User talk:DesignDeath

906:

sequel it would be referred to as an installment in that series, and in all of these cases it clearly is not. "FD2 does follow the characters and locations of the previous film" Does it really though? The cast is entirely different except for one character and it takes place in a different town. The fate of the protagonists of the previous films is mentioned by a character. Final Destination 2 is then a spin-off by your definition. "You think filmmakers or book writers never went back and said, "yeah it states year X but I've really decided it's year Y instead". If they wanted to, the filmmakers could very well state that Tokyo Night takes place at a different time." Wow talk about grasping at straws. Did you not see the part when I said that Katie was killed immediately after leaving her boyfriend's house after she killed him (immediately after the

1393:

changed either our culture or technology on anywhere near the same scale? There are people who have never watched Star Trek that are affected by it. 87% of the world population uses just one of the items that Star Trek helped push (Mobile Phones). Scream might have a small fan base but it cannot compare to the sheer impact of Star Trek. Kirk and Spock are the hallmark iconic figures tied to that movement. Star Trek has been referenced, parodied and linked to in thousands of movies. Scream just doesnt have the same impact, I know as a Scream fan you cannot realize that, as you are too close to the subject. Keep in mind you where the one who brought up Star Trek along with several other examples. (some of which I did remove DVD covers from).

1407:"You cannot realize that, as you are too close to the subject." Yeah I think that's exactly the case with you. I barely hear anyone talk about Star Trek nowdays, even with the new films coming out it's nowhere near that culturally relevant. But then again, REGARDLESS whether it is or not, Scream is one of the most iconic franchises of it's genre and it deserves to have a single cast picture on it's article. I mean dear God, the Scream article is even longer than the Star Trek article and Star Trek has nearly 20 images while Scream has 2. It doesn't matter if Star trek is more popular, they are both fictional franchises. It's astonishingly unfair that Scream can't have 2 non-free files on it's article.-- 1178:

does not violate the non-free policy especially now that I've removed it from another article, your behavior on this site is very strange and you keep ignoring most of the things I or anybody else says. If you want to remove long-stable files from now on, a discussion needs to be held although you don't seem to be able to do such things. Stop removing files for no valid reason (you don't even revert the changes so the person wouldn't receive a notification and revert it back; this is another thing that is against the rules). If you keep on doing this more administrators should get involved because this is borderline vandalism. Stop it.--

472:

ACTUAL (or official, whichever you like) entry in the series and that's not really my opinion. "Officially sanctioned Japanese sequel" basically means that the filmmakers were given permission to shoot the film, but again this doesn't make the film an installment in the franchise. And no it is not a "spin-off". It's a sequel, there's even a "2" in the title. However, it isn't an OFFICIAL sequel to Paranormal Activity and doesn't even fit into the film series' continuity since in it Katie died in a car crash and clearly that's not the case in the canonical films' timeline. Unofficial sequels are

1100:

that file, there isn't a free image showing the three main castd members together, and the image itself is highly presentable. The image is contextually significant. The section in which the file was placed discussed the cast and characters of the Scream series - the image showed the main three cast members of the Scream series. And about the minimal usage, can you explain how the image isn't used minimally? If the image is overly HQ or used in too many articles something should have been said instead of removing the image and the issue would've been fixed easily. In fact, here is a

671:, the movie was legally "sanctioned" but it is still referred to as an unofficial film because Stephen King and Tom Savini said so. And it's a completely different situation with Rasen & Ringu 2. Rasen was an adaptation of the novel that was a sequel to the novel the original film was based on. It was filmed back-to-back with Ringu and released concurrently. And since it was unsuccessful it is now labeled as a "Forgotten Sequel", which is sort of another way of saying "unofficial" but less encyclopedic. And about the whole retcon thing, if a 1600: 2364: 2312: 2260: 2208: 2030: 1974: 1918: 1862: 1806: 2139: 2084: 1749: 1557: 1631: 240: 955:

that were to happen one of the prequels would definitely be unofficial. Oh and also, try to find a single spin-off with "2" or any numeral in it's title. Just try to find a single one. Because, you know, if a film has a numeral in it's title it's a sequel; never a spin-off. And that sequel may or may not be unofficial, and neither of this suddenly turns the sequel into a "spin-off". --

