Archives

User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 1 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 2 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 3 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 4 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 5 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 6 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 7 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 8 User talk:Andrzejbanas/Archive 9

Thanks for uploadingFile:Theholymountain1926.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Basic-math-screenshot.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see thediscussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.(Oinkers42) (talk)17:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Islandofterrorposter.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi​. Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. However there's two other users opposed over updated table, so I suggested that change "Label" to "Distributor" column via original table. Regards.2001:D08:2901:3A65:17DE:BAF3:6F67:5D7F (talk)14:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I'vebegun reviewing the articleSurround (video game) you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofKwanFlakes --KwanFlakes (talk)09:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSurround (video game) you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:Surround (video game) andTalk:Surround (video game)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofKwanFlakes --KwanFlakes (talk)14:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Testamentoforpheus.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSurround (video game) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Surround (video game) for comments about the article, andTalk:Surround (video game)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofKwanFlakes --KwanFlakes (talk)10:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:The Bartered Bride.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAdventure film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageTravelogue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)09:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:StormOverAsia.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Faustusmansterposter.png, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see thediscussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.Mayimbú (talk)19:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since I kinda noticed you being active at WikiProject's Horror. Would you mind if you can review myFAC if you're able to? Many thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)03:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hey. I have a few things on the go, but I'll try to find some time to check it out.Andrzejbanas (talk)12:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Faustusmansterposter.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblockedindefinitely from editing certain pages (Universal Classic Monsters) forabuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk)20:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this editor has been problematic at this article for years. I feel the other editors at this article may need time to come up with a stable version.Valereee (talk)20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

Andrzejbanas(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked form editing the Universal Classic Monsters article. I'm not sure what "stable" form of the article is in question as there hasn't been edit warring or anything in years. In fact, if anything recent changes I've tried to discuss on the talk page firsthere. andhere. If you could give more specifics as reading about sealioning, I haven't been edit warring and while I suppose conversations have gone on long, I really felt that was par for the course on wikipedia. Asmost of the current content to the article has been my own, I feel like I should able to edit the article or address editors or confirm edits to material which are stated by the source. I'd be happy to hold back and let other users speak and be more open to ideas, but I feel like a straight up indefinite ban will not be productive for any party.

For the record, when I responded to user who banned me on the talk page , I received a short quippy":Thanks for understanding." response. I feel like right after being banned from editing the article and trying to be civil, this quick response falls underWP:ESDONTS of making snide comments. I want to trust Valereee, but an indefinite ban over this with little hedway on what I should or should not be doing (as stated above, I've tried to make discussions before editing further), I am struggling to see how Valereee did not just drop a ban a sliver presumptuously. I know I have been banned or asked to not edit articles for a few days, weeks etc, and I've respected that in the past, I feel something like that might be more valid now than a flat out ban.

The active block also prevents me access to the Wikipedia Library, which I have been using actively to research articles as recently as today for various articles.

With the above. I feel like the ban should be either revoked or shortened. I will happily admit to be strong headed and the whole sealioning is something I have not heard on wikipedia until the past few months. I'd rather get more strict instructions on what to do or not to do to contribute to an article on a topic I've improved several related articles in. Thank you.Andrzejbanas (talk)22:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am not persuaded to lift the partial blocks. If you had built up a track record of developing consensus and getting content changes implemented it would be different.PhilKnight (talk)16:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• It seems you are struggling to understand the feedback from editors across Wikipedia, not just atTalk:Universal Classic Monsters, but also recently atTalk:Mad Max: Fury Road#A closer look at the sources andTalk:Horror film#Christmas Horror. The discussions tend to deteriorate when you begin repeating your position, motion to replace legitimate sources, and/or move the goal post when a line of reasoning runs out of steam. When confronted about behavior, it seems you spend a great deal of time (and a lot of prose) explaining how confused you are by your actions, but you don't hesitate to correct or reprimand others for theirs. When one discussion boils over, you handle it in isolation, in what appears to be an effort to contain the situation before another one unravels. At some point, thestruggle andconfusion should naturally end.
  Either you are able to see that others are not the issue here, that it is time to genuinely self-reflect and consider that your approach is sometimes disruptive to thecollaborative process needed tobuild an encyclopedia, or the community will eventually conclude that you are incapable or unwilling to do so. --GoneIn60 (talk)04:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoneIn60, those are me at my worst. We've addressed that in the horror sub genre, and that was settled. The Mad Max one you could talk to me directly, but you stopped responding. So yes, I don't know what you want. I'm trying to ask, and I apologized when I know I've touched a nerve and get no response. As of now, I also am reviewing two good articles, one featured, and have two good articles submitted. I'm upset you only approached me after I apologized you to suggest I'm not building an encyclopedia. I can reflect and respect moderators, and other Wikipedians, but limiting my access to materials and an instant ban on an article without any warning does not make me change my ways when I do not know what others want me to do other then wish me out of a site I've worked towards building for 20 years.Andrzejbanas (talk)05:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrzejbanas as stated in other talk-pages you continually have similar edit warring for articles of a similar genre/topic. As discussed ad nauseum on theTalk:Universal Classic Monsters page (and others), you are now conducting yourself in a manner that is within pattern onThe Inner Sanctum Mysteries (film series) article. While attempting to maintain the page's status I have responded to you in edit summaries and now very directly on the associated talk page.Please be collaborative on this page, and many others. I am at this point assumingWP:GOODFAITH, but when there are patterns -- it is concerning. Before you delete sections of an article again, please discuss your viewpoints at the talk page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk)08:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your asking about a series of edits and there were various reasons. For yours, they were unsourced additions or content predominantly as I recall. And you went back and re-added them forInner Sanctum, this goes for the lead which now has unsourced genres, cast and crew. Not to mention the sourced material you replaced now (release dates, etc.) are I correct. This is probably considered edit warring, but who knows. I don't want to play victim here, my knowledge was when things are unsourced, they should be replaced with sources content. UnlessWP:RS andwp:or are suggestions.Andrzejbanas (talk)11:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the talk page. As per your request, I've been told to collaborate on a talk page. In fact, when I first edited the article and added sources (i.e: beingWP:BOLDhere, the first thing I did after was make a message about it on the talk pagehere. I feel as if I'm getting mixed messages.@Gonein60: says I took to talk pages ad nauseum (which, for me, I assumed things went this way until they reached a point of arbitration, not that I just let them be). In DisneyMetalHeads, the first thing I've done, and I've been doing this on various articles that I've re-vampedhere,here,here, andhere just to name a few. I'm not trying to disguise the fact I changed a lot of information. So what is the issue?Andrzejbanas (talk)12:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit upset of my fellow editors to come out the wood work after not responding to me on talk page articles. I'm not sure what I want to say but when editors avoid discussion, fo not point out rules I'm apparently not following, I have to say it's probably the worst time I've had on Wikipedia. If everyone is upset, I apologize, but I get a lot more attached to showing of rules I'm breaking on wiki pages whether it's the talk page or the article page at a relevant time to editing and not deciding to jump me now when I'm trying to find solutions. I don't want to try and push an admin istrator one way or another ,but all previous blocks for me were reverted when I was suggested to leave a page alone for a set period, that's what I've done in the past, that's what I'd gladly do now. I'm mostly wanting the block removed to have access to the Wikipedia Library and feel other editors came edit in peace without I tervention. I wish we could have talked this out earlier and assumed good faith.Andrzejbanas (talk)11:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are complaining here thatyou stopped responding andafter not responding to me on talk page articles, Andrzejbanas, and that is the heart of the problem. The problem other editors are describing at multiple article talks isWP:SEALIONING, which is when an editor just keeps asking more and more questionsuntil the people responding throw up their hands in frustration and walk away. It's an extremely frustrating problem, which is why editors arecoming out of the woodwork, and it's also a problem that is extremely tedious to prove and also extremely tedious for admins to assess even after it's been proved. Which makes it even more frustrating.

