User talk:DisneyMetalhead

Hello, DisneyMetalhead, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Ozzy Osbourne has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Mlpearc (open channel) 20:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I've done edits in the past, but it's been a while so I forgot about the referencing. I re-added it and added a citation too. Thanks for your help. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I'm somehow only just barely noticing this, @Bzuk:. Thank you for the wishes. Hope that yours was terrific as well!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:DisneyMetalhead, I have noticed that you have been engaged in an edit debate with Rusted AutoParts, who reverted edits without any sources, multiple times that you have made. Since this is debate for them, and I can read that you have been condensing sentences, I am only bringing this up so that it can be resolved correctly. Since you have a debate with other editors, you as well as they need to take it to the talk-page. In their most recent revert they told you to go to the talk page....I don't think this is not something that should be a matter of talk page debate. However, since it's an issue I am bringing it up to both of you. I have posted the same on their talk page, and hope this will be resolved correctly.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I'll be sure to voice my opinion there.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here, have a cookie for the additional work you put into the Ron Howard page. That filmography was a mess, and though I would've liked to have finished it myself - props to you for your contribution.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:50.232.205.246! Sorry I got stoked that someone was finally beginning to clean up the page and wanted to join in. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of changing the X-men film series page to a franchise page, has anyone just created a franchise article directly? Sort of like how there is a main MCU article, but also separate articles for the MCU films and MCU television series. With how insistent a certain editor is that only their edits are correct (I'm experiencing that first hand in a different article at the moment), perhaps this would be the best option? That way the film article can be kept as such while still having an article that explains the film and television X-men universe? -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already created the franchise article once, but it was turned down by editors through the article move request.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:AnonWikiEditor, I have suggested such a move, and it would make sense as the MCU has multiple pages as you pointed out. User:Hotwiki, why don't you try again? Times change, the world changes, Wikipedia can too.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bzuk: wow sorry for the extremely delayed response. Thank you for reaching out to me in December 2017. Hope things are going well for you. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

I understand your reasons but according to this source DC cancels Deadshot and Lobo movies, as well as Birds of Prey movie seems to have been cancelled.--Dipralb (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That source says the aren't sure what the status is. The title even has a question mark. Journalists are assuming/questioning what's going to happen because at this point we do not know.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The original source about Flashpoint movie, cited for ScreenRant, it's from Variety, [1], and it's of negotiations, not an official attachment to the project. Why consider as official attachment?OscarFercho (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:OscarFercho - the directors are officially under 'negotiations'. That is a contractual obligation. The article isn't about 'rumors', 'discussions' or anything of that nature. Therefore they are officially attached. One of the two directors also confirmed their attachment on their social media page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you're wrong, negotiations it's not a contractual obligation, not yet until an official announcement.OscarFercho (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'In negotiations' means that a studio is negotiating a contract. "In talks" means 'rumored' or in 'discussion'/see also 'considered'. Besides that one of the directors confirmed their involvement on their own social media page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

A couple days ago, that page was protected, requiring autoconfirmed or confirmed access status to edit (for 2 months). There had since been a noticeable peace, and much less disruption. Certainly a good example to support the argument for mandatory account creation (MAC). I only mention this here because I noticed you doing a lot of clean up work on the page. Was curious to see if you support MAC. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 04:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think that it's a bad idea. I also believe that input from all editors is important however, though I guess they could take to the talk page anytime they want to.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020 (A)-resolved[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at DC Extended Universe, you may be blocked from editing. There was extremely strong consensus against adding Blackhawk to the in development section. Trying to add it back months later hoping no one will notice is disruptive editing. I really don't want to have to report you to WP:AN, so consider this your final warning. JOEBRO64 12:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: how can you claim this, when I placed reliable sources within the edit? I have since taken the topic to the talk-page for the article. I hadn't "hop[ed] no one will notice" as you assumed/accused. If you read my edit summaries, I explained my reasoning. The discussion I have posted on the talk page, further explains the reasoning. A previous consensus can become out of date. That's the reality of ongoing developments. Needless to say I also, was not in violation of the WP:3RR...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a 3RR warning; the reason I warned you is because you know there's consensus in place. If there's a consensus in place, that consensus is retained, even if you think it's out of date. If so, you need to gain a new consensus. What I meant by "hoping no one will notice" is that I've gotten the impression that you seem to think that waiting a little while to re-implement an edit that was contested and blocked in the past is OK, which it isn't. JOEBRO64 17:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're assuming my thought processes. I don't believe that time alone voids old decisions. I'm stating that time - with new information - can cause a consensus to be outdated.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) That's true, but you need to present the new information in either the original or new discussion on the same topic to gain support that the original consensus is outdated. A consensus by multiple editors can not be overruled by a single editor. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020 (B)-RESOLVED[edit]

