User talk:DisneyMetalhead

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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
• 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)

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)

@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)

”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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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) 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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Thanks for your contributions

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

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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) • SI)

---

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)

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)

---

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)

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

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) 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)

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

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) 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)

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

	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)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Starzoner: thank you for the warm wishes. May nothing but goodness come your way, m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi DisneyMetalhead, I've undid your revision of the this article. I posted discussions about it at WP:FILM and WP:HORROR. On several google searches I couldn't find much scholarly information on what qualified the Universal Classic Monsters as being part of a series. The only information I found specifically was that these characters were only really referred to this in the 1990s when a home video label was launched in order to make the series seem like a line of films. If you want to expand on it otherwise, please add sources, but otherwise, i've removed everything else that was unsourced and tried to split the films into their own articles. Even within that, some of them only seem loosely connected. (see Dracula (Universal film series) for an example of this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: what you're referring to is a franchise. The Universal Classic Monsters is absolutely a franchise -though it may not have been called as such during the '20s-'50s in which the films were released. At this point in time they were "contemporary" horror/monster films. What makes them "Classic" is the fact that they are classic/retro films. The films share a continuity and should only include the films that Universal has placed under that franchise title/banner. The articles you have now been making for the sub-film series within the franchise/banner is fine. You shouldn't remove the information from the Universal Classic Monsters article, however. Recently, Universal has placed all other classic horror films within its library under a "Universal Classic Horror" banner as well. I will be working on that article in the future. Please restore the titles that fall under the Universal Classic Monsters moniker.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You see that's the problem, you (like others have, see the talk page on the article) have said "oh no no no it's this! film series worked differently in the past!") but have not been able to back this up with any sources outside personal interpretations. If Universal (and others) have connected the films, what belongs in the series? What doesn't? When Universal created their "Universal Classic Monsters" home video, they even included non-Universal properties they had the rights to, like Island of Lost Souls. Does that belong in the series now? If so why? I've searched and searched to find a clear answer, and people have told me that "oh, Universal Horror is the same as Universal monsters") (if so, do non-monter movies get included? if so why? if not, why not?). These series are barely connected plotwise and even when creating the Dracula universal series, the few people I could find writing about the film as a series seriously, noted that only the first three films connect in any serious way, and even the third film was "iffy". Again, i've provided sources, everyone else who has called me up on it has yet to provide any research of their own to show how these connect and when the term was developed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I'm glad that someone is taking this bear head-on, as it is a really difficult mountain to climb. Where is your references for Universal including "Island of Lost Souls"? Universal Pictures (who has the rights to the franchise/banner/title) are the only ones that can tell you what and what does not fall into the Universal Classic Monsters franchise title. Whether the title existed back during the '20s-'50s or not, you're still missing the point. The franchise, is connected. It's now retrospectively often credited as one of the "first shared universes". As a franchise, it is a trademarked moniker. Further more, in your examples -- a film series also does not require itself to be directly connected to other films in its title.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, here's an Entertainment Weekly article from 1993 noting Island of Lost Souls as n entry into the series. Also, I'm not saying it has to be connected, but I'm saying it's such a loose connection, I've only added what I've found. I know the series is often connected and referred to, but I can't find anyone clarifying what exactly should and should not be in it outside the articles I've found. And all of them really only discuss the series in terms of it being a home video line that was made to "make the films seem connected" (i.e: a nice way of saying to sell more product) You'll have to provide some sort of back-up here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I can not tell you why in 1993 Paramount Pictures' film was printed with "The Universal Studios Monsters Classic Collection" classification on it (though something mentioning this in the pros of the article would suffice). This however happens with distribution rights, and Universal seems to have purchased the re-distribution rights at this point in time... we would have to confirm this obviously, but given the fact that it was re-released as such - this is a strong indicator of this fact. Secondly, clarifying within the article that various sources of the time mentioned that the films were re-released to portray the fact that the films are more connected than they are. Needless to say, we cannot overstep the studio's classification of what is in the franchise and what is not. We will find plenty sources clarifying what is in the Universal Classic Monsters. Give me time, m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the VHS collection, is referred to (with a logo) as "Universal Studios Monsters". This seems to be a less-definitive classification, whereas the "Universal Classic Monsters" is more specific and limited in its films that are included.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Which again suggests that Universal is very back and forth on what these films are. But sure, I hear you. If that's the case the only time I really see the term used sepcifically this way (this is original research here, but we're just chatting, not editing an article yet ;) ) is when Univeral re-released the films on DVD to promote Van Helsing in 2004. They've had several variations on the term "Universal Classic Monsters" or such for various home video lines. And of course please no rush, i'm just saying good luck! :) It's a complicated thing and I've bene slowly going through horror films of the 1930s and 1940s and mannnn people do not like to discuss these series as a whole. Understandably so. As these films went on, their plots often contradict each other, characters who re-appear sometimes have their names changed, it's a real mess. I wouldn't be against trying to write up some article on "Universal Horror" as opposed to the monsters a whole, as that's far more loose and probably gives more definition to what the style of these films are opposed to trying to connect these stories in my head which is its own migraine. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I would say that the previous variations of the term are more of a descriptive word. "Universal Studios Monsters" isn't a franchise title. The official naming of the slate of films to be Universal Classic Monsters happened at one point or another. A section describing how the studio had released earlier variations suffices, and even listing those films that are semi-random in the VHS collection (as you pointed out) would be constructive. I will further assist with this when I have a moment. Right this second I am working on various drafts for other articles. I've been adding details to the Dark Universe page and that, in itself is a beast of its own. I will do some searching for this article a little later tonight. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at The Parent Trap (franchise) instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Parent Trap (franchise) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Parent Trap (franchise), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is good, as the article was merged with the film series article (which I hadn't known was already a thing).--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Why did you removed the games section in the cast? I get it isn't part of the films and television but other franchises do have games in this section if à character from the films appear. For example the Mad Max franchise.