This is a p-block from a single article, and not even its talk, to try to get you to understand this pattern of behavior is disruptive.Valereee (talk)12:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee:, I agree that is the case in that article. In other articles, that was not. I'm happy to step away from the article for a set period, but this ban prevents me from contributing to wikipedia in other ways such as theWikipedia Library, which I have been using since in Good Article reviews. As Gonein60 has pointed out rules i'm breaking, I've been trying hard to reach a happy mediums, but i'm struggling with differences between beingWP:BOLD and trying to use the talk page to talk. Please have patience with me and assume good faith beyond three isolated incidents versus nearly two decades of contributions.Andrzejbanas (talk)12:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to have patience, but this is, as I said, a problem that is tedious (and time-consuming) to prove and assess. I'd like to allow you to continue to do productive editing, including using the library, but I am really searching for a condition under which you could be unblocked. "Agree to a topic ban from any article/talk where two other editors are objecting to your edits"? Other admins tend to dislike such special-case conditions, and prefer conditions like "agree to a topic ban from film."Valereee (talk)13:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I want to reply to your edits you've made to your own post instead of replying to me, but I feel like responses here just going to be lumped into sealioning. I have no clue what is expected. Can I reply? Should I reply? I'm deeply troubled by the circumstance@Valereee: and don't know if the ban on the article over the talk page is meant for me to contribute or see if I do, or anything. If I ask "too many questions", but wikpedia discussions arent' supposed to be votes either, I really am unsure what to do with contribution on a talk page at this point.Andrzejbanas (talk)12:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what edits I've made that you want to reply to, but franklyinstead of replying to me sounds like we're getting right back to the same problem. I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt if you have something meaningful to discuss about some edit I made to one of my own posts here, like if there was an edit conflict I didn't see that changed something significant.Valereee (talk)13:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Previously in the past (and we're digging into decades ago and maybe standards have changed since then), but editors have asked me to perhaps avoid the topic for a set period (i.e: leave the article alone for a month, week, year, etc.). As for that article, I'd be happy to walk away at this point and focus on other tasks. I know I have just edited it, but I figured I'd try to showcase, I can try to work with others and communicate. I'm open to other options, but as I have several film articles in the works,here,here, as well as recent work on just revamping genre film articlesAction film,Horror film,Mystery film, andUser:Andrzejbanas/Crime film. TheAdventure film article was recently tagged as needing an update since 2007 (!) and I've recently re-vamped it. I'd really like some mentor on what I can or can't do. Per the "instead of replying to me", is more about when I ask for help and don't get response, I'm not sure if I'm digging my own hole by replying to a long discussion or not, so I know everyone's patience is running thing, but I'd love some guidance to not have this happen any other editors as I feel the current responses are not constructive on what I should be doing next other than leaving.Andrzejbanas (talk)13:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: it is unfortunate to see that you still have not learned from these ongoing issues. You willingly neglect facts in favor of your personal opinions and move to delete various articles and/or details. Examples include measures you tookhere,here, andhere. I have assummedWP:GOODFAITH various times, but this is definitely a pattern with your edits across various articles as discussed at length through various exampleshere. Instead of posting the hatnote tag requests for additional references, you take it upon yourself to delete data and notable (yesnotable) information. Why?--DisneyMetalhead (talk)04:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore and stranger still, you reference your own work atDracula (Universal film series) in your argumentshere as a defining definition of film vs franchise; meanwhile there are other editors who would point out that these articles... aren't in the best form.DisneyMetalhead (talk)04:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to stick to the here and now of conversations and the points currently brought up. Which you seem to have either ignored or missed @DisneyMetalhead. I don't bother tagging because I search out the information myself to try and solve the issue, find nothing, and post my results.Andrzejbanas (talk)04:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: your desire to "stick to the here and now" is exactly what I'm talking about. You are caught in this cycle, and haven't learned from any of the error-filled actions that have previously been brought to your attention in your various patterns acrossmany articles. You need to tag the pages, not move to delete them automatically. This should be something you understand at this point, as you indicated as much toUser:Valereeehere. I found a number of sources forRosemary's Baby franchise, and will be taking them to the talkpage.--DisneyMetalhead (talk)05:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is misunderstanding. I search out sources, for example, I did find those three sources you found for the Rosemary's Baby. But these are three trivial me tions of a franchise (or two, the latter site Vulture doesn't actually even mention this) and the others are brief single sentences in articles about new films or a poster reveal. From this, the rules I've listed are not being satisfied. Please note, these aren't my rules, these are wikipedias. As for asking for third party sources or tagging them, I don't see a point when we both google and find the same results. The only difference is there's a disagreement on if they follow the rules I statedWP:SIGCOV as of the three sources you list, they have one or two brief mentions, maybe a single sentence, while thied one does not describe it as a franchise. This failsWP:STICKTOSOURCE, the above rules, andWP:WEIGHT.

I think franchise and series articles have their place, but we need standardization and I think you'd agree. That way, we can avoid disagreements.Andrzejbanas (talk)11:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: if you are trying to get a more definitive "requirement" list of what makes a franchise/film series, this goes against the very guidelines you listed there.WP:STICKTOSOURCE is literally what I did by putting the sources that I attached (see that talk page). The franchise exists, while you're getting hung up on titles of a page (similar to what occurred atTalk: Universal Monsters, and you continued to disregard the fact that it has existed for decades. WhileRosemary's Baby wasn't a franchise when it was first released, it became one over the subsequent decades and release of each installment.

AssumingWP:GOODFAITH, I am trying to make you aware of where you are erring. My question to you is what makes a source better than another for you? Is it purely that you're wanting "academic journalism" entries? Not every page is going to endless sources of academic caliber.

DisneyMetalhead (talk)13:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @DisneyMetalhead, I appreciate the good faith. :) I do not believe it has to be academic, but we do haveWP:SOURCETYPES which says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." so unless I am reading this wrong (and anyone please tell me what it is meant to say), we prioritize these above other sources if we have them available. Obviously, this isn't always available, but if its there, I believe we are supposed to lean into them more.

So you've asked a few questions and I want to try and address them:

• Please correct me if I'm wrong, but obviously most films weren't made with a franchise in mind in the past,Dracula only had sequels optioned after its success in the box office for example.
• I don't think we need a "requirement" of what makes a franchise or film, I think we need "coverage" of a series of works (franchises, films etc.) as a whole. What is, or what isn't is going to likely vary, and I've now sort of understood and accepted this. Rhodes says this on studying the Dracula films as a series is "fascinating as it is infuriating, as important as it is potentially unrewarding." That's a good summary. Anyways! For example, when I tried to write a reception aboutSartana, I believe we require discussion about it as a "series" opposed to individual rankings of films. Similar to Dracula, I believe we require commentary as a series as whole, less about individual rankings. This followsWP:SIGCOV, which states that our sources "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." I think this is why the sources you and I had both found forRosemary's Baby are not applicable. They are extremely brief one sentence lines about a franchise. There is no context or depth, or even an opinion.
• Third point is, if we write about a series, what context do we focus on? I know we've applied cast/crew, etc, but for example, listing characters that show up in the films, and applying the film itself as a source is not really untrue, butMOS:REALWORLD, with this "the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction (work for short) and its publication are embedded. To achieve this, editors must use both primary and secondary information." The focus is on the latter, so yes, the films themselves can be "the source for this characters shows in this media", but we are applying undue weight on the importance of this as there is no secondary-source discussing why its important to know the cast among the films, or how important that is to the series. This is why for example in the Dracula article, I tried to only apply information about the cast or characters reoccurring, when someone else has discussed this topic.

I hope this has been clear. I'm thankfully writing from my keyboard instead of my phone so it should be more easy to read. :DAndrzejbanas (talk)13:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas hasagreed at my talk that a good idea for them going forward ismaking a rule for yourself that you will limit yourself toone argument per section on a talk page (and this doesn't mean open a new section every time you have a followup question; one and done, that's it), and never reverting any nonvandalistic edit within any article more than once. I have no objection to any other admin deciding they can work with that in order to conditionally unblock.Valereee (talk)15:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/follow-up: Hey, I'm sorry to mention this as I know that back in October (detailed here) the editor was unblocked from the previously identified article. I read through the parameters that were agreed upon, and given their recent edit history -- I am curious ifUser:Valereee can reviewUser:Andrzejbanas recent activity on the article? I have tried to remind them of previous habits to avoid throughout edit history and the talk page, and my current fear is that they are once again --perhaps out of habit-- demanding one source over another (the very choices that caused this years-long debacle to begin with). Thank you in advance for taking a look!--DisneyMetalhead (talk)06:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @DisneyMetalhead, I'm not going to wade through hundreds of edits (not even sure which article you are referring to), but if you can point me at a few you think are problematic, I'm happy to take a look.Valereee (talk)14:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on working this one up to GA status! I wanted to let you know that I found and added a ton of additional reviews and other sources as refideas on the talk page. Feel free to use as many of those as you like to help build it up any further. :)BOZ (talk)04:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! I'll take a look!Andrzejbanas (talk)08:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say that if you were ever looking to start up new articles on old computer games, a lot of potential articles were added (with sources) to therequest page, and while some are still there the majority were moved to therequest archive page. :)BOZ (talk)13:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof! That's a lot innit? Early PC computer games I feel are so lost to history, I barely know about them as I wasn't even born! I'll definitely peruse the list and see if anything sparks my fancy. I know I did managed to getThunder Castle up and running earlier, so I'll see what else I could enthusiastically contribute to. Thanks again for theMiner 2049er reviews btw!Andrzejbanas (talk)13:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblockedindefinitely from editing certain pages (Universal Classic Monsters andTalk:Universal Classic Monsters) for [[1]] was the last straw for me..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk)18:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).

