User talk:Lapadite/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2015 Newsletter July drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 24 people who signed up, 17 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. August blitz: The one-week April blitz, targeting biographical articles that have been tagged for copy editing for over a year, will run from August 16–22. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the article list on the blitz page. Sign up here! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis, and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

sent by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edits to "Carol (film)"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit(s) to the article Carol (film), with the reason "Indiewire and Deadline Hollywood are not publishers; Template:Cite_web#Publisher." Actually, neither Indiewire nor Deadline.com should have their names italicized, as neither is italicized in their home articles. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major works:

Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon.com or The Huffington Post). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis.

(Emphasis added.) Additionally, I moved the portal template to the "See also" section, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Standard appendices and footers, as well as other minor corrections.

Would you please be so kind as to revert your reversion?—DocWatson42 (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. DocWatson42, Deadline Hollywood, Indiewire, TheWrap would fall under "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content [that] should generally be italicized". I reverted your good faith edits because (it's easier than manually fixing it and) none of those sites that report entertainment news and/or review films are publishers. Template:Cite_web#Publisher states, "The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website) ... Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper". (The Wrap News Inc is TheWrap's publisher). Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes aren't publishers either; CBS Interactive is the former's, Flixster is the latter's. "Periodical", "journal" "newspaper" "magazine" "work" and "website" parameters all render italicized text in the cite web template, and "website" is an alias of "work". I restored the rest of the fixes you made. Lapadite (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mariah Carey (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mariah Carey (album). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Emily Blunt

I see you don't practice what you preach. It makes zero difference that a conversation has been started. If multiple people disagree with you and add that information, then you can't keep removing it without edit warring. Consider this an informal shoulder tap, but if you revert an addition again you will get a formal warning for edit warring. You do not own that article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You, who added the unencyclopedic info, disagree, while disregarding relevant WP:PAGs; another editor added it without knowing it was under discussion (his words: "Apologies, I was unaware of this discussion"). That is not multiple people. Yes, it absolutely makes a difference if an unencyclopedic edit is challenged and is under discussion on the talk page. Do take a look at WP:BRD, as well as Wikipedia:Consensus. Restoring an edit that had been reverted twice per policies and guidelines and is under discussion is disruptive, and edit warring, as you'd already been informed. I'll be taking the matter to the BLP noticeboard then since you have no interest in doing that. By the way, keep discussion on the article's talk page, don't take it to an editor's page. Lapadite (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heavy metal music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Heavy metal music. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wildside (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch song)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wildside (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch song). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Agnes de Mille

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Agnes de Mille. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Birdman

Regarding your revert,[1] those edits were made due to concerns raised by Erik in the cast section of the review (from his user page).[2] Since it isn't clear why you reverted, please explain on the review page. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that, thanks. Lapadite (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Caitlyn Jenner. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Truth / Carol

When the soundtrack for Truth comes out, can a new section for the soundtrack be created on the article? Or just add to the production with the composer? :) I read the unexplained edit box comment thing you left :) Vmars22 (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You can add the soundtrack release info in a relevant section (presently, that would be #Release), it just doesn't warrant its own section because there's no further information to write about; MOS:PARAGRAPHS → "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading".

On another note, Vmars22, this edit is inappropriate; that info needs to be sourced in the article. The infobox, like the lead, summarizes key info that is sourced in the body of the article. You removed that sourced content, leaving those names listed in the infobox unsourced, so please restore it. The production designer can arguably be omitted since she does not have a WP article. Lapadite (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Will do! :) Also, quick question! Can the source for Stacey Keach be added to cast instead? :) Vmars22 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

He can be sourced in the cast section, but the production section, alongside the other actors', would be better for consistency. Lapadite (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, there! I was wondering, should a marketing section be added to the Carol article? Vmars22 (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Vmars22. Depends on what information the section contains, and if it should instead be added to the #Release section. See WP:FILMMARKETING. Lapadite (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Copy Editing

