User talk:Theys York

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Filthy Sexy Teen$, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2998272/combined.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The article A Year and Change has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Premature. No real content in the article other than a list. No independent sources. Can be recreated when more info is available.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. freshacconci talk to me 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Fea Más Bella, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oscar and Nielsen. 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) 09:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Fea Más Bella, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Control, UOL and SBT. 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) 09:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brock Harris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Love on the Run. 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) 09:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Speech& Debate, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dan Harris and Broadway Theatre. 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) 10:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The article Sam (2015 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

trivial prizes, minor review

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The article Love on the Run (2015 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no visible reviews, not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sam (2015 film) 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/Sam (2015 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Speech & Debate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ryan Lee. 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) 09:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Drop Dead Drunk 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/Drop Dead Drunk 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. Rogermx (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The article Simple Little Lives has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreleased non-notable film, per 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. BOVINEBOY2008 14:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Simple Little Lives 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/Simple Little Lives 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. BOVINEBOY2008 23:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charlie Shotwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Borrasca. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pascual Sisto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John and the Hole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... I uploaded a copyrighted file (Fair use), but sent it in the original resolution. Should I delete with F7, or just send a lower resolution version? File:The Bloodhound.jpg Theys York (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The 358×450 version that's there now should be fine. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Theys York. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sam (2015 film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Till Death (2021 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VOD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It is good that you are adding reviews to the Reception sections of film articles but please make sure to reference the original review instead of reusing and repeating the reference to Rotten Tomatoes. -- 109.76.204.195 (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

If the links provided by Rotten Tomatoes are dead then please try to find links to that do work, either by using the Wayback Machine or by picking a different review. (If you absolutely must use a specific review there might be newspaper archiving/clipping or other library services you can use, but that's rarely worth the extra work.) -- 109.76.204.195 (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Theys York. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sam".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Song for a Raggy Boy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Theys York,

Thank you for creating We Are Next of Kin.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The "Reception" section contains excessive use of quotes, especially the long quote from Screen Daily. Note that per MOS:QUOTE, brief quotations are fine, but "[u]sing too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement." Wherein possible, please do try to paraphrase the quotes in your own words.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bennv123}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bennv123 (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Please also note that per WP:TFOLWP, when translating an article from another Wikimedia language project, "a note identifying the Wikimedia source (such as an interlanguage link) and the page name must be provided in an edit summary in the translated page..." Based on that, an edit summary that merely states "Transl from german" (Special:Diff/1140659464) is not sufficient for attribution purposes. Bennv123 (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Adam the First, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brock Harris 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/Brock Harris 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.

CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:T4F 2023 logo.jpeg. 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) 02:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Theys York. Thank you for your work on Little Bites. Another editor, CanonNi, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating the article. I've assessed it as Start class.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|CanonNi}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

How did her consciousness not shift, though? I read the plot summary before watching the movie and as a result, when watching, I expected there to be 2 consciousnesses that swapped bodies weekly because no one clarified in the Wiki article how there was only 1 consciousness. That's not just "point by point"; that's a MAJOR element of the plot... if you dislike the specific word "shift," then fine, but something should be stated about this, no?

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

A Heartbeat Away

added a link pointing to At the Movies

List of horror films of 2019

added a link pointing to Richard Short

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Heartbeat Away, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page At the Movies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You reverted an unlogged edit for the plot summary of Heretic. That edit was correct and you reverted it to an incorrect version of the plot. I'm seeing an additional user claim that you made an edit for the plot summary of The Substance that contradicts the narrative. Please elaborate on why you think that original version was appropriate for Heretic because if not you are seemingly vandalizing horror film plot summaries for some reason. GloriaBurgle (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey Theys York, so you actually can't just put that every universally-acclaimed episode "received generally favorable reviews from critics." That is inaccurate and objectively untrue with respect to the reception they received, as those episodes absolutely received rave reviews and widespread acclaim. It does not fall under "peacock terms" as it's an actual reflection of the reception the episodes received. Peacock applies when it is subjective, not when it's the objective reception and there are sources to back it. Dudestarwars (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Dudestarwars, hi, read the policy (MOS:PEACOCK) please. The word is literally there as one of the examples not to use, "acclaimed", and citing the example of Bod Dylan who is in politics, the correct thing to write is, "the episode received generally favorable/positive reviews and won awards x, y, z" or "the episode received ratings 10, 8, 9 and won awards x, y, z."

You want to summarize that last sentence with "acclaimed", because, from your subjective interpretation, you counted the "high scores" from critics and the awards the series won, and used that word to describe it.

Using adjectives to describe the "intensity of scores" is the opinion of the editor/editorial, just look at what score Metacritic (39%) and Rotten Tomatoes (59%) consider a film to be "bad". Theys York (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you just say "Bob Dylan, who is in politics." If you're that misinformed that you think one of the most famous musical artists of an time was a POLITICIAN then you shouldn't even be editing on an encyclopedia to begin with.

The policy does not say to never use the word. The policy says to provide sources, which are available both on the series main page and on the episode pages themselves. There is no source in the opening of the article, and if you like I can provide those, but I'd prefer you do that yourself because you're the one causing a fuss over this. It is not my subjective opinion, it is the objective truth of how these episodes were received across the board. Critical acclaim is an objective word used to describe a piece of media's reception, and can absolutely be used in times where it applies. Please do some quick research and then come back. The article with the policy that you yourself linked quite literally says "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution because they may introduce bias or imprecise meaning." In this case, it is fine to use the word "acclaim" as it is precise and an unbiased statement, as it is objective with respective to the universally-positive reception, high ratings across the board and numerous awards.

If you are not going to allow it to be used here, then you must go and remove it from every single show, movie, episode and book that uses it on this site. There are literally thousands of episodes on Wikipedia that are described the way you are taking an issue with on Andor.

Your example in your last sentence is irrelevant, as saying something "received universal acclaim" is an objective statement of its reception, not a subjective statement of its quality. It's not the same as writing "it was very good."

The article for those policies also says the advice "should not be applied rigidly." In this scenario, the word literally applies. The policy wouldn't apply here as this scenario is not what that guideline was written for, but even so, it says the policy "SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RIGIDLY."

Your suggested change, which is indicated nowhere, isn't even accurate. "Generally favorable" implies somewhat mixed, which is not the case. Find some other way to word it that is more accurate to the actual reception.

Lastly, read what you write. You edited One Way Out to say "Andy Serkis was named among the best television episodes of the year by many publications." That sentence doesn't even make sense. Dudestarwars (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

And once again, I can find your "correct way" nowhere. Seems like you made it up. Dudestarwars (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You also said "you want to summarize that last sentence with 'acclaimed'". These articles had longer, actual specific descriptions of the things critics praised, until you deleted all of it and you summarized it with your "generally favorable" term you insist on. Dudestarwars (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Please search up what the term "acclaim" means and do some research on the reception those specific episodes received. We will not be using your term of "generally favorable" for near-universal acclaim. Good day. Dudestarwars (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:National Anthem 2024 poster.jpeg. 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) 04:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)