Andrzejbanas(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I responded that a user was "fair" and believe I said that I don't know where consensus lies with an editor. The latter part was rude and does not live up to the standards of a Wikipedian. I believe I said this in frustration with the editor as they have continuously suggested addingunsourced content to articles, been referred to as aWP:SEALIONhere, and reasoning which contradicts each other (i.e: being against the use of home video label as a sourcehere but then within the same day suggesting we should use ithere,reverting deletions and not notifying me, the nominator, and restoringunsourced and material that is falsely attributed to a source to an article.) This does not excuse my behaviour, but as this user said they also can't findgood faith in me, I'll admit to that my response to their actions was inappropriate for anyone.

Much of the accusation of both blocks currently on the article involveWP:SEALION, an essay involving users that they force policy around articles. As I've re-written this three times and feel like I'm being watched like a hawk on these film articles. I'd like to opportunity to be unbanned to try and redeem myself in these editors eyes. With a block on several on going topics, I'm unable to pursue this.

Decline reason:

You need to address the accusation that you are civil POV pusher directly, rather than talking around it. Also you admit your problem conduct, but don't provide evidence that you have changed. I suggest editing other articles collaboratively to show that you are not a problem user.PhilKnight (talk)16:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide to appealing blocks first, then use the{{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Andrzejbanas (talk)18:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Andrzejbanas. I would like to invite you to join the discussion about "Label" or "distributor" at the album release history table. Leave your comment if you like.183.171.120.3 (talk)09:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrzejbanas,Just thought I would give you a heads up and let you know that I am considering reviewing your nomination for the Dracula Universal film series. I am still waiting for a final support for my Fearured Article review onTroika so I will try and review your article in the meantime until that (hopefully) happens.Paleface Jack (talk)18:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I'vebegun reviewing the articleDracula (Universal film series) you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPaleface Jack --Paleface Jack (talk)19:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to reply to my comments on the GA review so I can move on to the other portions.--Paleface Jack (talk)19:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleDracula (Universal film series) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Dracula (Universal film series) for comments about the article, andTalk:Dracula (Universal film series)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPaleface Jack --Paleface Jack (talk)01:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed the ongoing creation of many low quality film series articles. This has been happening for years now.

I also noticed the discussion you started about one particular example.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Franchises_and_film_series

One user in particular seems to have created most/many of these articles. This keeps happening despite the lack of quality sources available. In the case you mention there is barely any "franchise" per se, just multiple adaptations of the same source. As you have pointed out, although the individual films are notable, they are not particularly noteworthy collectively. There is little chance of anyone ever bringing these articles to the highest standard in the long run. They are frequently little better than list articles repeating information already elsewhere, and they are often full of holes. Very basic citation needed requests that should have been filled before leaving draftspace never get filled (e.g.The_Nutty_Professor_(franchise)#Critical_and_public_response). These articles are started but very little progress is made. Persistent people keep on repetitively starting even more new draft articles and worse they keep getting approved by people who are either unaware of or unwilling to apply theWP:FILMSERIES guidelines.

The guidelinesWP:FILMSERIES are frequently ignored."should only be created when the series encompasses at least three films" two recent cases of this wereSmile (franchise) andHorizon: An American Saga where a franchise article was let out of draft space before a second film has even been released, but this has been happening for years and years. The standard ofWP:NFP is being ignored for franchise articles simply because the individual films are notable.
I pointed this outTalk:Horizon:_An_American_Saga#Draftify but Erik (one of the most active long termWP:FILM editors) doesn't seem to be bothered by the guidelines being flagrantly ignored, and seems to think these low quality film series articles are worthwhile.

I think theWP:FILMSERIES guideline was written to discourage this kind proliferation of low quality articles but it has largely been ignored and rarely enforced.

I'm often annoyed by this state of affairs but I'm not angry enough to bring this seemingly obvious problem toWP:FILM and push for action.

It gives me some solace to know that someone else has at least noticed part of the same problem, but I don't think editors are ready to grasp this nettle and either stop the proliferation of low potential film series and franchise articles or removeWP:FILMSERIES guideline that is almost never enforced.

I do hope you will persist and make sure your point is seen and understood by the other editors at least in this one instance. Even if there was a clear consensus telling him to stop doing something[2] the best you can hope for is a small change. He's been at it for years and he is just going to keep on creating more low potential film series and franchise articles but maybe you can get editors to notice, form a consensus, and push him to adjust his behavior (or abandon theWP:FILMSERIES guideline if there's no real consensus for it anymore). --109.79.162.114 (talk)05:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind support. While I appreciate your comments and consideration for this, and I do somewhat notice that WP:FILM seems a bit wary on updating or changing guidelines, I would suggest commenting it on the talk page there as whenever I try to update or edit things, if there is little to no response, its like talking to a wall.Andrzejbanas (talk)03:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies (for rambling excessively above and also because) I don't have the strength to bang my head against that wall too. Too many rules and the tyranny of selective enforcement. One of several reasons I only edit sporadically anymore, but thank you for your efforts. --109.77.197.194 (talk)17:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedA Virgin Among the Living Dead, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageLichtenstein.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andrzejbanas: You deleted more than 80% of theJesus Franco article with the click of a button, without any discussion on the talk page whatsoever. The section you deleted was meticulously designed so that a wiki-reader could quickly search the "NOTES" column and see the entire history of the collaborations (in date order) between Franco and the various actors and crew members he worked with. That column contains an ENORMOUS amount of researched data that took years to amass and verify. You replaced it with a bunch of near-empty columns that do not contain any of that information which you so casually deleted!

Also, almost every Franco film has so many alternate titles. The filmography you created only shows one title for each film (apparently chosen randomly by you) which means if someone is trying to look up a specific title on your filmography page, they have to be able to guess which title you chose for each film. If they know the film by an alternate title, they cannot possibly find it on your filmography page. I have no objection to your creating that separate filmography page (although it was unnecessary in my opinion), but I don't understand why you so cavalierly decided to erase almost EVERYTHING on the main article page without even consulting anyone. A lot of people worked for YEARS to create that page, and you just delete the whole thing without asking?? This is outrageous behavior. Every scrap of data on that list was backed up using the same two Stephen Thrower books you used yourself.How about a compromise? I suggest we leave BOTH tables up so the readers can avail themselves of ALL the available information, instead of having you censor certain data that you personally are not interested in, wouldn't that be fair? I placed the link to your filmography page above the other section, so that the readers would see your page first. If you wish, you can even move your filmography's link all the way up to the top of the article! But PLEASE do not take it upon yourself to boldly delete 80% of an article that has been on wiki for so many years, on a whim? You can correct any errors that you find in the research, no problem. But you have no right to barge in like you own the page and make wholesale alterations to an article like that! 49Bottles (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Another thing...you claim the research on that page was "....just cited without page numbers...". They were the same two books YOU used yourself to create your filmography page. So you should know that those books feature a separate chapter on each Franco film, chronologically arranged in the table of contents. (Each chapter is only a few pages long.) So it's obvious what pages correspond to each film in the two books. Also you wrote "to the average reader, the importance of this (information) would not be "known" (meaning "relevant", I'm guessing?). The people who have used that Franco article for reference all these years are not just "average readers", they are obviously VERY interested in learning about who Franco collaborated with, the alternate titles of his films and the chronological order they were produced in, or else they wouldnt be researching the topic to begin with! The readers should be permitted to read all or part of the article and decide for themselves what facts regarding the topic are relevant to them, without your censoring what information they are permitted to read. Let's compromise and agree to leave both sections up, ok? That's the fairest thing to do. They're already set up as two separate articles, so they won't interfere with each other at all. In fact, the two articles will compliment each other.49Bottles (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)— Precedingunsigned comment added by49Bottles (talk •contribs)