Hai, this Indian film article Loham needs copy editing for grammer and writing style. Previously submitted for GA but failed due to language problem. See Talk:Loham. I invite you to help a hand on it.--Charles Turing (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Charles Turing, as was recommended in the GA review, you should put in a request at the Guild of Copy Editors. I am a participant, however I'm not able to perform a full copy edit at the present time. I would also second Cirt's suggestion of a Peer Review afterward. I will do a quick, basic copyedit to help speed the process along for others. Lapadite (talk)

Already submitted a request. And thank you for your reply. --Charles Turing (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar! The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there! Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ariel Pink

Hey, on your last edit: lo-fi music is very much a critic-invoked and wikipedia-recognized genre—all of Pink's work before 4AD was repeatedly and explicitly categorized as such. Indie rock also seems relatively general and often-invoked. And Pink's had an eclectic career and sound, I'm not sure why 5 genres is too much in this contextUser:GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

GentleCollapse16, yes but for the purposes of trimming down 6 genres in the infobox, the term Lo-fi only really speaks to the "quality of sound recording", it doesn't inform readers on the style of his music. Lo-fi is already cited in the article and, according to sources, it characterized his early recordings. Sources also described his music as lo-fi pop, and pop is already cited twice. In my search, Indie rock appears to be an outlier with sources; If you can cite at least two reliable sources calling his music indie rock then I guess it could be included. Per the musical artist template, listed genres should aim for generality and 4 or less is preferred. If you wish you can create Musical style section noting how reliable sources have described his music. Lapadite (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Genesis P-Orridge

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Genesis P-Orridge. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup Award

Awarded to Lapadite77 for participating in the 2015 WikiCup. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 19:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for List of awards and nominations received by Alejandro González Iñárritu

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for List of awards and nominations received by Alejandro González Iñárritu

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shaun the Sheep Movie

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shaun the Sheep Movie. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Cotillard

You are correct about the fansite, so that's enough for me to not pursue the issue. You are wrong about magazine covers being unimportant trivia. They speak to the notability of the subject. As for inclusion of trivia in an article, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are no more important than WP:TRIVIA. The information was one sentence about information that is related to one topic, not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Sundayclose (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose, the issue is it being trivia that is also sourced to a fan site (not a WP:RS). Marion Cotillard is not notable because she has been featured in magazines, nor is any actor. Virtually every actor who's "made it" has been on magazine covers. As said before, "Cite a reliable source that supports this info being noteworthy/worthy of inclusion. Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I realize that AN issue is the fansite, which I have acknowledged. But let's look again at your edit summary that said "magazine covers is trivia". And not virtually every actor has 50 magazine covers; if they do, that points toward their notability. You cite policies that forbid "indiscriminate collection of facts." The edit was not an indiscriminate collection of facts. It might have been trivia, but relevant, appropriately weighted trivia is permitted on Wikipedia. You are correct about the fansite, but that wasn't your only argument. You are incorrect about appropriateness of magazine covers, and you are incorrect about trivia. Sundayclose (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The relevant content in the WP policy linked is: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful...Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is from WP policy, WP:TRIVIA is a style guideline, so yes the former is more important, but the latter isn't actually applicable here.

You're missing the point though, that is, if a reliable source notes that she has been featured on however many magazines then it might be worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, It's purely trivia for an encyclopedia, and particularly not appropriate for the lead. So, you'd need to find a reliable source. Lapadite (talk) 04:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hello (Adele song)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hello (Adele song). Legobot (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you're looking for references, click the hyperlinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.212.104.2 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alienation (EP)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alienation (EP). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue). Legobot (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rebel Heart Tour

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rebel Heart Tour. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2012 Sydney anti-Islam film protests. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

