User talk:PanagiotisZois/Archive 2

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Chris Redfield has been completed.

I archived the first URL on the Wayback Machine archive to show you the citation format. You'll want to archive the rest of the article's URLs as time allows to avoid it developing "dead links".

Good luck with the FAN when you get to it.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you for c/e the article. As for the references I have actually archived all of them (the GA reviewer suggested I do so). Should I include the archive links to every reference? PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I follow the format shown here which includes both the original and the archived citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_web

I guess as a matter of convenience. If you don't include it, then at some point a reader has to search the archive websites to find an archived version. Including it precludes having to do this.

In the Chris Redfield article some archive URLs are shown, others are not. You could add |deadurl=no| before the "archiveurl" phrase (assuming the URL still works - if it doesn't the flag is set to yes.

Here's a sample from "your" article: ^[1]

I think you just want to be consistent throughout the article - there's no hard and fast rule that I'm aware of.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Ecstasia Sanders.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 11:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Gladiolus Amicitia.png. 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) 17:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boogeyman 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The article Boogeyman 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boogeyman 2 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Just wanted to say great work on getting Boogeyman 2 up to a GA. I'm always excited when wiki articles (especially obscure genre films) get this kind of attention. Great work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @Andrzejbanas: :D, I really appreciate that. Boogeyman 2's obscurity is actually part of the reason I wanted to improve the article XD. I checked out some of your work as well. I've heard a bit about Audition before but never actually seen it. Would you recommend watching it? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Audition, I feel, is pretty strong but by no means walk in expecting a fun monster-in-the-closet horror film. Its like a more extreme version twist on the Misery. It's good, but yikes!Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, I didn't understand why the page was tagged {{Use dmy dates}} and Kailash29792 changed the date format while I was copyediting the lead. Since a stable date format (among other things) is important for a copyedit, I'm moving on to another request until you two work things out. All the best, Miniapolis 17:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I didn't see an {{in-use}} notice. But I thought that, since it is an article on an American film, it should use mdy format, keeping with US conventions. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't notice it before but yes, the dates in the articles should be changed to "Month Day, Year"; which you already have done. But is that really necessary for the templates as well? When I use "insert current date" for the citations it always comes up as "Day Month Year", isn't that how it should always be? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I assumed (and we all know what happens when you assume) that you added the dmy tag. Since it's an American film, I agree that the date format should be mdy; don't worry about the templates at this point, although I think they accept either format. When I finish copyediting Inna, I'll come back here. I don't use {{GOCEinuse}} any more, since it kept getting removed while I slept :-). All the best, Miniapolis 22:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Nurse - Dead by Daylight.png. 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) 19:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Your reason to revert change: "While the film says Flight 180 occured six years ago that's actually a mistake. The first film takes place in 2000, this one in 2005." The film states explicitly in the dialogue that it's six years since the flight, so that's conclusive. Any other argument is original research. Besides, what do you base this on, the date on the tombstone saying 2005? That's more likely the mistake, since it's screen writers over prop masters. Here's another evidence for you: the first film was released in 2000, this one in 2006, so that line simply reflected it. Provide a source with more authority over the film than the script itself or I'll revert back. Kumagoro-42 10:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't the film filmed entirely in 2005? That explains why it's set during that year. As the tombstone shows. Going by that chronology and the "six years" apart, then the first film would have taken place in 1999. However, Final Destionation 2 (which is set exactly one years after the first one) takes place in 2001 as shown on Thomas' computer. Additionaly, Final Destination 5 during the ending lists Sam's ticket for Flight 180 as May 13, 2000. The whole "six years" mistake occured most likely due to the films being filmed six years apart from each other. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed, the poster for the McKinley Tricentennial also lists the year as 2005. Writers have been known to make continuity errors before. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I agree especially with the tricentennial thing, which is too prominent (and kind of a plot point) to have been a prop mistake. Then we should add a note, because people (like me) who watch the movie and hear the line "six years ago", then come to Wikipedia and see "five years" right there in the introduction, can't help but think the Wiki page is wrong. This is bound to trigger other attempts at editing over time. Kumagoro-42 16:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Completely agree with you, I've added the note. I'm glad we could reach an understanding. It's nice to see someone who cares that much about the movie. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Kumagoro-42 18:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nitro+chiral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

On 4 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boogeyman 2, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite its title, Boogeyman 2 does not actually feature the mythical creature as the main antagonist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boogeyman 2. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Boogeyman 2), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Clear Rivers you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Numerounovedant -- Numerounovedant (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello PanaZ, Just wanted to let you know that I like your work on the article for Boogeyman 2. I was wondering if you could help me procure some sources for me on a couple of articles? Not regarding the second one since I want to start by working on just one at the moment, if you could check the talk page on Earth vs. the Spider (2001 film), I posted something around the lines of that I needed someone to find me some sources for information on the film (I explained this in more detail on the article's talk page). If you are willing to help me with this please let me know and post links to possible sources on my talk page. Again, many thanks!--Paleface Jack (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Hmm, I'm interested. Don't know when, but I'll try to find information for the movie. Until then I may even watch it as well. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks man!--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)