Dear Andrzejbanas: After you vandalized the "Jesus Franco" article unnecessarily today by deleting almost 80% of the article's content without consulting anyone on the Franco talk page, I did a bit of research and I see you are currently blocked from editing a number of wiki pages due to "disruptive behavior" and "Sealioning". Apparently you have a HISTORY of boldly deleting whole sections of various wikipedia articles without going through the proper editing procedures. You have exhibited an amazing arrogance by erasing a number of people's work, and then blaming it all on your personal psychological problems. You have harassed and annoyed a number of editors by posting novel-length "walls of text" on their talk pages, in an attempt to force your opinions on them during various talk-page discussions. (See August 6, 2024 and August 12, 2024 on this guy's talk page above). I guess you haven't learned your lesson? I see you haven't changed your ways, that's for sure. Needless to say, i'm not responding any further to your future comments other than to advise you to get some serious help with learning proper editing procedure as soon as possible.49Bottles (talk)22:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are the procedures I'm breaking? Information wasn't sourced. Its been replaced with sourced content. I knew the edit would be a bit controversial, but you have been a bit back and forth on what specifically the issues has been and I think I've addressed most of your questions.Andrzejbanas (talk)22:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a bit controversial? Deleting practically an entire article without seeking consensus first on the talk page?? I hope you're kidding, right? I can't believe someone who has already been partially blocked for "disruptive behavior" andsealioning would continue to vandalize more articles! It's really amazing. What you have done to that Franco page constitutes vandalism.49Bottles (talk)19:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bottles, I've asked what specifics are the vandalism. A filmography is a list, in theprevious iteration, it applied information from the Thrower book incorrectly. If often suggests that films were only released in certain locations "only", which is not what the sources state, and has since been proven false. SeeRififi in the City for example, which was indeed released outside the three countries suggested in the filmography. Some of the sources in the previous article were cited to IMDb, which we don't use perWP:RS/IMDb. I've asked on your page to discuss the content, and so far I've not really received a response to what specifically you want re-instated outside returning the filmography to its prior form. But in that current state, it lacked inline citations to specific details. If there are glaring errors, please discuss them or better yet, add sources to move them in on the page.Andrzejbanas (talk)13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, unsourced information was removed and some of that information was deemed unreliable. Thus it was removed. It is hardly disruption to do so.Paleface Jack (talk)18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleMegamania you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:Megamania andTalk:Megamania/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPresN --PresN (talk)22:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleMegamania you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Megamania for comments about the article, andTalk:Megamania/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPresN --PresN (talk)13:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over some of your edits I discovered that your article for the 1977 filmHouse could do with some reworking and expansion. I looked at the Japanese version of the article and it is significantly longer and has some additional sources worth taking a look.

• https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8F%E3%82%A6%E3%82%B9_(%E6%98%A0%E7%94%BB)

Paleface Jack (talk)18:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny you mention that as I've been browsing through Archive.org and found a French-language review from whenHouse came out (!) recently. Good call. I'll check it out this weekend. Thanks@Paleface Jack:Andrzejbanas (talk)19:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I revamped my citation style for Chain Saw, felt like it was better to have it all as sfn to consolidate things.Paleface Jack (talk)22:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh a person of taste! ;DAndrzejbanas (talk)22:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedFaceless (1988 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageSeverin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who accepted the request.

Andrzejbanas(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per @PhilKnight:'s previous message, I've re-requested an unblock. I believe I've shown change. I was going to edit the response there, but sort of got distracted. Since the block, I've focused on what user Valereee suggested and focus on other topics. Since then I've discussed the topics several times before making more bold changes and have alerted the respected users. This ranges from Below the Root (video game) (started discussion about changes to the article, and reached out to other users heavily involved with the article to discuss changes made to it (here, and here here). Similarly with Les Mains d'Orlac (here for discussion) and here for responses: here, and [User_talk:Paleface_Jack#Les_Mains_d'Orlac here] (with this user, we've even collaborated more since as we seemed to hit it off pretty well!). Also since then, I've applied work on other articles bringing Megamania and Dracula (Universal film series) to good article status. With all this, I feel i'm ready to re-contribute to the article, which has since gone on with unsourced material that is unchallenged, and I'd like to get that back on track. Andrzejbanas (talk) 5:28 pm, 8 September 2024, Sunday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC−4) :Month later update: While I understand reviewing blocks takes time, I might as well continue with what I believe I've changed with. Since the block, I have been trolled by editors and did not attack or let their comments get to me. (see editor spam here: here, here. These comments were very much in tune with the themes of content I edit. With one patrolling editor calling them gravedancing. Beyond this, I have kept my cool during a few Xfds, when being told my edits have a "stench" or "stink". [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary's Baby (franchise)]. In the meantime, I've worked on getting other articles to good article status and have primarily been able to focus on following policy and civility with other editors. Without going into detail, I feel like I should be able to edit the talk and or article without any issues with civility. Andrzejbanas (talk) 2:28 pm, 18 October 2024, Friday (27 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Accepting unblock with the proposed condition: Andrzejbanas is limited to one argument per section on a talk page (and this doesn't mean open a new section for followup questions; one and done, that's it), and never reverting any nonvandalistic edit within any article more than once._signed,Rosguill^talk14:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, sealioning is so incredibly tedious to prove, and even when you've shown the 20-40 diffs that prove it, who wants to assess? AtWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#Behavioral_issues_at_Talk:Horror_film (take a look at both the extended content I provided -- 20 diffs, with the offer of another 20 if needed -- and the editor's behaviorin that ANI), those who bothered to read the diffs and/or were already familiar with the behavior atTalk:Horror were recommending a ban fromfilm. Take a look also atUser_talk:Andrzejbanas#More_issues?; A's complaint was that other editors were coming out of the woodwork. That's because sealioning is so incredibly frustrating to try to deal with. When I saw the same thing happening at Universal Classic Monsters and its talk, I pblocked there.

What Andrzejbanas said at my talk at the time was that he wouldlimit himself to one edit per section on talk pages. Are you actually seeing evidence that's happened? If he'll agree to thatas a condition of unblock, I'll support an unblock. Otherwise, I'm very reluctant to support it. I think a pblock from a single article he wants to edit is a good incentive for actually agreeing to avoid the behavior.Valereee (talk)11:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into dregs, I'm happy to comply@Valereee: and@Rosguill:. I'll try to tread lightly, but If possibly, I may run by requests by you Valereee to make sure I'm not over stepping boundaries at first. I know you aren't a babysitter, but I figured I just want to be safe and not just do some misinterpret overzealousness with other content.Andrzejbanas (talk)11:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always happy to help, but this seems like a bright line: one post per talk page section at any article. One single argument, and you're done.Valereee (talk)11:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh totally. It was more if I had some questions in context if I have doubts that saying one thing or doing something I think could be viewed as squibbling the rules. I just want to be clear that I'm trying my best to comply with the request at hand.Andrzejbanas (talk)11:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a conditional unblock with a logged restriction.Valereee (talk)11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm not sure this unblock condition is going to be beneficial to the community or Andrzejbanas--it replaces a software-enforced block with an editing restriction that requires manual enforcement, and it's not entirely clear what the penalty for violation of the restriction would be: reblocking for the one TCM Monsters page? A full block? The restriction is aimed at the behavior that precipitated the block by applying a formal limit to places where Andrzejbanas currently and for some time has been editing freely without issue, and carries the possibility of hampering discussion on the rare occasions where a second reply from Andrzejbanas actually would be appropriate and conducive to the formation of consensus.

I recognize what you're saying Valereee about the difficulty of addressing sealioning and that you're not yet convinced that the issues have been decisively put to bed. But it seems like going from a p-block to an editing restriction just replaces one corrective measure with another, more bureaucratic and labor-intensive corrective measure, without really increasing Andrzejbanas's ability to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. On this basis, I would lean towards simply declining the unblock request rather than implementing the edit restriction as an unblock condition._signed,Rosguill^talk13:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I am available for suggestions, but if Valereee is willing to go forward with the unblock and to address it, perhaps they could clarify where they will take part. I do not have much to add to the talk page, but I have since found more material I would like to address and give time for editors to follow-up on. I'm not sure what would give proof over the vague accusation of sealioning, but I think its Valereee is open to working with me to confirm I'm not falling into questionable territory, I don't think it makes my contributions a determent to the community at large.Andrzejbanas (talk)14:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, IMO -- based on the complaint about 'other editors coming out of the woodwork' -- this would be akin to any tban or other manually-enforced editing restriction: typically policed by those who interact with this editor in topics they see each other in frequently. I do get it, though. Custom restrictions are a PITA.