To resolve the issue

To resolve the issue at Talk:Babel (film). First of all, you neglect the WP:BRD guideline, which say that when you edit is revetred, you should discuss, rather than repeat. You also violate WP:CONSENSUS since you undo a long-standing version of the article. In addition you remove the {{Not a forum}} template, which is there for a reason. Now I saw your edit summary "there's a big archives search box with the archives listed right above it", but I honestly don't see that box. For all these reason I revert again, and I will report you if you don't talk this over and establish consensus before you next edit. Debresser (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I chuckled reading this message. First, what is this edit summary? Do you think that's helpful? Second, the only issue is your shocking inability to notice a big archives search box right below the talk header of the page, which I noted in my edit summary. And in that edit summary, I linked Talk header, where it says "Talk header contains an automatically appearing archive list and archive search box". The template's page also says, "When used on a talk page that has archives, links to those archives and a search box will be displayed automatically within this template". See here a screenshot of the bannerspace with a big black circle around the archives section: Screenshot. Third, I had removed the {{Not a forum}} template and as that is already stated in the Talk header template I added (again, which contains the archives) and in the {{Off topic warning}} template that was already on the page; in other words, it's superfluous. So spare the silly 'I will report you' nonsense; the only thing that could happen is you getting warned for edit warring over your silly incompetence here. Twice-reverting a constructive edit that added the red-linked lost archives because you fail to see the big search box is disruptive at best. My edit summary was clear. You should have asked about it on the talk page or my talk page before edit warring; "I don't see the big archives box, so revert, revert!" is not the way to go about it. And then accusing the other of "violating" consensus and BRD is laughable. Notice in the lead of BRD is "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting". Debresser, Happy New Year. Lapadite (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you take it well. My vision apparently was restored to me, and I see all the things you say. I will self-revert, with my apologies. Seasons greetings to you as well. Debresser (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Apologies for my annoyed response. Lapadite (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AURORA

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:AURORA. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Reversing good faith edits

There was no justifiable reason for reversing the edit I made in the Production > Development section of the Carol (film) article. It may not have met your personal approval, but it was a legitimate edit that complied with WP:MOS and WP:VERIFY. Keeping an eye on a Wikipedia article because of a personal interest in the subject is understandable -- but being possessive about it is not acceptable. You may have first become involved in the Carol (film) article in February 2015, and have been editing it since that time, but that doesn't grant you exclusive rights to control contributions made by other editors. I think you need to take a break from this article because your behavior is verging on domination and it discourages participation by good faith editors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

When you're able to discuss without inserting (nonsense) accusations/attacks, as cautioned against multiple times by other editors, we can have one here, Pyxis Solitary. See reminder at the top of this page: "Please remember to assume good faith and be civil when interacting with other editors. Thank you.". Lapadite (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The word "see"

Concerning your edit summary here please be aware that the word "see" does not indicate a citation. It is used for a cross-reference. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Mathew5000, I'm not sure what you mean. Lapadite (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that there's a difference between a cross-reference and a citation. The word "see" indicates a cross-reference. On the edit in question, you deleted a cross-reference, but your edit summary was “Ce; we don't cite Wikipedia articles”. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I was referring to "among other awards; see List of accolades received by Carol (film)" in the article, but that's not technically a citation, right. However, the statements on nominations or wins need to be cited to reliable sources (using inline citations); linking a WP article is not an alternative to citing. Lapadite (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Mathew5000, I added the wikilink along with inline citations to the awards. Lapadite (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Mathew5000 (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report Our 2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; New record lows in the article backlog and on the Requests page; Coordinator election results; Membership news; Changes around the Guild's pages; Plans for 2016. – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your good edit at Inarritu

Do you notice that "2601" has returned back to the Inarritu page to re-add the links again. Similar conduct from "2601" at the same director's film "The Revenant" page. Your version looked correct if you could could glance at this. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Fountains-of-Paris, yeah, I reverted their edits again. They've vandalized on The Revenant. If they continue, they won't last much longer on WP. You can undo such edits yourself by the way :P. Lapadite (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Talked to Mpearc on this also and he has started to make/request blocks here [3]. It seems that "2601" and "2602" are doing this shape-shifting thing by changing the extensions on their prefix names almost each time they log in. I think both you and Mpearc are doing the right thing though the shape-shifting of that account name seems to keep giving "2601" a new go at it each time under a slightly different account name. Maybe its an odd editor account which they are using. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cold War II