Your behavior on the DC Extended Universe discussion page is getting somewhat confrontational. Please keep calm, as letting your temper get the best of you will accomplish nothing. I get that you are an evangelical Christian, but you cannot hold others to that standard. Therefore, clapping back at Darkknight for using the word 'Jesus' is only going to paint you as having skin that is too thin. I assure you: Jesus can take care of himself; he doesn't need you to defend his name (that whole Matthew 7:1 thing).
Take a moment and realign yourself to working better with others, please. You will find that people are a lot more open to your editorial suggestions when you remain calm and focus on the edits, and not the editor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please try your post in the DCEU article talk again. I put the term "one sentence only" in italics for a reason. If you are having trouble boiling your view into a single sentence, I can help you, but this doesn't seem to be a task you cannot handle. Please edit your response to reflect the idea of providing a single, brief sentence to explain your viewpoint. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Sebastian: Just so you are aware, anytime there is a discussion - there will be differing input and angles. This does not mean there is confrontation, but that two editors disagree. It does not necessarily mean that I am not calm. In fact, I have simply been trying to state facts with sources over opinion. Additionally, I was not attempting to hold anyone to my standards. I simply asked the editor to respect my beliefs, as I would anyone else's. I have made various articles and edits over years and various usernames. I assure you I do not have anything but "thick skin". Lastly I would like to acknowledge that I have tried in this above response^ to indicate that I am "remain[ing] calm" and WP:CIVIL[ity] #Avoid[] incivility...by Explain[ing] [My]self. I am merely seeking to preserve an article, its topic, and its notability within an online encyclopedia. Lastly thank you for attempting to be a peace-maker. It is appreciated. Cheers!
P.S. I responded to your request on the said talk-page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, and I appreciate that you read through and did not take umbrage. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, @Jack Sebastian:. As you saw I placed a barnstar on your talk-page for your efforts to be civil/collaborative, and in being a peacekeeper throughout the ongoing discussions. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right back atcha. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. As you have been told repeatedly, there's no sense in continuing in circles. Your behaviour is becoming increasingly disruptive. DarkKnight2149 05:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: just because I disagree with your statements, and have pointed out their inaccuracies, does not mean I am WP:BLUDGEONing. "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view."..."everyone should have the opportunity to express their views, within reasonable limits." When a discussion occurs, someone who disagrees with you - who has sources will respond to your claims. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no disruptive behavior. Just preserving an article, with the sources I have provided.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile Dundee (franchise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been filed under Crocodile Dundee (film series). I'm glad someone corrected that.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun (film series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Plan (film series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Yaxu (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When more than one grieving person decides to edit an excellent article, it becomes very hard to coordinate changes. But now it is getting the shape it deserves. Thankee to all! SilSinn9821 (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, User:SilSinn9821. "Excelsior!"--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=866998024 -->

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good work. Hayholt (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Hayholt! Is there something particular that I did to receive this? Much appreciated.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hayholt: I'm just trying to find what article I had worked on for this WP:BS. I appreciate the award, and would just like to file it on my page accordingly. Cheers M8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Bucks Productions, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am very pleased with your initiative with the Alien (franchise). I've done extensive work on the Alien franchise pages in the past, including saving from deletion and bringing up to FL status List of Alien characters, as well as creating David 8 and bringing it to GA status. I'm planning on joining in with the main franchise page cleanup - primarily to reduce the presence of the copy-pasted material from the AvP pages and to add clarity. There can certainly be AvP content mentioned, but it shouldn't be a cornerstone of the page, by any means. I would have joined in earlier, but there's been a pretty significant dispute with TurokSwe that needed to be addressed on AN/I, before anything else. Anyways, keep up the good work! DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @DarthBotto:! Trying to get it to feel less cluttered and more organized, as you are. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have removed the WP:PROD tag you placed on the redirect page Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in film, as your requested move is better served through the requested move process. If you believe that the move is truly uncontroversial, you may tag the redirect page with {{db-move}}. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuyabribri: thanks for the heads up! I have placed the suggested template there as the separate film series should be divided on a page which has a title indicating there are multiple interpretations of the same product (i.e.: various film series). Thanks for the help.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Tattoo Stories (film series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Top Gun (film series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BilCat (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @BilCat:, uhhhhh no. Definitely poor reasons to delete a page. I have commented there now.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate entry[edit]