User:Derjenigederzukunftseht; the reason I removed the video game from the cast, is because typically they are considered "other media". Video games are more 'unofficial' anyhow. Also, you need to sign your comments.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User:DisneyMetalhead; I mean nah. Of course they're other media but they're still official. I mean Snyder worked on this title so... If you have no problems with it I'll add it again. And delete the chronology section. I have no idea from where does the person have the information that they have to create a section like this. And thanks. I didn't knew I have to sign my comments. I don't really know how to do it. So I'll try --Derjenigederzukunftseht Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Derjenigederzukunftseht: I would suggest taking its inclusion to the talk page... video games are not typically included in cast tables. Additinally, as you state that Znyder created the VR game - you will need a source stating this. Additionally that chronology table should be deleted. Otherwise a reliable source is also needed for it. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: yeah I know that. But they're there if the story of it is canon to the films or actors or characters come back. I didn't said that Snyder created the game but he worked on it with his production company. It was in the trailer for it. And I don't know how to refrence YT videos. And I deleted the chronology table. Cheers and thanks for this little talk. Also a question. When will the draft be put for review? Have a nice day/evening/night! --Derjenigederzukunftseht Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Derjenigederzukunftseht: anything that is added to the article needs to be sourced. Share the link of the video that you're talking about, here. As-is without the source, the VR is just 'other media'. The article can be submitted for review once it is finished/has enough sources for all of these extra things that editors are adding.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: thanks for answering :). Here is link to the trailer of the VR Expierence https : // you tu .be / rGoq3X4QeKQ (played with the link that it can be sent) and here is link to the website where is logo of Snyder's production company https://armyofthedeadvr.com/. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ahhh, I see. This isn't even a video game, it's an event/experience. This should be listed in an entirely different section altogether.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean it kinda is a video game. But yeah it's an VR experience. What section should it be lestés to? The Stone Quarry Wikipedia page is listing it as a game. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It could be listed as a game/experience under the "In other media" section. It'd probably be best done in a paragraph format where it details how it works/studios involved/etc.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

OK thanks mate. I'm not a good person to do that unfortunately. You clearly see how my English isn't that good. And yeah. I'm trying to do the best and to write the most correct things on that page. One more time thank you. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Derjenigederzukenftseht: I will hope back over to the draft when I have a minute and look at what has been added. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: thanks mate, cheers! And have a great day/evening/night!-- Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: @Derjenigederzukenftseht: I have submitted this draft article for review after some extensive cleanup and adding various references.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: I saw it. And it got made. That's amazing. And about those related short films. I have no idea how to find a relatable source when those are extras on Dawn of the Dead 2004 DVDs and Blu-rays. Those also are uploaded to YouTube by some guys but it's not official release. Only source I could find of them existing is Imdb and this forum. Ah and The Lost Tape Andy's Terrifying Last Days Revealed is also in Zack Snyder's filmography Wikipedia page. I can try to dig deeper but have no idea if I find anything. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Derjenigederzukunftseht: Keep looking. There should be an official release or article about them somewhere. Try looking to see if there is an article about the home video release. Cheers m8! --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: I'll do it mate! Thanks. Cheers Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/48878/dawn_dead_ce.html as of now this review is the only thing that I found. And They doesn't talk about the short films at all just listed them with other extras and The Lost Tape:Andy's Terrifying Last Days Revealed is on the extras called Andy's Lost Tape for short. Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

In this review those shorts are listed and shortly described. The Lost Tape: Andy's Terrifying Last Days Revealed is here still shortened to Andy's Lost Tape https://weliveentertainment.com/we-live-entertainment/bluray-digital-dvd-news/dawn-dead-2004-scream-factory-blu-ray-review/

