User talk:Lyverbe

Archives

Re: BTTF

I removed a lot of the categories that was in Category:Back to the Future films, only leaving the general ones, "Time travel films", "Mad scientist films", etc. The edits I made to film articles was reinsert "Film directed by Robert Zemeckis", "Film produced by Steven Spielberg", "Amblin Entertainment films", "Universal Pictures films", those are specific categories that should be in the actual film articles, not the general "Category:Back to the Future films" category. Which was why I removed those hidden notes in first place. QuasyBoy (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) QuasyBoy (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Descent 4

I do not understand your edit summary, "Admin or not, use the required process of talking about the AFD request" on your revert of my speedy deletion decline. There is no AFD request. You tagged it for speedy deletion by using a {{db}} tag with a rationale of "Speculations on a project that never took off". Speedy deletion has very specific criteria and "Speculations on a project that never took off" is not one of them. If you meant to raise it at articles for deletion you should follow the directions there. I am removing the tag again. GB fan 01:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sondra Currie for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sondra Currie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thicker than Water (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Talk:Antony Crowther/Comments for deletion

A page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Video game article comments subpages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of the relevant subpages during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Back to the Future

You don't believe that, for the benefit of a reader who hasn't seen the film, it should be explained why Marty arrived back in 1985 in a motor vehicle, but had to travel on foot to try and save Doc Brown's life? My edit did so, and in a few short words--it's not as if I added an entire paragraph of exposition on the subject. I'm not going to restore the edit, but I do believe it was valid, and your reason for reversion comes off as a bit dismissive of a reasonable plot point (i.e., why Marty was seemingly too late to save Doc, which plays into the following twist that Doc read Marty's note from 1955 after all). -- Pennyforth (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPLOT states that film plots should not exceed 700 words. The article for BTTF is already 646 words so we need to be careful as to what we add to it if we wish to respect that rule. I personally don't believe specifying that the engine stalled is worth it, but hey, I might be wrong. If you believe so, please feel free to discuss it in Talk:Back_to_the_Future to see what the other editors think. If the majority decide it's worth keeping it in, we'll put it back in! -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1955 Doc

Well the Emmett Brown article needs the age for Doc's younger self, In Futurepedia it mentions he is 41 after Marty found his mansion. Does it mean that he was born in 1924 after the novelization? Thank you. --182.189.243.249 (talk) 11:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, don't care. Futurepedia and Wikipedia are two different things and one cannot rely on the other. The only good source we can use is the one provided by the movie producers since they are the ones who created the character. That's why I believe any other source than the movie shouldn't be used. If you disagree with that, feel free to talk about it (Talk:Emmett_Brown#No_BTTF_The_Game_.5Bby_Telltale_Games.5D_information.3F.21) so other editors can discuss the issue too. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, was Doc born in 1924 or not? --182.189.243.249 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My "Don't know, don't care" was the answer to that question. I have no idea and since it's not mentioned in the movie, I don't care to know. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A remake trailer for Back to the Future set in 2055

Hello, a video uploaded on YouTube has been here!, Check out the link:www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BXwfarHPbQ --182.189.27.18 (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flying circuits?

Well in Back to the Future Part III article, Doc actually repaired the DeLorean time machine but not for the flying circuits as mentioned in DeLorean time machine article. Where are flying circuits located? Inside Mr. Fusion or tires? Please let me know. --182.189.67.231 (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. I don't know the answer to your question. Ask on a forum dedicated to BTTF. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time

What is time below November 16, 1955 in Present Time and September 2, 1885 in Destination Time? --182.189.68.229 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Em dashes aren't dumb

There are dash wars? Why? Em dashes are a thing and are in pretty much every style guide around. Meve Stills (talk) 23:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said Em dashes were dumb, I said wars about them are dumb. Yes, there are dash wars where editors argue that one is better than the other because of how they look, standards or browser compatibility. I personally don't care which one is used but, as a Wikipedian editor, I do care about edit wars. Parentheses take care of the problem 95% of the time. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it if you've experienced and have grown weary of these "wars", but I don't understand why you would remove a perfectly correct usage of em dashes just because you have a personal annoyance with "wars". Know what I mean? And really, em dashes and parentheses are not always interchangeable. Meve Stills (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To you, it's perfectly correct but, to someone else, it's not because he believes a standard dash is better and that ends up with an edit war for something that I really don't find important. Edit wars are not a personal issue, they're a Wikipedia issue. As an editor of shared articles I do not own, I cannot allow myself to use personal feelings when editing them but rather participate in a team effort by doing what I can to prevent wars using simple methods like replacing dashes with parentheses. Also, regarding "dashes and parentheses are not always interchangeable", please note that I said "Parentheses take care of the problem 95% of the time". -- Lyverbe (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You undone my edit!