Hello,

I noticed you add Blue to List of Walt Disney Pictures films. The film has been renamed to Dolphin Reef, with a planned US release date on November 12, 2019. I think its better to focus on US release dates for films, rather than earlier International release dates. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardei012597: Blue is not the same movie as Dolphin Reef. They are two separate films, though they are both about the ocean. Blue was an exclusive film only released in France.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say this, but you are incorrect. There are many articles online that describe the production, delay, and release of Blue/Dolphins/Dolphin Reef. There may of been edits or cuts of Blue, but Disneynature planned on ONE Dolphin centered film, which began as Blue, evolved as Dolphins, then to Dolphin Reef. There are articles, even on the Dolphin Reef page, that describe Blue and Dolphin Reef as the same film/production. If you are interested, I can provide the references for my case. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just by researching briefly, I found this quote from a reliable source ^[1] "For some reason, the team nixed the Natalie Portman-narrated Dolphins last year, only a week before its release. (A version was released in France under the name Blue.)" If you require more references that prove my claim, I can provide them. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another reliable source ^[2] stated this: "DisneyNature was originally going to released this movie in 2018, under the name “Dolphins”, but was pulled from release in the US. It did get released in France, under the title Blue." Cardei012597 (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardei012597: You stated it yourself: "a version was released in France under the name Blue". It's not the same movie. It's a different film/different cut and only released in France, just as I stated.

I literally had this exact same debate over whether if Once Upon a Deadpool was a different film from Deadpool 2. Recut or re-edited films are NEVER considered different film and deserving to be on a film list. Blue is the Once Upon a Deadpool, a re-edited version of the same film. If you truly believe that re-edited versions of the SAME film should exist, than maybe you should also add the re-edited versions of EVERY Disney theatrical film. Discussions like this has been taken place, on whether to include re-edited, recut versilms of films and describe them as a new film, with Administrators. This is why on the Lucasfilm film table they do NOT include the re-releases with the Special editions. The best course of action to our discussion is to add Blue to the NOTES section of Dolphin Blue, similar to how the people resolved the Once Upon a Deadpool issue. I think this compromise is fair, acknowledging Blue as a French re-edit of an American made film, but understanding that the List of Walt Disney Pictures focuses on the U.S. release of a film. I will add this note to the Disney page. Cardei012597 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added the note. You can check it out now on List of Walt Disney Pictures films. Cardei012597 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cardei012597: Definitely, not. What you don't realize is that Disneynature is a French-American studio. Much of the production takes place in France. As such, the fact that Disney decided to scrap the American release of Blue (if Thrillest is actually a reliable source, which I'd question as much) does not render it defunct and un-listable here. Your comparison to Once Upon a Deadpool is a poor comparison. Blue is the film as it was going to be released...just released in France. It is not a redo/recut/revisit/special edition. It is the film as shot. Whether or not Dolphin Reef for Disney+ is the same movie, there are no sources for. No WP:OR on an online encyclopedia. For these reasons, I am reverting the edit to how it was before.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disneynature (2019)[edit]

Stop removing sources and adding movie not released under the DisneyNature banner. Le Premier Cri was released by Disney France was not released under the DisneyNature banner. Spshu (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: The Thrillist is not a reliable source. In any way shape or form. Secondly this page is about productions that were made by Disneynature. Disneynature helped make Le Premier Cri. Plain as day. Therefore it should be on this page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, 'whatsondisneyplus' is not by any means reliable either. That is a fan page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have not seen a source that credits Disney Nature on Le Premier Cri. So it is not "Plain as day." that is worst then having a non-reliable source, your original research. You kept The Thrillist as a reliable source in your edits, so you do think that it is reliable. And I never said whatsondisneyplus is reliable. Spshu (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: once again, as I have stated. The film was released by Walt Disney Pictures France, in a joint production juncture with Disneynature Productions. That is plain as day. You want a source, I'll add one. To revert to that goppy messy format is deconstructive to the page. Likewise both Thrillist and whatsondisneyplus are poor sources. I have not added them - they need to be removed. They were added previously by another editor.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about stop parroting your last statement. No, it is not "plain as day." Personal preferences about tables doesn't make a table "goppy messy format". I suggest that you keep the basic table formatting, so it isn't hard for others to add rows. You are not moving the discussion forward. You have kept and moved the Thrillist source while removing one use of it. I told you I agree with you about whatsondisneyplus. Spshu (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