Do you think this could be added as a reference? Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Derjenigederzukunftseht: those are fine resources as they are first-hand reviews of the home video release. The only one of the 3 that you have been adding that is actually a 'short film' however is Andy’s Lost Tape. If you read the review on the source, the other two ones are "behind the scenes featurettes" which don't really belong on this page. Additionally, as Dawn of the Dead is not in this continuity, the only reason it is listed on this page under "related film" is because this franchise is a "spiritual sequel" to Dawn. Anything about this one short featurette film probably shouldn't be listed in its own section. We may need a new discussion at the Talk:Army of the Dead (franchise) article to see how to best include that one small bonus feature. You'll want to start a conversation there and pin me, as well as all other recent contributors. I would, but I'm constantly working on multiple drafts between my personal life events. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead: well not exactly. I watched all 3 on my Blu-ray. And Special Report: Zombie Invasion chronicles the first 26 hours of the Zombie pandemic. And in it are some of the news reports saw on screen in the film. Like the one with Tom Savini. And the Undead and Loving it: A Mockumentary is a 5 minutes long mockumentary on how it was to work with real zombies on the set. That they were slower and that kind of stuff. But the rest of the specials are behind the scenes. And yeah those are 2 separate universes but I thought that it sh9be listed as it's connected with Dawn. And thank you :). I'll start the discussion on the talk page and I'll pin you there,but not today. I'm going to sleep now here's 12am now. Again thanks and I get it have fun doing those drafts and have a great day/night/evening. Cheers mate! :) Derjenigederzukunftseht (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Two things. Just curious where you are getting these "official" and "real title" information from when you've been editing the some of the older Universal titles. The current article on the Universal Classic Monsters section sets right out that it's a home video line. Nothing has been added otherwise that suggests anything else. So why did you add those other titles? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: as has been stated ad nauseam on talk page... perceptions is not at all what determines how an article should be made. The purpose of this article is to include all of the Universal Classic Monsters and the previous packagings/collections. The official titles that I adjusted was The Bride of Frankenstein. As you can see on the poster, this is indeed the official title. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but you had no source on "official titles" where did the information come from? Half of them the poster said the opposite of what you said. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: frankly, what are you talking about? Please provide specifics. I don't have any clue what you man by "half of them the poster said the opposite of what you said". What movies are you referring to with that declarative statement, m8? Each of the titles I adjusted... specifically The Bride of Frankenstein, I got the title from the film poster.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure. here, here just to name a few. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I see. Those are indeed the official titles. What do I have to explain about this? Look at the posters for the Edgar Allen Poe films, and then look up the official title of the Spanish Language Dracula.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've watched the Spanish Dracula from the Universal blu-ray. There is no accent. And the current poster has no accent. and it's not referred to the title with the accent. Same for the other other films when I recently did research. I'd try to get some more attention from WP:FILM to see what others say here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Resume the conversation on the talk page. The film has an accent mark because it is in Spanish. It is credited as such on several film sites as well.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating film sites and posters with the actual films themselves. Attic Salt (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: please take this discussion back to the talk page as previously stated. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not the articles, for which I might use the article talk pages, but you. You are making changes to article about movies that are inconsistent with the movies. Please stop this, and please revert your mistakes. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Attic Salt: there is a discussion there, which is why I have requested that you take your statements/opinions there. I have not made any mistakes in listing the films with their official titles per the posters and film sites as well. If you feel this is an error, once again take this to the film articles' pages where there are discussions ongoing. Cheers again m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you need to participate in the discussion at Bride of Frankenstein. You've dropped out of that discussion while your mistakes are being discussed there. Attic Salt (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

All's Well That Ends Well (cit.) "reverting recent BOLD, but under-discussed move" @Netoholic: said --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, and for being collaborative. Cheers m8s!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, just a heads-up that you should check for existing move requests before changing page names. You moved Thomas Lennon (filmmaker) to Thomas Lennon (filmmaker, born 1951), but a previous RM in 2017 was found to be against moving the article to that title. As for your move of Thomas Lennon to Thomas Lennon (filmmaker, born 1970), there was a previous RM that resulted in that article's current undisambiguated title. As a result, these pages shouldn't be moved without a new discussion. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The moves were made on the basis of being bold. The current status of various articles with the same name is confusing. I will discuss further, on their talk pages. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I don't object to boldness if no one has touched the pages. After all, I moved Thomas Lennon (screenwriter) to Thomas Lennon (screenwriter, born 1896) way back when. But shuffling an existing WP:PRIMARYTOPIC setup is usually controversial and requires an rm, especially if one has already happened, going against one can devolve into a semi-wheelwar. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you had made the move on one of the articles. I didn't see it being controversial as it is only intended to add clarity and simplify the overly-complex nature of the disambiguation page. I will take to the talk articles. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Draft:Uglies (film). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 16:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I definitely did NOT copy and paste any article draft, to create my own. Looking over what you have stated -- it seems that the previous draft (that I was completely unaware of) used the same sources as I did, and given the fact that the sources alone are few and lacking in detail -- the key points of the source were used by the both of us. I apologize for the mistake, but I genuinely didn't see/know there was another draft already in development.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

PS - had I known there was a draft, I would have simply added to it and then moved it to the mainspace. I have plenty of experience adding to articles and/or moving them to the mainspace. Again, I apologize that I didn't see the previous draft. I had only seen the "film adaptation" details on the books/novel pages.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The article After Ever Happy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Film appears to fail WP:NF