How about this: A, commit toone post per section in any article talk, exception for answering adirect reqiest for ou to clarify your original post. Do you understand the difference between feeling youneed to clarify andbeing directly asked to clarify? That is, pretend you have this editing restriction. Come back in three months.Valereee (talk)19:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I do, As I said above, I have very little to add in the first place, so I see it unlikely that I will go as overboard as I have before. I'm mostly interested in bringing in some new sources I've found on the topic, and do not see myself going as overboard as I have in the incidents you have mentioned. If I'm seriously in doubt if I should chime in (which I do not expect to be often), I'll message you for an opinion.Andrzejbanas (talk)19:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:, any further thoughts on this? I understand its a complicated spot, but just figured I'd check in as it has been over a week. I'm still happy to comply to the above as Valereee seems willing and there is now finally some new voices entering in on the discussion on the talk page that I'd like to contribute to if possible.Andrzejbanas (talk)18:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was thatValereee was suggesting waiting a few more months, unless I misunderstood. I don't have a strong position on this and am ok with moving forward with other's assent; my original qualm was that it seemed like the unblock condition proposed was more onerous than the existing p-block and wanted to make sure that you and Valereee were still in favor of proceeding despite that concern._signed,Rosguill^talk13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, I'm fine with the unblock condition instead of revisiting after three months of behaving as if the conditional unblock was in place.Valereee (talk)14:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah same. Per what Valereee said here and above, I'm more than comfortable.Andrzejbanas (talk)14:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Malevolence.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)02:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for straighten that out. I saw the line break but didn't correct it.DMc75771 (talk)16:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Glad to have been able to help!Andrzejbanas (talk)16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I'vebegun reviewing the articleYars' Revenge you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPokelego999 --Pokelego999 (talk)22:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectYars Rising has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 13 § Yars Rising until a consensus is reached.ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ)06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleYars' Revenge you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting thegood article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:Yars' Revenge andTalk:Yars' Revenge/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPokelego999 --Pokelego999 (talk)13:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedFilm franchise, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pagesHalloween II andDiamonds Are Forever.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleYars' Revenge you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Yars' Revenge for comments about the article, andTalk:Yars' Revenge/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPokelego999 --Pokelego999 (talk)15:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrzejbanas! I noticedyour contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, thecontributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!Thewikizoomer (talk)05:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend,Just thought I would let you know, I created a separate userspace to transfer some of the information on my TCM edits in relation to thethemes and analysis. I dont normally allow people to work on these sorts of things but if you want to utilize that space and expand upon it I trust you enough with that.Paleface Jack (talk)00:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! I have a few tasks to work on, but I'll come in to copy-edit and see if I can add things and suggest stuff. Thank you for the invite!Andrzejbanas (talk)00:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I am trying to entice DarkWarriorBlake with working on some of these separate spaces as well even though he has sworn off of 70s films until he completes his current lineup.Paleface Jack (talk)00:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Hellraiser-UK-Quad-poster.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Rabid-dogs-bluray-coverjpg.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Tetris-forever-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Lostcontinent1951.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)03:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedTetris Forever, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageEmulation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, A,this may be a vio. I'd strike it for now, but let's discuss. I'm not inclined to take action for a possible first offense, these things are very difficult to navigate, especially at the start, but I'm going to pingRosguill for their input. I'm actually out for most of the rest of the day, so be patient if you ping me.Valereee (talk)15:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I debated it and went over that statement a few times in my head to make sure I wasn't going overboard. I'm happy to remove. I apologize. I should've asked you first. Would you like me to remove it for now? Or...Andrzejbanas (talk)15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it for now. No rush on me replying or discussing, I saw the other editor had a few discussions going at once and felt that a lot of them circled around similar topics. Its a messy talk page and wasn't sure. I'm happy to prompt you before I return to that discussion, but I was going a bit back and forth on whether I should respond and worry about spamming your page. I hope I'm not out of line either way. Thanks for reaching out.Andrzejbanas (talk)15:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comments? I just want to make sure I understood the issue before attempting any further edits.Andrzejbanas (talk)11:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey@Valereee:, I never heard back from you on this and its been about half a month. I'd like to continue work on that article if possible if its all in the clear.Andrzejbanas (talk)22:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can work on the article. You just need to keep your tban in mind. One post per discussion, no gaming of that.Valereee (talk)12:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it in mind. Please note I'm not trying to game anything, it was an honest mistake. Thanks.Andrzejbanas (talk)12:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wasn't intending to say that edit represented gaming, just restating the full tban. The concern about gaming would be something like you felt you needed to make a second response in a particular discussion, but because you can't, you open up a new discussion to make that response.Valereee (talk)12:43, 4 December 2024 (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)00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Baise-Moi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I'vebegun reviewing the articleThe Great Giana Sisters you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofRFNirmala --RFNirmala (talk)06:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I'vebegun reviewing the articleMiner 2049er you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPokelego999 --Pokelego999 (talk)22:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation inthis discussion andthis discussion seem to be clear violations of your editing restriction. Please explain.Valereee (talk)13:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of our discussion that it was linited to the UM article.Andrzejbanas (talk)22:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I said it in the list itself that I think the conversation on the talk page for the first one went out of hand, the second one actually seemed productive as the conversation seems to show. I am pacing myself and not replying once an hour or anything, but regardless I do want to state that my understanding that our agreement was dedicated to the talk page. I don't think you want me asking if its okay to reply to any thread more than once each time I feel it required to do so. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong@Valereee:.)Andrzejbanas (talk)06:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can only reply once, period. No, I don't want you asking if it's okay to reply to any thread more than once. It's not okay. You are in violation of your editing restriction. You're going to need to understand that:once per discussion atany discussionanywhere on Wikipedia unless directly asked for clarification of your first post in a discussion. It's not limited to the UM article talk.Valereee (talk)14:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that was what was agreed to. This limits me to entering discussion in several articles, such as good article reviews where there is obviously going to be a lot of back and forth. While I appreciate your response, I think we need some refinement with these rules per your suggestion, even replying to this would be a violation. I'm not trying to have a "gotcha" moment or anything here@Valereee:, but I do not think that is reasonable.Andrzejbanas (talk)16:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the double response again. But yes, it looks like Rosguill's statement was a more general term. I was wrong. I'll try to curb my responses in discussions about content. But I think this shouldn't apply for things like a good article review, where I'm going to say 90% of the time its going to be some tangentially unprompted back and forth. Can I clarify this should probably only apply to talk page about content addition/removal/rules etc./deletion content? I'm sorry for the frustration, I hope you can assume good faith and know this was an honest misunderstanding that I've caught myself in.Andrzejbanas (talk)16:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would completely be willing to make an exception at GA review. @Rosguill?

Also completely willing to assume AGF that this is an honest misunderstanding. For me it applies to article talk and noticeboards, for sure.Valereee (talk)17:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, I can only assume this has been a headache for you. I'll step around conversations until Rosguill chimes in.Andrzejbanas (talk)18:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, seems reasonable._signed,Rosguill^talk18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for understanding, I think in relation to the comments, if its on my own talk page and very clearly not a debate or an argument or endless going on, (i.e: friendly conversation likehere) or something like a GA review it can be a bit back and forth. Otherwise, I'll try to keep it minimal. If there is anything i'm missing, please ping me, i'll try to keep everything headache free. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would sayon your own talk we could also relax this, as someone discussing with you at your own talk is clearly directly asking for response from you. But "try to keep it minimal" isn't what the restriction requires in other talks. The restriction requires asingle post in a particular discussion and no additional posts unless directly requested.Valereee (talk)19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh of course, I'm good. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)22:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Andrzejbanas, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on thisseasonal occasion. Spread theWikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk)07:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I know we've had our disagreements this year but I appreciate you very much and wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year of editing.★Trekker (talk)07:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice gesture! Thank you. Same to you. Hope your holidays are great@StarTrekker:. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)09:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleMiner 2049er you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Miner 2049er for comments about the article, andTalk:Miner 2049er/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPokelego999 --Pokelego999 (talk)05:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ (talk) is wishing you aMerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotesWikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user aMerry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. Feel free to take a "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" if you prefer.  :)BOZ (talk)18:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas works best for me! I hope you have a great one too@BOZ:. Thanks for all the support through the year! It has been very encouraging. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)18:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articleThe Great Giana Sisters you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:The Great Giana Sisters for comments about the article, andTalk:The Great Giana Sisters/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofRFNirmala --RFNirmala (talk)06:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:BorsalinoPoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)03:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The file you uploaded 14 years ago feel into Public Domain. It is different tothe one i've uploaded yesterday on Commons but i need it exported since it's visible signature is missing in your file, and i can't do it cuz one of the revisions is hidden from public view.

