Archives

1

I removed a lot of the categories that was inCategory: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]

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 noAFD 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 atarticles for deletion you should follow the directions there. I am removing the tag again.GB fan01:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleSondra Currie is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia: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 |Talk22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedSondra Currie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageThicker 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 theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

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

A page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated fordeletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Video game article comments subpages and please be sure tosign 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]

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 inTalk: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]

Well theEmmett 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]

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]

Well inBack to the Future Part III article, Doc actually repaired the DeLorean time machine but not for the flying circuits as mentioned inDeLorean 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 aforum dedicated to BTTF. --Lyverbe (talk)11:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 aperfectly 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'sperfectly 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 aWikipedia 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 my edit onthe page aboutBack to the Future Part II, but I demand you: "Why have you canceled only theJaws template if there is aChicago 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]

Hello, I'mBoing! said Zebedee. I wanted to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions toSondra 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 aneutral perspective. Take a look at thewelcome 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 withUser: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 readWP:NPOV andWP: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 readWP:COPYVIO before you think of copying text into Wikipedia again.Boing! said Zebedee (talk)20:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting my edit onBack 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!TheAwesomeHwyh21:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt fromWP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details seethe 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 theburden 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]

Thank you for adding the citation toSondra 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]

"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 actressSandra 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 noticehttps://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)

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

Feel free to restore thenames 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 toreliable 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]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk pages with Uw-advert1 notices