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Help making page for Draft:Machiko Noguchi? Molarium (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Molarium: I have zero knowlegdge of this topic, and after looking at the article it appears as though this would be a page about a fictional character(?). Generally I don't see the value in articles about characters, and would argue that the character should be discussed on the page that deals with the comic book series, but you're going to need a lot of reliable sources as well.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi DisneyMetalhead, you've recently added a PROD tag to Mufasa: The Lion King, which is currently a redirect. WP:PROD "cannot be used with redirects", although you can use {{Db-move}} (it'll also be faster!). I've removed the tag for now. Thanks for your contributions and happy editing! Justiyaya 13:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks m8! That'll be nice to have completed. I have put the Db-move request there as suggested. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed the speedy from the redirect Mufasa: The Lion King. I'm not sure that Draft:Mufasa: The Lion King is ready to be moved yet. If it is just let me know and I can take care of it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to Draft:The Blob (franchise) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I probably should have left this notice earlier — DaxServer (t · m · c) 22:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I have asked for the DC Universe (franchise) page to be deleted, however it seems my proposal will fail. If that happens I would start a discussion to seek consensus on whether to separate the Gunn and Safran's projects from the DCEU article, because having them in both articles will be redundant. However I would suggest including the upcoming 4 films in some way. Just a heads up so there isn't another dispute. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Other users have already removed Gunn and Safran's projects and it seems without any discussion, which is problematic. Regardless I have no energy left for arguing with more people so I'm not going to try to argue with them. User consensus can decide whatever it wants. Anyway I hope you have a good day. Cheers! Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it was premature for editors to move things, as we discussed last night. I have taken to the talk page with an update from Gunn where he states that he is not rebooting the DCEU, and that The Flash doesn't reset everything. I will try to go in and re-add those projects with that update from Gunn. The DC Universe (franchise) article has no grounds at this point. Hope to continue working on the article with you and all the other editors in peace and collaboration. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't try to add the projects back on your own for right now. I would have done it myself, but it's clear some users are insistent on separating the articles. Let's discuss first and have consensus. Or this can turn into a full-scale edit war. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that. I WP:BOLDly reverted the edits and have since taken to each of the discussions with Gunn's new comment/clarification. You'll see my comments at each of those talk page discussions.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. We don't ever add mentions of characters to "Cast". Cast means "the actors in a film, play, or show". Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Roman Reigns Fanboy: From what I had seen he features in a still photograph. I'll have to find a better source. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If you have seen the movie, you can see the character in a still image playing football (helmet obscuring the stand-in actor, as Ray Fisher did not reprise the role). Still searching for a reliable ref for this one.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead,

I see that you have a number of draft articles that will be deleted in a few hours. They are about film franchises. I looked on your user talk page to see if there were messages from Firefly Bot but these drafts are several years old at this point so I guess you got the 5 month notices in past years. So, I don't know if you are keeping your own record of your draft articles that you have been working on. You can find the August 6th list of expiring drafts at this page, so maybe if you scan the list, you can identify your drafts in case you want to keep them. If they are already deleted, you can request their restoration at WP:REFUND. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Is it common for the articles being proposed for deletion to not be notified the way that some of these weren't? I am working on getting these drafts reinstated. I do keep a list of the ones I am working on, but had some unexpected personal events come up that took up my time. Thanks for notifying me.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a lot. I know not all, perhaps most, won't be ready to be reviewed to be an article any time soon, as they are about projects that aren't even started. Are you sure you want them all restored? Do you have updates ready for all of them? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@UtherSRG: There are updates, and additional information that I need to add to each of them. They are all works-in-progress currently.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Looks like another admin has performed the restores. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Except for the two typos in your requests. :) You fixed one, and I fixed the other. I've restored the two additional articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Detective Knight (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.

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!

CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I Wikilinked the three films to the new series page. I think there are other places where Wikilinks could be added but will save that for you. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

You moved a number of pages from the Latter Day Saints spelling to Latter-day Saints. However there is a long-standing convention at Wikipedia that the first spelling is for topic related to the Latter Day Saint movement as a whole, and the second spelling to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is too uncontroversial to be done without discussion, especially after you have been reverted once.

If your reasons are good, you will most probably succeed in changing the name of these pages. However, you should not engage in edit warring, especially do not start a page-move war.

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement and/or Talk:Latter Day Saint movement. Place Clichy (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Place Clichy I did not think that the moves would be controversial. I have simply been trying to get all the articles fixed (as there are many of them). While there are sects of churches that go by "Latter Day Saints", the articles that I had changed seemed to be related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints instead. I was simply trying to be accurate, and helpful. I will follow your suggestions.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you want to be helpful. However, many pages start with a notice like this one on Temple (Latter Day Saints):

This page is about temples in the Latter Day Saint movement. For temples only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, see Temple (LDS Church).

There's even a hidden commentary visible when you edit the page: <!-- Note to editors, Latter-day Saint refers specifically to the largest, Utah-based denomination. When referring to history shared amongst other denominations use Latter Day Saint -->.

Discussion is now open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement § Latter Day Saints or Latter-day Saints?. Place Clichy (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize the commentary notes, as I thought it had been an oversight in editing (as some pages tend to have). I apologize, and appreciate you tagging me in the discussion.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

There sure can be things to fix on many pages! . I never thought otherwise. Always assume good faith and be civil, that can get you a long way! Happy editing. Place Clichy (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

"DisneyMetalhead moved page Talk:Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town (film) to Talk:Santa Claus is Comin' to Town (TV special): corrected spelling (per the official logo the 'i' in "is" should be lower-case; also correcting article to be a TV special as this is what the release was"

A title is a title. The standards of upper and lower cases are not affected by the font used in the artwork for a title. For the same reason the "t" in "to" isn't uppercase as shown on the TV special's title page, the "i" in "Is" is uppercase. MOS:TITLECAPS milladrive (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the page to its correct title, with the parenthetical still being (TV special), but the capitalized Is per MOS:TITLECAPS, which is what dictates capitalization in titles, not stylizations in marketing pieces such as posters. —El Millo (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Very good. It seems the same case alteration has been made to The Easter Bunny Is Comin' to Town. milladrive (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed as well. —El Millo (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

...@Milladrive: "a title is a title" and yet the copyright logo appears on the official logo creens of these TV specials. My main reason for moving the article title was the fact that it is a television special and not a film. Thank you @Facu-el Millo: for moving the article to this space.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The copyright symbol simply means the project has been copyrighted. The whole project was copyrighted by Videocraft International, Ltd., in 1970. That copyright symbol has almost no relation to the title font in the artwork on the title screen.