chroniquedisney.fr designated that it is an "an amateur site", so not a reliable source. Google Play doesn't indicate that it is a "Disneynature Productions". ratingraph.com doesn't seem reliable. filmaffinity.com shows: "Productora: Wild Bunch / Mai Juin Productions / M6 Films / Canal+ / M6" UniFrance: "Executive Producer : Mai Juin Productions ; Film exports/foreign sales : Wild Bunch ; Co-productions : M6 Films, Buena Vista International - Allemagne ; French distribution : Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures International (ex-Buena Vista International France)" and the press kits there do not list DisneyNature. VOD releases are Direct to video as it is in a digital format and seen in home or where a device can go. Spshu (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: there are no domesticated fowl in this conversation. Remember to Avoid Incivilty, Be professional, and Avoid condescension. The coding format is messy, in that it is cluttered. My edits were to clear up the coding format, in order to simplify for other editors. What I have stated are facts of production studios involved. Each of the sources provided list each of the production studios including Disneynature Productions. The film is a France-only release and so it is difficult to find an article breakdown of the studios involved. However, each of the sources provided lists Disneynature. The ratinggraph site is a reliable source - and a film production breakdown website. Additionally VOD is different from Home-video release/straight-to-video. VOD, though similar to direct-to-video in its approach as a "straight-to-consumer" product, is only available through streaming/online means. There is enough destinctive difference to render listing it as such. For each of these reasons, my editos need to remain. Cheers, bub.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue and Dolphin Reef[edit]

Do you have any proof of both movies being seperate? Luigitehplumber (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is in the creatives involved in the film. The co-production studio on Blue (Silverback Films) is not involved in any way, shape or form with Dolphin Reef. The producers on Blue were: Jane Hamlin, Keith Scholey, Ingrid Kvale, and Daniel Rasmussen; while the producers on Dolphin Reef are: Roy Conli, Alastair Fothergill, David S. Grant, Daniel Rasmussen, and Keith Scholey. Blue was co-directed by Keith Scholey and Alastair Fothergill, while Dolphin Reef is directed solely by Keith Scholey. What this tells any viewer, is that there are differing creatives involved. The two films, though both about dolphins, are different movies.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no announcements about the future of The Dark Universe and whether The Invisible man is apart of it, so please remove the information. Rusted AutoParts 21:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect, again @Rusted AutoParts:. The Dark Universe was simply re-evaluated, reconfigured to be a franchise of standalone feature films (just like the original Universal Classic Monsters). The studio has stated that for the time being they will focus on individual stories, instead of jumping right into crossovers (the Dark Universe original plan). Additionally, one of the graphic artists for the franchise provided updates as early as May of 2018. Along with all of this, when Leigh Whannell was announced to be writing/directing The Invisible Man, he inititally stated that he may use elements from Ed Solomon's original script, with the studio considering keeping Johnny Depp in the titular role. The Invisible Man is a part of the Dark Universe. Tabloids have commented on the franchise calling it "dead", but the studio's official stance is that they are taking a different approach with it.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of that cooberates it being in the Dark Universe. None of the sources from when Whannell joined had stated it’s in the same universe. That’s you assuming it is. You need reliable sources to bolster that claim and from my research nothing substantiated that. Rusted AutoParts 01:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, again @Rusted AutoParts: - the studio stated they are re-evaluating the franchise. The only thing that's changed is that instead of being a shared universe like MCU, it now consists of standalone feature films. The studio at no point has stated that the Dark Universe is dead. That's the fact. No assumptions there. Likewise the fact that they considered Johnny Depp up until a month ago is the fact that it's the same film, but a different writer/director. Projects evolve all the time. The graphic artist that met with heads of Universal regarding the franchise in May 2018 stated he is working on the designs for the monsters in the Dark Universe. This came as news following all the tabloids calling the franchise 'dead'. That's the facts. You cannot go off of opinion from tabloids. The studio is the only accurate source, here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re still supplying your own assumptions. The studio re-evaluating the Dark Universe is not confirmation this particular version is in any way tied to it. And you’ve just proven yourself wrong by saying only the studio is correct, which is absolutely right because the studio has not said it’s part of the Dark Universe. Rusted AutoParts 20:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: no, the studio has stated that it's the same film. At no point have they said it's not. The franchise as a whole has changed - but the title has not. That's the factual statements we have. We do not have a statement from the studio saying that the franchise is no more. Until that happens, the title of the films is STILL Dark Universe.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Variety, January 2019: “The move is part of a fresh strategy for Universal’s monsters properties, bringing creative directors with distinctive visions to the classic characters and moving on from the interconnected Dark Universe concept. “Throughout cinematic history, Universal’s classic monsters have been reinvented through the prism of each new filmmaker who brought these characters to life,” said Peter Cramer, Universal’s president of production. “We are excited to take a more individualized approach for their return to screen, shepherded by creators who have stories they are passionate to tell with them.”