Can you help me with this one? --Mayimbú (talk)04:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially! Sorry I'm a bit confused on what you are asking me to do though. Swap them out? Replace?Andrzejbanas (talk)05:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to export it as a separate file to Commons, but first the visibility of the first upload (currently hidden from public view) has to change. Dunno if OP can do it or one has torequest an admin to do it.Mayimbú (talk)00:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I'vebegun reviewing the articleRiver Raid you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofSammi Brie --Sammi Brie (talk)06:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleRiver Raid you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:River Raid for comments about the article, andTalk:River Raid/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofSammi Brie --Sammi Brie (talk)20:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thank you for your work onAtari 2600 Action Pack. :) I've got a list of several articles in similar shape, would you be interested in taking a look at them to see if you want to work on any of them?BOZ (talk)02:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It was a release I didn't know much about but kept seeing mentioned here and there so I went into a deep dive on it. feel free to share your list! :)Andrzejbanas (talk)02:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. :) I worked my way through Next Generation magazine a few years ago and started a lot of articles. Most of them have been well developed over time, but a lot of them still need work and many have additional sources listed below the Reception section and/or on the talk page. Maybe you would like to take a look at articles I created from the first couple of issues to see if there is anything you can do with any of these?

• 1):John Madden Football (1994 video game),Battlecorps
• 2):Real Pinball,After Burner Complete,Alien Gate,Armored Fist

BOZ (talk)06:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought these are a bit out of my personal passions, but I think I would take great giddy pleasure in working on articles for the 3DO. I have a few things on my plate, but if I have some moments I'll check them out!Andrzejbanas (talk)06:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of topics might you be more interested in? :)BOZ (talk)02:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a mild interest in more forgotten systems like the CDI games you shared, I think I sort of just gravitate to when new media is being released from something that is doing it for the first time. (i.e: early genre films, early game systems, early advancements in tech) etc. That said, I could try to spruce up those articles but it's a bit out of my way as I'm focused on some other material at the moment. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)21:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedOh, God! (film series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDeadline.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

• Les Jours and East View Press join the library
• Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I'vebegun reviewing the articleOtogirisō you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofProtoDrake --ProtoDrake (talk)21:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The discussion remains no further comment since last year. If you're interested, feel free to give your input, as well asSimplifying "Release history" tables discussion.113.210.105.98 (talk)10:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:BorsalinoPoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleOtogirisō you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Otogirisō for comments about the article, andTalk:Otogirisō/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofProtoDrake --ProtoDrake (talk)20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On23 February 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleOtogirisō, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that the 1992 video gameOtogirisō reinvigorated interest inadventure games in Japan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Otogirisō. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Otogirisō), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk)00:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:You'vecomealongwaybabyusacover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)04:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there - I believe you are trying to do a good thing with your edits to Retrogaming. You mentioned you reverted the origin of the word because sources disagree. Please let me know, I have spent much time researching this. Hypothetically, an obscure fanzine or BBS post might’ve used "retrogaming" but I couldn’t find it. Also checked X chatter today (searched #retrogaming).Bob Frasure (talk)04:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey. sorry for the slow reply. I've had a few in real life and other more timely wiki issues to address. I've posted it about it on the talk page of the article so more eyes can see it there. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)14:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrzejbanas. Feel free to comment for the label.2001:D08:2920:E1E0:1828:939E:50FC:B105 (talk)06:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleBerzerk (video game) you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article needs changes or clarifications to meet thegood article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:Berzerk (video game) andTalk:Berzerk (video game)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPresN --PresN (talk)17:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleBerzerk (video game) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Berzerk (video game) for comments about the article, andTalk:Berzerk (video game)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPresN --PresN (talk)20:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Andrzejbanas, I invite your third party input on the Third Man page as to a dispute over the indenity of ownership of that film. I know you're an independepnt and research led editor. I trust your judgement.Halbared (talk)01:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
Issue 67, January – February 2025

• East View Press and The Africa Report join the library
• Spotlight: Wikimedia+Libraries International Convention and WikiCredCon
• Tech tip: Suggest page

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --18:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I also hate Valent but they are usable sometimes, especially for plot. Tagging it like this[3] would make the article looked worst (especially you cannot find a reliable sources a lot that talks about the plot). I mean, Valent sources are acceptable at the entertainment and popculture anyway. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)01:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to new standards forWP:FILM which I referenced. Also, I believe unless there is complicated issue with plot, perWP:FILMPLOT, we generally do not have to cite plot summaries.Andrzejbanas (talk)05:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but we know editors would likely replace Valnet source to a better one if they are able to find it. Like for ex.Raichu is an FA, but it uses a couple of Valnet, so tagging like that would be a problem. But, I can say that the tag is reasonable at reception unlike Plot. I really hate seeing articles at Plot being uncited. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)07:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to bring this up on the talk page (specifically the VALNET material). If you have issues with plots not being sourced, I would suggest bringing up with the respected communities as this is a standard guideline in both film and video game artists per their MOS.Andrzejbanas (talk)17:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for wasting your time btw. I know there is a rule that we don't need to source a plot, but for me personally, I actually prefer it to be sourced so that it does looked better, and also to avoid other newbie editors dropping "citation needed". I may try to look later if there are reliable sources at the google news. But still, I'm not sure tagging all the articles that contain Valnet sources can help, especially for FAs. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)21:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should be tagging or fixing material in featured articles if they are not following material. The material I tagged is stuff that could potentially be fixed with a quick search or be removed with little essential information. As for plots, be my guest, but generally speaking it might be a waste of time for everyone involved.Andrzejbanas (talk)21:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree on the plot part that it would be a waste of time since it really mostly depends on the preference. Lets ignore that topic. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)21:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fair. I've opened up the topic at on the talk page of the article in question to get more eyes on it.Andrzejbanas (talk)01:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fear that this thing might drive the WikiProject Fictional characters of VG to extinction, and might affect a lot of articles. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)02:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but I don't necessarily agree fully. That one article only required two sources or so to be changed, and you were able to do it swiftly and neatly. Often when collaborating on projects, other sources can be found outside sources from these few sites.Andrzejbanas (talk)03:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but I don't necessarily agree fully. That one article only required two sources or so to be changed, and you were able to do it swiftly and neatly. Often when collaborating on projects, other sources can be found outside sources from these few sites. This is not an attack on these kind of articles, it's just to try to stop using material that is not of high quality.Andrzejbanas (talk)03:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at theWikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

silviaASH(inquire within)01:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. Hope we can come to a resolution. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)12:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'mSparkle & Fade. As implied by the title, I have a crazy idea: makingDopethrone a featured article. I've been thinking about working on this album for a while, and I'm just asking because you might be interested in working on the article together. I might also post a notice onWikiProject Metal asking for help if anyone's interested. That's all, thanks! —Sparkle and Fade (talk •contributions)07:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to support! I did end up picking up the book on Electric Wizard and can try to fill in the blanks or expand it. Perhaps we can regroup on the talk page if the article?Andrzejbanas (talk)16:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll try to start working on the article, though I admit I'm not sure where to start on a good article already. —Sparkle and Fade (talk •contributions)01:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a new discussion on WP:FILM about Buzzfeed like there was for Valnet? I saw that you asked me to take off the Valnet cites onTwin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me citing a new discussion, but I wasn't aware of any changing views on Buzzfeed.