Again, I point to MOS:TITLECAPS, which is what dictates capitalization in titles at Wikipedia.

Further, that is a title page, not an "official logo". Very different. :)

I do agree that changing it to "TV special" was the right thing to do. It's still technically a film (nearly all videos are), but calling it a TV special is more precise. milladrive (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

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 2024. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the well-wishes! Merry Christmas to you and yours, m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ★Trekker (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and may your various holidays also bring you joy and everything you wish for. 2024 is around the corner. Make it a great one! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the well wishes, User:StarTrekker! I hope that your holiday season has been equally rewarding, and that 2025 brings you all that you hope for. Cheers m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Sony's Spider-Man Universe, you may be blocked from editing. You have already been reverted for removing Hardy's image several times in the past, and its inclusion has been explained to you in said reverts AND at the talk page. Refer back to those and cease your disruptive removals without proper cause or justification. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101: the reasons for including Hardy's image (and only his) on the article have made no sense whatsoever. I am not intentionally being "disruptive" -- nor did I "blank out" anything. I will take to the talk page (again). Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

See my response on the talk. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi DisneyMetalhead, I am trying to update the Dark Castle Entertainment article. I see that you contributed to the article in the past, and I'm hoping you will be interested in helping to update the page. Would you please consider implementing the edit request I posted at Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment#Proposed updates? Thanks for your help, DJ for Katz (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I went there and commented. Cheers m8! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Disneymetalhead, I hope you are well. A while back you looked over my suggested changes for Dark Castle Entertainment and concluded that they were not controversial. I waited a while for other editors to weigh in, and when no one did, I made the changes to the article. Yesterday, another editor reverted them saying that I hadn't been given permission to make the edits (I presume referring to my COI). If you have a minute, would you make the edits yourself? I believe the issue was with my editing directly, not with the content, and that the changes genuinely improve the article. Thanks again for your help! DJ for Katz (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Knives Out (film series). Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The page has now been moved to the main space by an editor. What was your comment? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Knives Out (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/Knives Out (film series) (2nd nomination) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Indagate (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to John Henry (folklore), would you be interested in joining a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I would certainly not be opposed! What are we looking to accomplish, m8? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Generally to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of oral tradition, but there’s loads of resources to be made like a style guide, instructions for recording and writing about an oral tradition, assessment tables, furthering WP:oral citations experiment etc. The objectives or goals haven’t been clarified yet (like the number of featured and good articles we’re aiming for), but we’d like to have progress bars like at WP:MILHIST Kowal2701 (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Your edit to the Inner Sanctum Mysteries adds a second title card (why? what information is needed here?) unsourced genres, unsourced cast and crew. The previous material was sourced, the current version you've added has not been. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! Just got back from a weekend getaway. Finally having a second to respond to this. The information that was added to The Inner Sanctum Mysteries (film series) article, in the film tables as well as the movies' genres that you referenced, all fall within Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue -- as they are directly linked to each of the respective pages for the installments. I highly recommend reviewing that article. Additionally, the sources you are asking for in the genres of these movies are WP:CK. Lastly, in relation to the details I left on your talk page -- as I recommended there, the best way to state that you want something sourced or a reference added to a detail is not to delete entire portions of articles but rather to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Citing sources #Dealing with unsourced material. This may help you moving forward. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize, I did not see your reply here until now. That's an essay you are referencing, not policy. A few words,

• Genre definitely requires sources. per MOS:FILM, and WP:SUBJECTIVE, and honestly, just read the definitions of genres like horror film, adventure film, and action film. There is no strong consensus on what many genres are, so this does not fall under that the sky is blue. This isn't common knowledge, especially with a series as obscure as this, in fact, citations in the article call it different. The same goes for this.
• As for tagging, the article is rife with material you re-added that is not backed up by sources, citing material that is not backed up by its source, etc.
• Per WP:SOURCELIST, they must contain "No original research" (which your edits have removed). I think a cast list on the articles you suggest are okay, but I think just as we don't list every cast member in the infobox in a film. I've suggested a proposal for the cast in the talk article for The Inner Sanctum Mysteries (film series). I think it will help us reach a mutual solution to something satisfying for users. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi DMh (I hope its okay to call you that). I can't respond to your comments at the Universal Horror post at the moment. I have a response ready, but will get back to you later. All good? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to follow up on your cast list, your source article for (Fandom), does indeed say the Dark Uninverse does indeed list that a Hunchback character was to be included in the Dark universe, but not that it actually happened noe that it was part of the original franchise. Furthermore, the Kim Newman source that you agreed with states the franchise begins in the 1930s, which you said you seemed to approve of. Why are you including characters from earlier? I think your cast and monsters list is coming along, but it needs to have sources that don't go beyond what you are claiming when it comes to picking and choosing certain cast/characters/films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

When you are talking to/about me on threads, you need to ping my username; otherwise you can/will abbreviate it as you wish.

In response to your second post, the article about the Dark Universe is literally about their intended reboot of the Universal Monsters. The fact that the movies didn't materialize is irrelevant. There are countless reliable sources that credit The Hunchback of Notre Dame as the first Universal Monster. Furthermore you are not the deciding end-all for what editors include and don't include in the article. I will not be pulled into an ongoing debate with you about an article, nor will I engage in becoming your conduit to an article that you were banned from editing.

DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying I decide, but you've said there are countless sources. But so far in your work you've provided none. The Newman source suggests they started I. the 1930s, so why are films going back to the 1910s? Could you provide some third-party reliable sources? I'm not saying they don't exist, I just don't want you to waste your time on a table if it has no sources to back up your claims.Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, I see you've added some more sources. While the MovieWeb and JoBlo ones are fine, they seem to go against some other sources here, such as the following:

• "As with most Hollywood films and franchises Universal's Classic Monsters began with an adaptation. From the outset, with Dracula (1931), Frankenstein (1931), Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932), and The Invisible Man (1933) ... Universal seemed set on banking on already familiar and popular authors and tests to do much of the publicity work for its horror titles." here
• ""The Universal Monsters franchise kicked off in the 1930s with Bela Lugosi as Dracula, Boris Karloff as the Frankenstein Monster (and the Mummy) and Claude Rains as the Invisible Man." This doesn't really help settle a what is, or what isn't in the franchise discussion, but maybe assists with the branding of the term as in Newman's idea, the franchise starts in the 1930s when these films were made, over the other two sources who relate it closer to the branding of the home video line. I've added the source here if anyone would like to try and apply it." Kim Newman, 2020 Tremors booklet.

Now i'm not saying one source is more correct than the others, but two sources (one being academic, which i feel applies better weight per WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES) should definitely not be ignored. I don't think your suggestions or research are wrong, but I'm not sure how we should apply this when the sources disagree. I'm proposing that we lean towards the 1930s beginnings, but can include in a hatnote that other sources have included the other monsters as well. as

WP:SOURCETYPES suggests. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, you should probably drop this. Continuing to comment here isn't going to help you with getting unblocked. I'd recommend you take this article off your watchlist and go work on other ones. Valereee (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Thank you very much for responding and posting here. I didn't want to ping/tag you in excess, but I had started to think I shouldn't even reply to this ongoing endless prodding from User:Andrzejbanas. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The article Rosemary's Baby (franchise) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is nothing in any of the citations of a presumed "Rosemary's Baby" as a franchise. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Each source discusses the films separately with absolutely no commentary on any perceived franchise or series. This is just taking established information from articles on the books, tv series and films based around the novel with no real world commentary on it as a franchise, or even as a pop culture phenomenon in general. Sure we can find individual sources discussing the films individually as stated here, but I have not found any commentary suggesting it to be it's own series or franchise. So we shouldn't present it as one. Proposing to draftify until commentary about it as a series as a whole is available.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You are literally going through article after article, splitting hairs. I will be removing your deletion tag for obvious reasons. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: your continued actions here, there and everywhere indicate that you still have not learned from your previous missteps. I will remove your deletion tags and add more sources. I have repeatedly shown you the proper way to ask for more sources. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to show me anything because I haven't asked. The sources you have found have not really addressed the issues I've made with deletion either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

If possible, could we direct conversation about the franchise/series commentary to one section? Either the WP:FILM talk page or the article in question? (probably will get more eyes at WP:FILM), as it's exhausting to go between three to four pages to re-iterate points. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Valereee I am wondering if this page was deleted prematurely? There was an ongoing discussion, and most of the editors taking to that discussion were expressing reasons why it should remain. Can you provide assistance, and/or insight? Thank you!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you think a deletion discussion ought to be re-examined, then please take it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review for a formal procedure. I will reference @OwenX's deletion rationale determining the consensus here for transparency: "Even without discarding the !votes that read as little more than a personal attack, the Delete arguments carry far more P&G weight than the ones calling for keeping the article." I do not believe that the length discussions proved any notability of in-depth coverage of the franchise as a whole beyond just discussing the works and how they are related to one another, which was a major factor that outweighed the keep !votes and those discussions. Once !votes are cast, discussions really come secondary in AfDs, hence why processes like deletion review exist. Plus, Wikipedia is WP:Not a democracy, so just because there were more keep !votes, that does not mean that is what the consensus is, which is determined by looking at the overall encyclopedic policies, not some editor's opinions of what they think should be done. I will just add, in conclusion, that not every supposed film series or "franchise" needs an article, especially if it cannot be independently notable. (Should a deletion review be started, it would be a courtesy to ping those involved in the AfD.) Cheers! Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the direction, @Trailblazer101. I have known about this process, but still found this deletion to be premature given the ongoing deletion discussion. There was no consensus reached. 3 movies make a film series, and likewise at least 3 installments make a franchise. There was included a LARGE number of sources on the now deleted article's talk page, detailing the franchise. I will go to the deletion review step. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

DM, no, it wasn't deleted prematurely. It had been open for weeks and relisted twice. The only policy-based argument made since the most recent relist was Delete, so it's not like the tides were turning.

A suggestion was made for creating a WP:SETINDEX page. See in particular the section about selection criteria, which says

The list topic need not be notable in itself. (emph mine)

Nevertheless, each of the items should be notable.

Various red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is

1. verifiably a member of the listed group, and
2. likely to have an article on the topic in the future.