At no point in that statement does Universal say the Dark Universe is still the plan, a matter of fact they say the exact opposite. So until you table something more reliable that disputes that, you’re in the wrong. Rusted AutoParts 21:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: The only thing that the President of Universal said was We are excited to take a more individualized approach for their return to screen, shepherded by creators who have stories they are passionate to tell with them...". That's exactly what I've been stating this entire time. I will provide my sources for what I have stated here, once I'm home.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quote utilises the word "individualised", which I don't get how it becomes interpreted to mean it's still in the Dark Universe. A google news search produces no reliable sources to say the Dark Universe isn't dead so I don't know what you could link that I haven't already seen. Rusted AutoParts 21:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: you will just have to wait. I have re-titled the sub-section so that you will stop removing the films from this article, friend. Cheers bub. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And whatever you wish to link, please do so in this this discussion. Rusted AutoParts 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have time to supply sources but you do have time to reinstate your preferred version just tinkered with. Rusted AutoParts 22:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is poor form to talk about another editor on another discussion other than their talk page. I appreciate you however for pinging me at that discussion. The series of events of The Invisible Man are factually as follows:

• script developed by Ed Solomon
• Johnny Depp cast in the role
• Dark Universe stalls production on The Bride of Frankenstein due to script changes/revisions.
• production crew for Bride continues to be hired
• Jason Blum publically states he'd love to 'shepherd'/work on the future of the Dark Universe [2][3]
• Jason Blum is hired to develop/produce/oversee Invisible Man w/President of Universal stating they will focus on individualized story-telling moving forward.
• A new director/writer is hired
• New cast is hired.

Nowhere has Universal announced the Dark Universe as 'dead', like you keep referencing. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those last three points completely undo your stance. As I’ve linked here and on the films article the Universal head has said it’s going to be individualized going forward, so how do you see that as confirmation it’s apart of the Dark Universe? Sure, no direct line saying verbatim “Dark Universe is dead” has been said (despite the Universal person basically implying it), but in the same vein no line of dialogue saying “The Invisible Man is apart of the Dark Universe” has been either, so stop saying it is. Rusted AutoParts 20:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: you repeat to tell me what to do... "stop saying it is" ...though there is no statements anywhere that Dark Universe is a dead franchise. We cannot assume it is without the studio stating as much. That's as basic and straightforward as you can get. I'm sorry, but standalone installments does not equal a new franchise.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”I'm sorry, but standalone installments does not equal a new franchise”. What are you talking about? When did I ever say that? I’m ensuring the article doesn’t saying anything about franchises, not trying to establish it as being part of a new one. It’s standalone, meaning it doesn’t belong to either a new franchise OR the Dark Universe. No sources have been published saying it is part of the DU that’s what I’ve been trying to get across this entire time. Rusted AutoParts 03:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts: UPDATE: Here is a recent interview that is noteworthy. iO9 recently did a press interview Chris Morgan during the release of Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw. In the interview the discussion turned towards Dark Universe. Morgan had originally been tapped as one of the co-runners/co-architects of the franchise, only to walk away after the studio decided to re-evaluate the situation. Repeatedly in the article, it states that there have been a couple of attempts at a shared universe scenario, only to have various iterations of angles to take with it. Morgan said this: "I don’t [have] regrets or anything like that ... I think it’s just, you know, I think it probably was trying to come together too quickly, I would say. And I think everyone got to take a breath and take a step back and take a look at it, and now just focus on maybe doing it a little bit slower ... I think Universal’s going about the monster films the right way, which is to really focus on taking a good script, good story, put it out there, if you’re going to build a universe build it from something strong like that. And I think they’re not so much worried about putting a universe out there as they are making great monster films, so I’m looking forward to seeing them". All these things again re-state what I have been saying this entire time. The studio hasn't dropped the Dark Universe film studio, nor have they dropped the title of the name they have given this film franchise. Morgan states it plain as day here. This interview was from July 30, 2019. That's as recent as it can get. No more need to debate anymore (reference).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second UPDATE: Morgan has once again discussed the future 'plans/gameplan' for the Dark Universe. In an interview with Coming Soon he stated, "I think with the Dark Universe the lesson that became very clear was putting it all together too quickly as a universe. It doesn’t naturally want to happen that way. It wants to happen with one movie that’s great, and then you let that build love and support and grow it. And I think that’s the lesson that Universal and we have taken away. Now it’s kind of the way that those monster movies are rolling out. Build it with love and care." (reference). The franchise is obviously not 'dead' as has been the debate here since your first message. I will also leave this at the discussion link you provided.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by AngusWOOF was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: These are two different film series and are not part of the Kindergarten Cop series. They might have been inspired from each other but that doesn't mean they are related. Please discuss at the talk page.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DisneyMetalhead! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Scream 3. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced production companies. Like any other content on Wikipedia, this needs need to properly sourced. Just because someone's logo shows up during the credits does not make them a production company – they could have almost any level involvement, from being an investor to being a distributor to being a production company. This is why we use secondary sources to determine the production companies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: .... All I changed was the formatting of the production studio to exactly how it appears on-screen during the movie.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added unsourced production companies based on your own original research. I'm not sure how to make this clearer than I already have. You need to cite a source for production companies. Companies whose logo flash on the screen might be production companies, but they might not be. Do you understand this so far? They might not be production companies just because their logo showed up on the screen or on the poster. This happens sometimes. They might be distributors, they might be investors, they might be contractually obligated to appear there because they brokered a deal – who knows. So don't copy the names of every company that appears and assume that they're all production companies. Cite a source that labels them as such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I did not misunderstand you the first time. In response to your comments, I would state that you need to review the WP:CIVIL guidelines. Namely: WP:CIVIL - Avoiding Incivility; bullets 3, & 9 where it states:

"3. Try not to get too intense. Passion can be misread as aggression, so take great care to avoid the appearance of being heavy-handed or bossy. Nobody likes to be bossed about by an editor who appears to believe that they are "superior"; nobody likes a bully.
9. Avoid appearing to ridicule another editor's comment. Even if you see the comment as ridiculous, he or she very probably doesn't, and expressing ridicule is likely only to offend and antagonize, rather than helping."

Again, you didn't lose me the first time. I simply disagree with you. All I did was changed the studio's type-font/formatting/stylization as it were on-screen. Cheers mate.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what you did. You added unsourced production companies. See Special:Diff/919258216. Do you see the part where two new production companies were added? Miramax and Dimensions Films were not there previously. Your edit added them. That is not changing the stylization; that is adding unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to say "but there was a discussion", then do editors the courtesy of linking it, else your words have little meaning. Besides, all your edit did was include the raw colour-less film table in the article instead of transcluding it, and rearrange the prose. No change as to how the tables "should be formatted". -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been active since my talk page post. A reply would be appreciated. What is to stop the table you've listed existing at the films article and being transcluded to the parent article, as I had it? -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually fell asleep in the middle of doing some things on here last night @Alex 21:, so here I am responding now. There was a lengthy discussion among various editors that was ongoing for some time. What was decided among all of them, was the consensus to have the films in this layout that I reverted your edits to. Though it would be 'courteous' to link it in the comments section, as you pointed out - it can also be found in the talk page. Sorry, but you can find it there. The formatting, I am referring to is without the colors, and the formatting of the text in the titles. The transclusion you are talking about is a discussion on a totally different article. Whether it has occurred there or not -I do not know. Arguably the articles should have similar layout/format across each of them. All I know sir, is that there was a large discussion regarding the formatting of the table here. I have set it back to what was agreed upon. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reason the colored versions were decided as fan-page territory as there is far too much going on in a film table with such an arrangement. It was discussed, once again at great length within the talk-page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice that there was a discussion, but if you cite it as consensus, then you need to cite the actual discussion. I could say that there was a discussion to delete all Star Wars-related articles and there was a consensus for it, but I would have to actually link it, wouldn't I? Either way, my main issue wasn't with the layout, but the transclusion that you reverted, which applied to both articles, which I have restored. All the best. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21: that's not how this works. It's not my job to direct you to all discussions that have occurred. There have been numerous editors involved in the discussion. You can go looking for it, and instead of bossing me around -- review the guidelines for WP:CIVIL #Avoiding Incivility, bullet #8: Avoid condescension. Review that, and then go look for the discussion yourself. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. You state that something happened, you have to support it. I didn't say "all", I said "one". Burden's on you. Verify your statements. Catch up. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And again, WP:CIVIL #Avoiding incivility, bullet #8: Avoid condescension. This is a guideline you need to revisit. Stop talking down to other editors, bub. Cheers.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN. Verify your statements. This is a policy you need to revisit, bud. "bub". Lol. By the way, there was a discussion banning the use of Disney in usernames. Take my word for it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 / AlexTheWhovian / Alex^TW.... Now you're being petty. I'm not taking your WP:BAIT. Thanks anyway.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Is that a reply to my last comment? That was almost two weeks ago... If you're talking about how the table was modified again, point me to where I made the edits. I'll wait. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello DisneyMetalhead, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy 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 2020. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 02:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@TheJoebro64: somehow, I'm just barely seeing this. I apologize for the delayed response, and hope that you too had a Merry Christmas and are experiencing a prosperous New Year. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Father of the Bride (franchise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dan arndt (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyMetalhead, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