2381:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 2329:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 2277:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 2225:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 2049:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1993:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1937:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1881:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1825:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1336:. So, either the Star Trek cast picture goes down, or the Scream cast picture goes up. It's that simple. Just because you clearly favorise Star Trek over Scream doesn't give you the right to vandalize the Scream page. I'm giving you a day or I'm putting the Scream image back up and if it gets taken down once again I'm removing Star Trek. -- 1095:... Just to name a few. So just because you think a file is unecessary doesn't give you the right to remove it without discussing it on the uploader's talk page and it doesn't give you the right to pretend you're a Knowledge administrator just so you could get away with doing and removing anything you want. And could you 157:

sense to me. The show wasn't made in Canada. The show wasn't commissioned by a Canadian broadcaster. The show wasn't made by a Canadian production company. The show wasn't created by a Canadian. Replace Canada with Greenland, Mexico, etc. and the statements are all still true. So, why did you move it to

1331:

This is quite possibly the most most ridiculous thing I've read on this website. Scream reinvented a genre. It grossed over $ 6 million with just four movies. It won countless awards. The character of Ghostface is a cultural icon, there isn't a single Halloween where people don't dress up as him, and

954:

4 & 5 are both prequels and installments in the series and are both thought of as official by the creators despite being uncanonical to each other. It's not like the series continued and the following entries ignored the existence of one of the films both canonically and numerically (see: PA). If

511:

ALSO, it may have not been a very good idea to undo my edits before I responded to the message you left on my talk page, because really then what's the point of you leaving a message on my talk page? For this reason I will now be doing the same and revert your edits back until a consensus is reached.

1350:

Wow, you just dont realize the impact Star Trek has had, everything from cell phones, table computers, 3D printing, Medical research, and a whole host of other things including getting a space shuttle named after them (iPad, vs PADD). Yes Scream is notable in their sub-culture. But Star Trek has had

1099:

explain what the issue with that Scream promo image is specifically? I mean, I've noticed that pretty much all you do on this website + Wikimeda Commons is remove images without ever giving a proper reason for doing so, but could you please make an exception this time? There is no free equivalent of

905:

article on this website does not claim that a spin-off is a form of a sequel. A spin-off may take place after or before the work of fiction it was spun off of but that does not mean that spin-off is a "sequel" or a "prequel". It technically cannot be both. It contradicts itself. If a spin-off were a

801:

4. You seem particularly offended that I should say a film can be both a spin-off and a sequel, which you seem to find contradictory. Since you got your definition of an "unofficial sequel" from Knowledge itself (where, hilariously, none of the examples given are close to being in the same situation

643:

Did you personally fund that film or something? I've honestly never seen anyone go all out there and contradict themselves so many times while trying to make a point. "It is easiest to label it a spin-off in the main franchise article because rather than following the characters and locations of the

616:

PS: the point of leaving a message on your talk page is to explain to you why your edits were wrong and were reverted so as to avoid you reverting them again. You complain but did you come to my talk page before/after having reverted my initial edits to explain yourself/attempt to reach a consensus?

305:

Hi there! Rather than do the back and forth reverting thing, I thought I'd drop you a friendly line to get clarification for my own edification. How is Kung Fu Panda, by definition, a "spin-off" of the movie? They both appear to have many of the same characters: Po, Shifu, Tigress, Mantis, Monkey,

170:

The North American disambiguation is used when a disambiguation is required and the show was a co-commissioning or/and co-production that spans at least one border on the continent, such as with Queer As Folk and Being Human and may be appropriate for the American/Mexican The Bridge, but the default

1773:

been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Knowledge 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 Knowledge

1392:

Please refrain from making personal attacks, I have removed non-free files from articles that I like on multiple occasions. What you are trying to compare is a little league pitcher to Babe Ruth. Star Trek has had significant impacts on our day to day life, whether or not you realize it. Has Scream

664:

franchise is the upcoming Latino film. That is the only spin-off. That is the only film the creators of the franchise hold legitimate. And yes, by definition, if filmmakers state that the film is unofficial, it is automatically unofficial and not a part of the series. Because really, who else has a