This seems like the perfect solution. Much of the article could be kept, because there really isn't anything there discussing it as a franchise (which per the AfD is the basic problem with it at this title; no one seems to be discussing it in RS as a franchise). Which means as a franchise it isn't notable. But as a SETINDEX it doesn't need to be. Valereee (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The book Universal Horrors does not state anything about it being part of a horror series. I'm going to assume you added this due to the books title. In the intro the book, they openly state they've included outliers that aren't horror in their coverage. So please, do not apply blanket material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: the movie series is titled The Inner Sanctum Mysteries. Looking at the title, it is common knowledge/self-evident within the series' title that the movies are "mystery", while they are categorically classic movies. The cast, and the crew -- all of which are from classic films have association with the respective individual movies. I'm not sure how that is debatable/questionable/controversial.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but per MOS:FILMGENRE, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources.", so despite titles that present tropes of genres, we shouldn't apply this in this form. The article on the horror film has a good real world summary of this as well, saying that " Horror" was a term used to describe a variety of meanings. In 1913, Moving Picture World defined "horrors" as showcasing "striped convicts, murderous Indians, grinning 'black-handers', homicidal drunkards" Some titles that suggest horror such as The Hand of Horror (1914) was a melodrama about a thief who steals from his own sister." So it's a good real to practise via wiki rules and in general. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CIVIL, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks" and "his applies equally to all: it is as unacceptable to attack an editor who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other." saying that "Other editors are correct in pointing out that this has the stench of other situations you have done before (many are familiar with that history)." is completely inappropriate for this kind of discussion per your edit here. While you are welcome to to contribute, I'd suggest reading my write up first, as I've already addressed your comments you have brought forward. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledging fact in a totally relevant comment, was in reference to your continued like-manner actions. I have been WP:CIVIL with you, though it is incredibly difficult. Your recent actions have caused a complete deletion of the Rosemary's Baby (franchise) article -- something that follows similar previous actions that you had done at Universal Monsters. Not to mention your constant "policing" on my talk page is excessive. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

You've made a lot of edits that don't seem to follow policy (i.e: images proclaiming logos without any source, and creating tables without sources, just some examples. Which is fine, we all make mistakes.) I normally check the user edits of any edit I see when a user does this. If I'm breaking any rules with this, please inform me. As for you saying you have been CIVIL with me, you said said, and my edit had the "stench" of another post. That is in no way being civil to anyone. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Three Men and a Baby (franchise) 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/Three Men and a Baby (franchise) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you intentionally going through each article and trying to delete them? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As I have stated various times I am trying to expect the best out of you, but I am seeing a recurring trend in the last couple months. Don't you? DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what to say other than I don't know you and wouldn't be wasting my time with that. I've requested deletion of articles/cats/etc. made by various users in an effort to clean up the articles related to film projects. My suggestion would be to maybe read what and other editors have suggested would improve these articles and respond not based with policy and guidelines in mind. Maybe even sleep on it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to 'sleep on' anything. I am pointing out to you, that as you just stated you are requesting deletion of articles. ...the main question, is why has that become a go-to, for you? I had previously shown you how to request additional sources in the past. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I've addressed this in the Xfd, but as you asked I tried to improve the article myself to make it follow WP:SIGCOV and MOS:FILM. While I am Interested in Mushy Tank's set index proposal, I'm not exactly sure what that would entail so I can't really comment on whether it is a better alternative or not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Improvements to the article as-is, is better than a deletion altogether. I have noted this each time that I respond to you. Improve the page, instead of outright deleting it. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

As stated already in the Xfd prop, I did make an attempt to improve it. I tagged material, archived some dead URLs, tagged some sources as either not being reliable or entire sections what have no sources. This can be seen here. Following this, I searched the internet, the Wikipedia Library, Google Scholar, and other sources to find more material. I could not find anything. As the article seemed to fail several guidelines and policies, I went forward with an Xfd. I've given, what I feel, is a thorough overview in my deletion reasoning. While I have taken up Mushy Yank's suggestion and responded to them on their talk page, my understanding is a set index page would resemble something like List of films titled Hansel and Gretel this. I look forward to either of your responding to how we adjust the article as a set index, because I'm not entirely sure either of you are proposing with the idea. As for noticing editing patterns, per WP:AOBF "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs [...] Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack." Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not doing any "personal attacks", and as pointed out on various discussions now the lengthy responses you generate are exhaustive and overkill for editors. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, through these listed attempts. My statement was to encourage you to start discussions on a talk-page for improvements, instead of having a go-to of asking that an article be deleted (as I have pointed out in various places). As for how an index page can be made, that will need to be a discussion you open at the talk-page. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll keep it short. I'm responding to your questions, not going on. I'll move on for now.Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fall (film series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:ThreeMenandaBaby logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

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

Thanks for uploading File:Karate Kid.2025 official logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pure Country (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/Pure Country (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 until the discussion has finished.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas:... what are you doing?--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@DisneyMetalhead just as a heads up, pings don't work as they are case sensitive. Not sure what you mean by this, but I feel I have explained myself adequately at the talk page. Is there a problem? Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I corrected the simple typo, but I also know they are case-sensitive. I have responded at the discussion -- my point being, it seems like you regularly nominate pages for deletions. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is a policy about doing that too much, please bring it up, otherwise, I do not understand your issue. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue has been pointed out to you by numerous editors in the past. I don't need to go through it all again. Learn from your past. Simple as that. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why did you remove the excessive citations tag as you had done here? Generally per WP:FILMPLOT Since films are primary sources for their articles, basic descriptions of their plots do not need references to an outside source. WP:BUNDLING makes it clear also why we don't usually add excessive sources for something that is not usually considered controversial. Its generally better to not remove a tag until the issue has been addressed on a talk page, and per your edit, you did not seem to address the tagged problem. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to review every edit I make. There are not excessive refs, and each ref provides the reader additional details. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Gray Man".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at John Wick. The next time I see you add content that isn't actually present in the source you provide, I will bring your edits to admin attention. Stop adding in details that aren't present in the sources--this is a brightline sourcing violation on Wikipedia. Grandpallama (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Did you watch the video User:Grandpallama? Clearly you didn't. I will take to the talk page, and also address the timestamp for you. Cheers. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Please note Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility Web accessibility is the goal of making web pages easier to navigate and read. While this is primarily intended to assist those with disabilities, it can be helpful to all readers.