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War II. Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Media franchise

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Media franchise. Legobot (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Charli XCX

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charli XCX. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Terrence Malick

Hi, just making sure you know that Terrence Malick has directed seven feature films that have been released, one feature film which is complete but unreleased (and with no release date), and another feature film that is currently in post-production. He has not directed ten films as you have said; you must be confusing Lanton Mills as a feature film, when in fact it is a very short student film which has never been seen by anoyone besides students of AFI. So, I am happy with the current arrangement of stating eight feature films and one in post-production, as nine feature films and one in post-production is simply incorrect. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadean-mind (talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that the debut is a short. So yes, eight feature films directed (completed), one in post. Lapadite (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ariana Grande

The issue of Ariana Grande as a "songwriter" has been renewed on her Talk page, so you may wish to visit the page, since you initiated the discussion last time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Manifesto and Knight of Cups

Hey! I found a few minutes of footage Bobby Good posted to his Vimeo page. I wanted an opinion on whether or not to include it on release or not. The link is here if you want to check it out : https://vimeo.com/138521208. I also responded on the film's talk page as well! :) Hope your having a good day! :) Vmars22 (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Vmars22. Since there's no text, it's best to add that to External links. About Bobby Good, as I said before, the site does not say that he is the editor of the film. I've seen no information on him or credit for this film in any reliable sources. Why are you sure he is? Lapadite (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

He's credited as the editor on IMDB, I know IMDB isn't a reliable source, so I went onto find his official website and Vimeo profile with the footage from the project, and on his official website it says Bobby Good Editor. :) Vmars22 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Should I remove him from the inbox and just re-add once a source clearly states he was the editor? :) Vmars22 (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Vmars22, refer to the WT:Film discussion. It seems that the director is the editor. Lapadite (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if Bobby Good was the assistant editor or additional editor or something because all of the sources listed say Rosenfledt. Good was probably added on IMDB in error. Vmars22 (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but we can't know for sure. That's why IMDb can't be used as a source; gotta confirm with a reliable source. Lapadite (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I added some cast members via a Hollywood Reporter review listing, and added it to the reception part of the KNC article. Should I remove the cast and keep the review? or Remove the review, and keep the cast? Vmars22 (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Neither; THR review should be cited and the cast member is supported by the source's credits. Lapadite (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

In the Manifesto article, the third release date I don't think should be in the info box because it is another screening in Australia, and the major premiere of the film in Australia was the ACMI. What do you think? :) Vmars22 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Right. But please stop removing production information from articles, for the dozenth time. Lapadite (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Vmars22, also, please take a look at Template:Citation#Periodical and Template:Citation#Publisher; publications, such as The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, go in the work= parameter, not the publisher= parameter. Lapadite (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Will do! :) Vmars22 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Would it be alright to include the linear version of the project is currently in post-production? Vmars22 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't know when "currently" refers to since the source has no published date. Lapadite (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

That is true, also, on the page for the film, editors keep on writing "BVK" next to Krauss's name, I've noticed other editors have removed it. Should it stay? :) Vmars22 (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton email controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Adeaze

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Adeaze. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Laura Prepon

I've tried to reduce the amount of extraneous information and wordiness of the lead. You yourself pointed out that she's notable for being on two shows. That's basically what I boiled the lead down to. And took out unnecessary phrases like "she is known for" - yeah, of course she's known for this or that, that's why it's in the lead. Then you reverted it to "your" version. At that point, I could fight about it with you, or I could sigh, exasperated, and move on with my life. I have chosen the latter, but you should know that I don't think that your reverts constitute civil behavior. Have a nice day. Rockypedia (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well this comment is more civil and approaching assume good faith. I responded on your talk page (I prefer keeping a discussion in one place). It doesn't need to state "known for", that can be trimmed. Lapadite (talk) 19:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Maxinquaye

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Maxinquaye. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding possible Noneof yourbusiness48 socks

