you continue. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cigammagicwizard. You have new messages at Chaoticfluffy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free image File:Superhero movie.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Superhero movie.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Finaldestination3 bigreleaseposter.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Finaldestination3 bigreleaseposter.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. Skier Dude (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]