I am asking that you please make sure to use semantically meaningful templates such as Template:TBA or Template:TableTBA (your choice) so that the proper tooltip will be provided to user of screenreader software explaining that the acronym means "To Be Announced". Please stop using {{N/A}} with the label changed as that fails to include any tooltip at all. -- 109.77.203.140 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It is not clear that you read or understood the above message as you deleted it but continue to make edits overloading {{NA}} (like this(diff) instead of using the available semantically meaningful and more accessible template {{TBA}} or {{TableTBA}}. Please read the message and indicate you understand it before deleting or preferably keep it here as a reminder. -- 109.76.129.112 (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ★Trekker (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Woops... I had intended to reply to this post, but the same as what I stated in the previous year's greeting. 2025, here we come! I hope you have a Happy New Year! DisneyMetalhead (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 09:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

while I appreciate your adding sources to content you added months ago without a source, your response of on the talk page addressing content and issues with the page is not really assuming good faith. Please only respond to any editor if you want to discuss the content. If I'm doing something wrong or against the rules, the talk page is for that. You have apologized for making similar comments before here. I don't know what to say but I'm disappointed your making similar comments that are attacking me here. If you could respond addressing content, it would be a great start for the new year.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I have moved your comment to the bottom of the thread, as we are supposed to do. Secondly, my comment is an observation that you may be slipping into the very same habits that you did before. That is not an accusation nor a so-called "attack". This was intended to be a cautionary reminder, and also to point out that an admin had asked you to no longer contribute to said article.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologize where the comment was written, it was written on my phone before heading out. Please do discuss behaviors or potential or perceived behaviours. If you have not discussion of the content, you it does indeed fail WP:ETIQUETTE specifially "If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate." As your comments have been about not signing posts or the location of responses and not the content, I feel you aren't I feel that you are not addressing the issues I'm bringing up. As you have worked hard on the article, I would appreciate you re-read them and address them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Your previous comment has some serious structural errors to the sentence. I'm not sure that I am understanding everything that you stated here^. I will not be baited into the patterns I mentioned in the talk pages previously. This has been an ongoing situation (with this article in particular) between you and various editor. My intentions were merely to remind you that you had been asked by admin to avoid this article, and that seemed to be something that you understood. As I stated before I was not accusing nor 'attacking' you as you insinuated, but merely trying to help you from falling into the exact same actions that you had previously. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Per this edit here and here you added two sources that were described as "notable/reliable". As stated on the talk page, the issue brought up was not that the article lacked any reliable sources, it was that they sources in question lacked depth. ("WP:SIGCOV to "addresses the topic directly and in detail".) While the Media Plays appears to be a valid source, its just that: a blu-ray announcement, which in not in-depth. The other source here. I can't find anything about suggesting who they are, or how their content is gathered. Can you verify this as you added it saying it was reliable? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: the sources do suffice SIGCOV. As for your question -- I am not understanding it...Please rephrase. DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok. So you have The Movie Isle. If on were to verify that this lets look at WP:SOURCES.

For The Movie Isle you added it saying it was a reliable/notable source. Now, to be a reliable per WP:SOURCES is the work itself reliable? I'm not familiar with the site and they have no about page to tell me about who or how the site is organized. The Author of the article, A.W. Kautzer, I'm unfamiliar with. On placing his name in a search engine, I find no information about who he is or what makes him a respected source in the field. You shared it stating it was reliable, per WP:BURDEN, it is up to you find evidence that would satisfy this.

As a follow-up, you said the the sources do suffice as significant coverage. The thing about the blog post it, it has to go into depth to discuss it. There is no doubt the series exists. I think to clarify my question, what information about the series, not individual films, would you pull from these sources? There needs to be discussion about the series as a unique item, not a discussion on individual films within it.

If you have any questions, please ping. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Satan (franchise) 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/American Satan (franchise) 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 until the discussion has finished.

Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sometimes They Come Back (film series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sometimes They Come Back".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Craft (franchise), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:47 Meters Down (film series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Best of the Best (film series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:L.A.'s Finest - release poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Predator (franchise)#Regarding placing the films into different sections! 185.113.97.247 (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Creed - Shindijai logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Bird Box".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Craft".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Universal Horror".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "J. J. Gittes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Bad Moms".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "We Can Be Heroes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Babysitter".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Southland Tales".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Hitman's Bodyguard".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Argylle".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Work and the Glory".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Accountant".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Boondock Saints".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "47 Meters Down".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Best of the Best".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "The Raid".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Fall".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:28 Days Later official film series logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Bright".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Red Notice".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Jim Henson's Labyrinth".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Happy Death Day".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, DisneyMetalhead. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Young Guns".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:X official logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Orphan film series logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim 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 (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)