I was happy to swap out this particular Buzzfeed article on the FWWM page because it was cited for a simple factual matter and readily replaced. More broadly, though, I think that while a lot of Buzzfeed is not great, they do provide serious analysis at times, so the decision on any given source has to be a little more holistic.Namelessposter (talk)17:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hey. Thanks for asking. I wasn't involved with anything related to Buzzfeed being given a yay or nay as a reliable source. I was discussing with another editor before who asked about it and saw it atWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. While it appears there is some leeway on using it as a source, I'm sure the information about the extra cast and crew can be found elsewhere asFire Walk With Me andTwin Peaks and general surely has countless high quality sources writing about it.Andrzejbanas (talk)17:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a problem at all to find new sources. I'm just trying to think of how this might affect future articles. Thank you for explaining.Namelessposter (talk)17:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Great work on the article btw!Andrzejbanas (talk)17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from you, that means a lot.Namelessposter (talk)18:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedThe Nightmare Before Christmas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageNECA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)07:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I noticed that you are working on TMNT for NES so, i decided to help a bit by finding various English reviews for the NES version, which you can find at the talk page. Hope that helps out a bit!Roberth Martinez (talk)00:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you! The reception section needs some pruning (in terms of prose), so I have checked them all out, but I need to just sort of "organize" them better. I appreciate the notice and support. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)13:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I wanted to ask your opinion on if you would consider Metroid II on the game boy classed as a platformer? Thanks!!StarStorm10 (talk)07:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean personally yes, but if you are asking for the article itself, it would be best to see what reliable sources describe it as.Andrzejbanas (talk)07:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I'vebegun reviewing the articleBelow the Root (video game) you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofDasallmächtigeJ --DasallmächtigeJ (talk)12:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAction film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageExemplar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
Issue 68, March–April 2025

In this issue we highlight two resource renewals, #EveryBookItsReader, a note about Phabricator, and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTalk:Sinners (2025 film) § Edit War Dispute.Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)04:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleBelow the Root (video game) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Below the Root (video game) for comments about the article, andTalk:Below the Root (video game)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofDasallmächtigeJ --DasallmächtigeJ (talk)17:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleAttack of the Robots you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Attack of the Robots for comments about the article, andTalk:Attack of the Robots/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofLastJabberwocky --LastJabberwocky (talk)11:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I'vebegun reviewing the articleKaboom! (video game) you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofCooperCool23 --CooperCool23 (talk)21:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedAction comedy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageFish out of water.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: Just pinging as a reminder.COOPER COOL 23user page17:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Went forward and followed-up and changed per your suggestions.Andrzejbanas (talk)00:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleKaboom! (video game) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Kaboom! (video game) for comments about the article, andTalk:Kaboom! (video game)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofCooperCool23 --CooperCool23 (talk)19:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleKaboom! (video game) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Kaboom! (video game) for comments about the article, andTalk:Kaboom! (video game)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofCooperCool23 --CooperCool23 (talk)19:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit toThe Sword (1980 film) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have addedcopyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence ofpermission from the copyright holder. If youare the copyright holder, please readWikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without anappropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source ofinformation, but not as a source ofcontent, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policywill beblocked from editing. SeeWikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. —Diannaa 🍁 (talk)21:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dianna. I think I may have been quoting the director too much from the article. Is it cool to re-add it if I re-edited it more? I think I just went a bit overboard.Andrzejbanas (talk)21:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The parts I removed did not have any quotation marks. You are of course welcome to add content written in your own words. —Diannaa 🍁 (talk)22:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I wonder if I made a mistake. Ok. Thanks.Andrzejbanas (talk)22:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again@Diannaa:. I've tried to re-add the content with it being re-phrased. Is this still to close? Just want to make sure I'm not in any violation again. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)05:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That version looks okay. —Diannaa 🍁 (talk)11:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleAir-Sea Battle you nominated as agood article has been placed on hold. The article needs changes or clarifications to meet thegood article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. SeeTalk:Air-Sea Battle andTalk:Air-Sea Battle/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofJaguar --Jaguar (talk)19:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I'vebegun reviewing the articleSpace Invaders (Atari 2600 video game) you nominated forGA-status according to thecriteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofJaguar --Jaguar (talk)22:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleSpace Invaders (Atari 2600 video game) you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Space Invaders (Atari 2600 video game) for comments about the article, andTalk:Space Invaders (Atari 2600 video game)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofJaguar --Jaguar (talk)10:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I justredid the paragraph about the 1980 tournament in theSpace Invaders article. I learned that Atari held the contest and used its Atari VCS version in the tournament in order to promote the game. Not sure where this might go in theSpace Invaders (Atari 2600 video game) article (feels like part of the release/promotion but there isn't such a section) and figured it was worth mentioning to you. Hope it helps. Happy editing. (Guyinblack25^talk15:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Update - While looking through my books for Space Invaders, I saw that David Ellis'sOfficial Price Guide to Classic Video Games talks about the release of the Atari 2600 port. This combined with the above should be enough for a good sized Release section.

• Ellis, David (2004).Official Price Guide to Classic Video Games. Random House.ISBN 0-375-72038-3.

I'd add it myself, but I'm unfamiliar with markup for the citation style you used in the article. If you can add the info about the national tournament, I can add content from Ellis's book. Or if you are aware of a good walkthrough/guide for that citation markup, I can take it from there. Either way, just ping me to let me know. (Guyinblack25^talk04:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

If you want the add the Information in the way you are accustomed to I can format it after. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)04:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the documentation on theTemplate:sfn page andtook a stab at it. You might want to check my work since that was the first time I've used that format. Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25^talk20:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC))[reply]

The articleAir-Sea Battle you nominated as agood article has passed; seeTalk:Air-Sea Battle for comments about the article, andTalk:Air-Sea Battle/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofJaguar --Jaguar (talk)19:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a message that I have reviewed the DYK onSpace Invaders (Atari 2600 video game). Really excellent article I enjoyed reading it :)Moondragon21 (talk)15:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Very kind to hear.Andrzejbanas (talk)14:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
Issue 69, May–June 2025

In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team –13:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)03:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on expanding and adding citations toStunts (video game)! The article on Retro Games #55, which had evaded our radar at stunts.hu, was a very nice find. Cheers,Duplode (talk)01:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Stunts.hu is a great site. I definitely was playing the game into the 2000s. Glad to see people still care enough to host sites like this.Andrzejbanas (talk)02:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On31 July 2025,Did you know was updated with a fact from the articleSpace Invaders (Atari 2600 video game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was... that theAtari 2600 version ofSpace Invaders led to Atari rescheduling its entire release line-up? The nomination discussion and review may be seen atTemplate:Did you know nominations/Space Invaders (Atari 2600 video game). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page(here's how,Space Invaders (Atari 2600 video game)), and the hook may be added tothe statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on theDid you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk)00:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Draculahasrisen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleTeenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Radical Rescue isunder review. Seethe review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofShooterwalker --Shooterwalker (talk)23:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that i'm doing a revamp of the reception section for the original Bubsy but with English reviews instead. I'll also going to find reviews for the PC version of the game. Just as a heads up!Roberth Martinez (talk)00:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Please go ahead. I don't think the foreign language reviews need to be dropped per se, but yeah, best if luck! Looking forward to how it turns out. :)Andrzejbanas (talk)01:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,File:Snake-nokia-phone.jpg, has been listed atWikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see thediscussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.(Oinkers42) (talk)20:32, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Onethebeach.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)18:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - After the many discussions about numbered console generations, it's clear to me that

• generally, people seem to agree it's a bad framework for reporting on console history, but
• people are afraid to change what we have now without a clear vision of an alternative.

I believe that a major part of the problem is that the system is so ingrained within Wikipedia, people are having difficulty envisioning how an alternative would look / function. Even renaming the "Xth generation" articles to their nearest year range is viewed as simply unimaginable, though we all recognize that they basically are already written this way.

So I've narrowed my focus at this time to one goal, which is tocreate articles that follow a chronology rather than a taxonomy, and then once they're in a good statepress for those to become the presentation inHistory of video game consoles especially the navbox / infobox and main entry point page. I have been working on the timeline setup by cutting up sections of the "generations" articles, re-wording them, and blocking into half-decade increments. You can see some of my work in progress on the main timeline (up through 1999 or so today):

User:Hornpipe2/VGHistory/History_of_video_game_consoles

as well as my previous revision of the 9th -> 2020-present (which could now be improved further by folding the Switch 2 into the header area etc):

User:Hornpipe2/VGHistory/History_of_video_game_consoles_(2020-present)

This is all quite draft-y, I may have lost some sources or table rows, but I hope that you can see where I am going with it.

I am messaging you to ask if you have any interest in helping work on this set of articles. Would you have any time to review these as I complete them (or when I'm done andWP:DRAFTIFY), or would you have any time to help with writing (in which case I couldWP:DRAFTIFY now)? It's not a zero amount of effort, but it is less than you might think - because again, the source articles are already pretty close to this anyway.