You my edit on the page about Back to the Future Part II, but I demand you: "Why have you canceled only the Jaws template if there is a Chicago Cubs-related one on the same page?!".

--Aledownload (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I removed the "Chicago cubs" category. To answer your question, a category is considered a link between articles and there is no link between BTTF and Jaws. Like, you also see a Texaco in the movie, so should we also link it to films with gas stations? because of the DeLorean, link it to films featuring cars? Marty playing the guitar so link to films with musical intruments? Of course not. Other than a incredibly short funny passage, Jaws is totally unrelated to BTTF. That's why the category doesn't belong there as much as "BTTF movies" category doesn't belong in the Jaws article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello, I'm Boing! said Zebedee. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sondra Currie have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Some of that peacock material has been removed before as it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and is partly a copyright violation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what is your connection with User:DanLaskePR, who previously added some of that same content? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No clue who's DanLaskePR but if he got the same sources as I did (which are hard to find), our edits will obviously look the same. I created the "Sondra Currie" article a couple of years ago and most of it has been removed. I wanted to add back material to it and, again, it's removed. I don't see where the advertising is other than talking about her current work which isn't like "Come one! Come all! Do come see my new movie!". -- Lyverbe (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NPOV and WP:Peacock. "Feisty, spirited & gutsy...", "grew up with a natural passion for acting...", "known for her adventurous spirit and her willingness to take risks..." etc, etc... that's a promotional hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia wants plain facts, not praise, not fan cruft, not editorializing. And please read WP:COPYVIO before you think of copying text into Wikipedia again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting my edit on Back to the Future (franchise), I probably shouldn't have tagged it (was working on vectorizing a raster image, only looked at the bottom part of the article), of course thats no excuse but, thanks again! TheAwesome Hwyh 21:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sondra Currie edits

Thank you for adding the citation to Sondra Currie. The article is improved as a result of your effort.

Your comment, "Lazy. Find refs instead of just replacing working refs with cn." caused me to think. Perhaps I was lazy in making that change. On the other hand, would I not been even lazier to leave the unreliable IMDb citations in place? I wonder how many editors saw those and left them there.

I apologize for removing Currie's mother's name from the infobox. I now see that she has an article, which renders the notability question moot. I have restored her name to the infobox.Eddie Blick (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to apologize for my "Lazy" remark. It wasn't appropriate. -- Lyverbe (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grease edit

"Sandy" is indeed probably a nickname, so I guess it was right to revert to Sandra, but "Sandra Dee" is definitely also a nickname. It's a mocking reference to Hollywood actress Sandra Dee who was a major star at the time Grease is supposed to have taken place (late 50s) and was known for her ingénue image. Sandy was (mockingly) compared to Sandra Dee in the song "Look at me, I'm Sandra Dee" and somehow people have mistakenly tought that Sandy Olsson's real name was Sandra Dee (Olsson). I struggled to find a decent reference, this was the best at short notice https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/teen-film-star-sandra-dee-dies-at-62/. I'm a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to best fix this issue, the mocking nickname probably needs more explaining in the article. I hope I'm not using this talk page incorrectly (apologies for the late relpy as well, I hadn't noticed the reversion notification). Maritp (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to leave this comment on the talk page of the article. My opinion might not be correct and that's where other editors' voice come handy. So, if I were you, I'd copy your comment above to Grease's talk page starting with "My change was recently reverted about Sandy's nickname being 'Sandra Dee'. ..." -- 23:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Thompson Twins, you may be blocked from editing. If you want an exception to WP:V, get consensus on the talk page instead of edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to restore the names of the band members (that's generally sourced in the text of the article, with some exception). Don't restore dates of membership, instruments, and various lineups without citations to reliable sources. Sundayclose (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning symbol, threath to be blocked from editing... LOL, you're taking this waaaaay too seriously :) The part you restored is fine with me. -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]