Hi, Lapadite77. I've been cleaning up some suspected sock puppets of Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regards to personnel the consensus over at WT:MOSALBUM about listing pertinent personnel. I've already contacted Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) about some suspected IP socks at User talk:Bbb23#Possible sock puppetry?, but can you please tell me what your thoughts are on the matter here? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lord Sjones23. I'm not sure how I could be of help here. I'd only encountered Noneof yourbusiness48's sock(s) at the article mentioned in the WT:MOSALBUM discussion and Alice Cooper (band); I haven't paid attention to their case since an ANI report (regarding their disruptive hatnote edits on Alice Cooper) and the subsequent sock puppetry block (which had nothing to do with the report). As for the two IPs linked on Bbb23's talk; 2601:983:8001:bc50:18f:fb84:43ff:7755 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to mostly edit personnel sections, but to me the only suspect edit is this from 2601:983:8001:bc50:5580:8f86:e03a:90ba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), since it's the one edit I see that adds a couple of non-essential personnel or generic descriptions (as Noneof yourbusiness48/sock(s) did). But I'm no expert here. I'd report it to WP:SPI. Let me know if my input is needed. Lapadite (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As a side note, I also discovered that all of those IPv6 addresses (those which start with 2601:983:8001:bc50), are owned by Comcast and geolocate to Hershey, Pennsylvania. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The Price of Salt talk page

Hello. I don't know how to archive the content of a talk page as you did with the Carol talk page. I think what happened in the past belongs in the past and we've both moved on to a better place. So in this spirit, how do you archive: Talk:The_Price_of_Salt#Edit_on_.22lesbian_pulp_fiction.22? [Although I'm sorely tempted to just hit delete.] :-) Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Pyxis Solitary, water under the bridge, we're both there to improve the articles and collaboration is always best. You can check out WP:ARCHIVE for help archiving talk pages. If you're doing it manually, this is the simplest way. Essentially, after copy/pasting the talk discussions into a new sub page with the archive # (Talk:The Price of Salt/Archive 1), delete that content from the talk page, and then you can just add the {{talk header}} template (if it's not already there) to the top of the talk page; it automatically adds the link(s) to the talk page's archive(s), plus a search box. Let me know if clarification is needed. Lapadite (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Gonna hold my breath and see what happens when I dive into it. Thanks again! Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, not much to it; just copy/paste the discussions in the red link above (the Archive 1 subpage); save the page; delete the archived discussions from the talk page, and voila, the talk header (already on talk page) will automatically add the link to the archive. You should state in the edit summary that the deleted discussions are archived (in Archive 1 in this case). Lapadite (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of films considered the best

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of films considered the best. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I Like It When You Sleep, for You Are So Beautiful...

I am further confused by the article's talk page comment that there are sources claiming vague "pop" genre (just like a previous discussion of talk page of Garbage (album) in few years ago). Hopefully that should remedy this. 115.164.86.251 (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Archiving fail

Geez. Why do so many instructions in Wikipedia have to be so convoluted? Instead of going from Point A to Point B, it's Point A to Point D to Point B to Point X. I tried following the steps in WP:ARCHIVE, but J Mary and Joseph! What a hair-puller! All that resulted from my many attempts to archive Talk:The_Price_of_Salt#Edit_on_.22lesbian_pulp_fiction.22 was it's deletion from the page. Thanks for your "how to", but I give up. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha, I don't disagree there. I archived it; check the archives link & search bar below the talk header. In the future, don't merely delete talk page discussions, they should be archived per WP:TALKCOND. Archiving is just creating a subpage of the talk page (e.g., now Talk:The Price of Salt/Archive 1), pasting the talk discussions, and then deleting those discussions from the talk page. Like I said, as long as there's a {{talk header}} template at the top of the talk page, the archives will automatically appear. Cheers. Lapadite (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for archiving it! I can stop thinking about it now. What a relief! :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

All's well?

Hi. Just checking to see how you're doing. It's not like you to be absent for several days. Hope all's well. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Pyxis Solitary. Thanks I'm fine, just been very busy with life, work, etc. Hope all is well. Lapadite (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you're okay. :-) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)