DarkKnight2149 21:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: Thank you for finally filing this. The sooner it starts, the sooner it can end. I have responded to your investigation on the noticeboards, to @Jack Sebastian: in their comments below/hereafter, and will simply state - again, that I have not sought to fight anyone. I have attempted to preserve/update an article that I have interest/passion in. My only goal is to improve articles/pages here on WP. My comment regarding IP addresses, is simply due to the fact that I have no idea how these SPI's are resolved. My limited technological knowledge led me to assume that this is how it is resolved. I again restate, that I do not personally know @Popfox3:, nor are they me. I stand by that and look forward to this investigation bringing this to light. I respect you as an editor, and hope that future contributions to various articles are collaborative. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding evidence[edit]

I am not taking a position in this discussion, as I was not involved since its inception and am aware of it only from afar. I will say that your editing behavior in DC Extended Universe has been - in the very kindest of descriptions - has been problematic. Continually challenging an emerged consensus is fractious and abrasive. While consensus can change, it does so over time as new referenced information emerges. It does not change simply because some of the people arguing a different point of view appear to leave the article.
I think you may have misunderstood your role as editor in Wikipedia. While you may act single in the creation of articles and wiki-gnoming, you are here to work collaboratively with others. You have not been doing that, and I think you can feel that tension you have engendered between yourself and other contributors - totally the opposite feeling you should be getting. You have not yet learned to walk away from a disagreement; whether that is because its the internet and there are no RL, physical consequences for being disagreeable or whether yiu are just young and have tied up who you are with your viewpoints, I do not know. I just know the results. You are being argumentative in a website where people come here (without any sort of remuneration) to try and create something lovely. The ultimate question that can be asked of any user is whether they are a net positive or a net drag on the Project. I cannot answer that question for you, but the position of others is very, very clear. You need to take a very hard look at how you edit here, and decide whether this place makes you happy.
The only thing I will say as to the relationship between you and Popfox3 is that if you are indeed the same person, you absolutely need to get out in front of this. Now. You are young, and the young make mistakes. If you cannot demonstrate the moral integrity to admit a mistake that you doubled-down on, your ejection from the Project will not be indefinite; it will be permanent. Time is not your friend in this, so if you made a mistake, deal with it immediately. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts in reaching out to me, @Jack Sebastian:. I 'ping' you in this response, because perhaps I am not sure how "notifications" through Wikipedia work (i.e.: Should I be pinging you, or are you notified simply by responding? I'm not sure of the answer). I have not meant in any way to cause friction, nor to be combative. My efforts in posting new/updated sources at DC Extended Universe simply come from a passion for the topic, as well as interest in seeing the article become a better in quality. I acknowledged in the discussion - as you saw that the article -obviously- needs some work. The fact that it doesn't have an official name is indeed frustrating, among other things. There are a handful of editors who in general seem to disagree with me and now they are "coming out of the woodworks" so to speak. I anticipated this in requesting admin assistance. However, I stand by what I said regarding @Popfox3:. I do not know thme personally, nor are they me. My statement regarding their IP address was my naive expectation that somehow IPs could be looked at and resolve the debate. In fact I have no idea how SockPuppetry claims are resolved. I don't know how to 'prove this' to anyone, but reaffirm that I have one account, one username, and one log-in. Thanks again for your time and for your help. I am not "young" as you have stated several times, but I am not at all tech-savvy.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaper by the Dozen (franchise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically this one. Writing as an admin who is closing this discussion, I'm concerned that you were indefinitely blocked 3 and ahalf years ago for making a legal threat; as of this moment you could be blocked again, per policy. But IMHO, that seems a bit silly because you haven't made that kind of threat since. (While I must comment on your aggressive tone, after looking over your recent history I don't see any serious actions like that one since your return.) Why don't you make your life on Wikipedia simpler by retracting that statement? Doing that would also be a favor to me. -- llywrch (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would "retract" the statement, though I don't know how that is done. It wasn't meant to be a 'threat' and in that old discussion I seem to remember several people stating that they didn't believe it was either. How do I go about doing what you have asked?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, saying that you didn't expressing it as a legal threat works for me addresses that part of your statement. As for the other part, I have to admit that in my time here at Wikipedia I've not encountered a case exactly like this -- although I can't imagine it couldn't be done. Give me a bit of time to do a bit of research on this & get back to you. Or you could ask at WP:AN. -- llywrch (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One matter I forgot to mention -- but my forgetfulness doesn't not mean it's not important -- is that you need to watch your current behavior. You need to try to be more civil in your interactions. I'm not going to lecture you about civility is better than being aggressive, but that civility helps you in persuading other people. Even if the other person is being a jerk. -- llywrch (talk) 05:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: Thanks for the help. I can honestly say I've tried to be civil and collaborative in my edits. Everyone can always improve though, and so I'm trying even more so to be 'detached' from edits made.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angels in the Outfield (franchise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flubber (franchise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Barkeep49 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter Riley (film series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Dolittle (franchise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Witch Mountain (franchise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions

Lars.Dormans (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lars.Dormans: Thanks for the recognition, and thanks for clarifying your auto-message that was posted here earlier. Appreciate it. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Shaggy Dog (franchise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits, you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Blue Sea (film series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~SS49~ {talk} 13:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DMH, I've told you many, many times that sources like CBM are unreliable and unacceptable for use on Wikipedia. Given that you continue to disregard these warnings, and have a long history of disruptive behavior around these types of articles, this is your final warning. If you do it again I'm reporting you to AN. JOEBRO64 19:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: /TJB64, you've "told" me "many, many times" various things. Not always does one of your "unreliable" classifications fit. If a media source has an exclusive, or reports on news when another media source does not - this makes them the sole reporter. You needn't place a warning/threat on my talk page. Simply edit the source and state why it is your belief that the source is not reliable. Be WP:Peaceful and collaborative. You needn't jump to the umpteenth degree. I will look for additional sources regarding the information I placed in the article today. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

@NinjaRobotPirate: I am wondering which edits this was respective to? I have spent the last several hours editing a draft article I'm working on. Can you let me know what edits you are referring to? Thanks m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide 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.

I warned you before about adding unsourced production companies to film articles. In this edit, you add unsourced production companies to the infobox without citing any sources. Template:Infobox film is pretty clear about this: "When possible, this should be cited to reliable secondary sources that explicitly identify the production companies." This is not some obscure underground film that has no database entries in reliable sources; we have a citation to the American Film Institute there already. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I see what edits you are referring to. I will go in and add the sources that I used for the Cats & Dogs edits. I was going off of IMDb (and with each movie released I had thought that we can see that they are legitimate credits). I will however find additional second-party/reliable sources for each of them. I completely forgot, simply because I was working hard to finish a draft that I have been working on. I am sorry for the mis-step and for forgetting. My previous response was simply to clarify which of my edits you had blocked me for. I understand why it was done, and would like to correct the issue/find the sources.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the IMDb is user-generated content, so it doesn't really matter what it says, and you shouldn't be copying its content here. If you want to find the production companies that worked on an American film, the AFI Catalog of Feature Films is a good place to start. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will start there and also look at other reliable sources. Isn't IMDb's mantra that the people behind creating a movie, post the information on the IMDb page?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The IMDb is crowd-sourced just like Wikipedia. I have read interviews with filmmakers who said IMDb users were either making wild, incorrect guesses or making up hoaxes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard this, before! Do you have the articles? I'd be interested in reading them. I will definitely look into the AFI source you recommended as well. Cheers!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Herbie (franchise). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 As someone who has frequently edited the Arrowverse article in the past, you may be interested in participating in the newly created Arrowverse task force‎. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21: thanks for making me aware. I will contribute when I am able. Cheers, m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herbie (franchise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Nutty Professor (franchise), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 12:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Day Care (film series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

K-9 (film series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cutting Edge (film series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello DisneyMetalhead, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy 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 2021. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you Happy Holidays! Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Trailblazer101:. I wish you the same. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello DisneyMetalhead, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy 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 2021. Happy editing, Starzoner (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Starzoner:. I likewise wish the same for you. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Blumhouse (film series), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello DisneyMetalhead: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Starzoner (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)