Once the numbered system is no longer load-bearing for Wikipedia, it becomes easier to have discussions about its usefulness or reliability. Again the purpose of this is strictly toget Wikipedia away from using numbered-generations as theprimary reference on console history, which I feel the solution outlined above would accomplish neatly, and is less contentious than options like pushing for RfC now.Hornpipe2 (talk)14:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm definitely interested in contributing to have these organized in a non-anachronistic manner. I don't know how much I can contribute as I have a busy weekend ahead of me and a few other pressing matters (GA review I need to complete, hot date this weekend...uhh...Silksong). I think you have the right approach to try and re-organize, but I would try to refrain from saying the other editors are scared to do change. They each stated their reasoning and whether we disagree or not, we just need to try to make our points convincing and rooted in guidelines and policy, which as far as I'm aware, I think third parties uninvolved with long time editing of video game articles would understand our POV. If there's anything you think I could do specifically to help I'll try but I can't commit fully at the moment.Andrzejbanas (talk)18:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Bad Lieutenant .jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:09, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
Issue 70, July–August 2025

• New collections:
  • Times of Malta
  • Africa Intelligence
  • Intelligence Online
  • La Lettre
  • Glitz
• Spotlight: Wikimania

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team –13:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent toUser:Andrzejbanas and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Wanna reviewFriday the 13th (1980)? I improved the article.GettingSwole (talk)12:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)GettingSwole[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:TimeAfterTime79.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)17:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleOutlaw (1978 video game) isunder review. Seethe review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPresN --PresN (talk)14:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleOutlaw (1978 video game) has been placedon hold, as the article needs some changes. Seethe review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPresN --PresN (talk)15:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleOutlaw (1978 video game) haspassed; congratulations! Seethe review page for more information. If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofPresN --PresN (talk)18:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently editedThe Simpsons: Bart vs. the World, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageAcclaim.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk)19:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yourgood article nomination of the articleTeenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III: Radical Rescue haspassed; congratulations! Seethe review page for more information. If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf ofShooterwalker --Shooterwalker (talk)19:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Andrzejbanas can you add the 1980s teen horror films category on two articles Friday the 13th Part III and Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter and any other Friday the 13th film that's missing the Category2600:387:C:7133:0:0:0:2 (talk)19:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the notice regarding WP:DISCOGS.

I have now removed all Discogs citations from *The Egyptian Lover* article and replaced them with AllMusic, Bandcamp (official artist pages), Stones Throw Records, Wax Poetics, and other published sources. Any remaining unsourced statements have been marked with^{[citation needed]}.

Please confirm that keeping a single "Egyptian Lover at Discogs" link in the External links section is acceptable per WP:EL.

Thanks,LuaOle (talk)07:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)LuaOLe 07:19AM UTC[reply]

The link in the externals is probably fine. I use the site regularly on my own, we just can't use it as a source in the article. I'm sorry for having to undo all your work and i'm glad you contributed to the article as I'm also a fan, so I appreciate your patience with this all.Andrzejbanas (talk)12:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploadingFile:Condedracula.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of non-free 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 (seeour policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in anyarticles will be deleted after seven days, as described insection F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk)03:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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)00:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library:Books & Bytes
Issue 71, September–October 2025

• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref 2025 in Nigeria
• Frankfurt Book Fair
• Tech tip: Wikipedia Library access template

Read the full newsletter

Sent byMediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team –15:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(This message was sent toUser:Andrzejbanas and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

I want to call your attention to how the pattern of behavior of yours I'm responding tohere is eerily similar tothis position you took in your "Christmas horror" dispute last year. Both disputes revolve around questions of popular media genres, and in both cases, faced with people coming up with a perfectly good summary-of-sources that you for some reason are reluctant to endorse, you insist that the problem of adequately treating the sources is unresolvable on the basis that you yourself aren't sure how to do it, even though the proof of its resolvability is right in front you. Remember that Valereeedescribed this position as "prettyWP:OWNy", in the vein of "if [I] can't write it, it doesn't go in", and that she ultimately become so exasperated with your behavior as toblock you from editing Universal Classic Monsters and then four days laterits talk page. I'm concerned you haven't learned from those experiences, or at the very least are falling back on worrisome old habits.

Consider that in our case you took variations on that position three times in a row in a response to a perfectly decent suggestion I made to solve the supposedly-devilish problem there (in response to your own 3O request, even), which at first deeply confused and then gradually exasperated me too. Additionally, it's more-or-less the same tack you were taking with Cyberlink420 before I arrived even though he was arguing in basically the opposite direction from where I went. Picking up the sources, throwing them in the air, and running around saying "Abandon ship, it's all too much, we'll never sort these out" is just not a constructive contribution to the discussion, especially when you're holding up other people's work on that basis.

I really want to suggest that you spend a long time completely avoiding articles on popular media, in favor of working vigorously in topic areas you have no particular familiarity with and thus no preconceived POV to push. This forces you take a plain, sources-first approach because you have to let the sources guide you in order to even know what to put in the articles; the fact that you seem to have strong personal feelings about popular media genres is arguably not an asset to you when questions of that sort come up. I think you should especially focus on high-traffic, high-churn articles outside of popular media topics to get practice working closely alongside other editors and really building consensus with them effectively, somethingPhilKnight suggested you hadn't demonstrated much of in response to a September 2024 unblock request of yours. I know you've done a lot of work getting popular media articles to GA status, which is great; at the same time I'm a little worried that your skills as an editor have developed in something of a lopsided way in the course of that.^('"_'⁾(Mesocarp) (talk)_(@)03:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response here. I have been actively avoiding material related to film for a few months now, and only causally returned to it. I disagree on the idea of me thinking that if I can't write it, it doesn't go in. I admit from the examples you shared, I have made poor choices, and my reputation in some circles on this site is plagued by it.

That said, I do not think it has to be my way or my phrasing. In terms of the *MK* article, I looked at the genres I found and made no goal on trying to find one I felt was correct, my research (and anyone's elses) would have shown that the genres are assorted and inconsistent among sources. I have yet to find consistency for the other games. (if anyone else finds some that are, I'd probably be happy to lean towards that). The thing is, I have genuinely no idea how to handle it when sources are inconsistent for that game. Listing all the genres found seems useless for a readers perspective of knowing how to get an idea of gameplay across. I had similar issues recently with the GA reciewNinja Turtles game article, but I feel like we came into some conclusions that would be good all around, and definitely wouldn't have be my first approach.Recently, in a *Wolfenstein* article there was some discussion about game genre (which I don't believe I started), that led to another editor finding sources for my concerns and they did all the writing for it. I was very satisfied with the result! I know it's easy to look at a block history I've had or warning and assume I'm falling into my worst tendencies, but I am genuinely not trying to write things to suit my own personal tastes or opinions, I'm trying to find content that follows guidelines while respecting other editors opinions.

If anything, I think that on wiki, I misunderstand what is or is not frustrating to others when a back and forth discussion on content should stay or not (more so for my examples above, less so for my "Christmas horror" article. That one I was out of line and my snobbery for niche subgenres was showing far too well. Especially in an article I put a lot of time to try and clean. That probably didn't help me out. Similar for *Universal Horrors* as I was trying to clean up the individual films, and found it much harder to find quality writing on the loosely goosey "Universal Monsters" franchise. I've had similar hiccups trying to re-write other articles likeVisual novel, which I'm re-tackling atUser:Andrzejbanas/VN. Some material currently in that article may be lost, but I will approach other editors before making any grand sweeping changes. (as I did in the currently unfinishedNosferatu re-write). Similarly, I've had other editors take giant sweeping edits to the article I pushed to GA for the two Bjork articles I wrote. They have definitely improved what I had before.

I am not sure if what I wrote is convincing, but I would rather focus on the topics I feel comfortable writing about and often recommend to others that when writing about something, even when they feel they know the answer, it's best to go in wiped if assumptions. (this helped me with writing how *Nosferatu* was initially poorly received for decades by Murnau scholars, and the opposite for *Dracula* (1931) which has the opposite critical history. (who knew? I certainly didnt.)

Sorry this is long winded, but I'm trying to address problems and want a solution more than "my way". But I don't think a rush to get things settled makes articles better, so I guess I tend to persist. I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.Andrzejbanas (talk)04:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :) Do you see the Famitsu review forDeath Crimson 2?[4]

I want to add it to the article but I can't find the live version. (that it exists)Timur9008 (talk)07:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]