1192:

Well I've noticed it has been removed yet again. If the image does violate the non-free policy, even though I can't see how, I am returning the box set image instead so the article doesn't look like a blank wall of text. That file doesn't violate the non-free policy. You should also start removing

1177:

page for some obscure reason. I have returned the cast image, I will refrain from re-adding the box set image for now. You haven't responded to the replies I posted days ago on here, you did not say what is wrong with any of the files specifically, you have not proven any of your points, the image

900:

Well alright then, I challenge you to find one reliable source that claims PA2TN is a spin-off and not either a "Japanese" sequel or an "unofficial" sequel. The company never once labeled it as a "spin-off" nor did the filmmakers. Find one reliable source that claims a spin-off and a sequel is the

1316:

The impact that Star Trek has had both culturally and in technology is almost unheard of in any other situation. Kirk and Spock are hallmark iconic figures in that case, and their impact is still being observed almost 50 years after the fact. Their character recognition and association is part of

1013:

what the issue was and the only time he wrote anything was when he said "Images are used elsewhere or fail". It's very hard not to mistake him as a troll. Could somebody clear up what that means for me? Are non-free images like these only allowed to be used in one article? Are they not allowed at

306:

Crane, and Viper. They both appear to take place in the Valley of Peace, they involve Kung Fu, etc. It seems to me that it is a simple television adaptation of the movie much the way the M*A*S*H* television series was an adaptation of the film, rather than a spin-off. I appreciate your input.

156:

So i am somewhat known for pointing out that shows aren't actually as American as they appear to be according to the general assertions often found in American mass-media. In the matter of Life On Mars i however find myself on the other side of the argument, asking you "Why?", because it makes no

476:

That's what an unofficial sequel is. It doesn't matter what production company the film had, it's still unofficial if the filmmakers or further films ignore it/state it's illegitimate. And this sure as hell doesn't make the unofficial sequel a "spin-off" all of a sudden; and since this film IS a

471:

Well someone's upset. I do not dislike the film, I don't have a problem with the film at all. I am actually fully aware the film's production was given permission and had the one of the same production companies involved, otherwise they would get sued for using the PA title. However, it's not an

1277:

Given how the second image is being used, both images are justified. Just because one article can justify the usage of X non-free files, its not an automatic that article B can also use X images. there needs to be justification for said usages. In the case of scream those have not been created.

687:

wasn't retconned, it was never a part of the series or it's continuity to begin with. "Who's to say, this takes place directly after PA1 and not after the whole American PA saga." Several dates that appear in the film that confirm it takes place 6 years ago and the fact that Katie was killed

590:

did not however suddenly become "unofficial". Just retconned. You describe what you call "unofficial sequels" as "produced without the consent of the creator of the original work", "unauthorized" and/or "illegitimate". I have established clearly that this isn't the case. Films like

1369:

Ok now it's pretty obvious you have some weird obsession with removing files from articles you don't like. How sad is that? Scream films are not just "slasher films", they're cultural phenomenons albeit not as big as Star Trek because of it's non-PG13 genre. Regardless of how many

171:

remains the single country if such is applicable. Some people don't like it but the alternative is to name all of the countries and then deal with people who insist the USA should be listed first even though its accepted name for disambiguations alphabetically places it last.

543:

will be. It is easiest to label it a spin-off in the main franchise article because rather than following the characters and locations of the previous film, which the American sequels did, it "spins off" in another direction with new characters and a new locale. Much like

760:

departs from the main storyline of the rest of the franchise, follows a different set of characters, was shot in another language and destined for a specific, different market (even though it did make its way internationally eventually through DVD). Notice how the

1467:

for example its him on set of the 4th movie. Just use three separate pics, and it will make the cast photo obsolete. (take a look at the Trek article and the lower sections where they use free shots of the actors who played the different captains.)

264: 1036:#1,3,&8 are the most common issues with an image. Replacabilty, Minimal usage, and Contextual significance. Just because something has gone un-noticed doesnt mean that it is acceptable. An example of how things can slip through the cracks is 1008:

But can somebody actually explain to me why this image keeps getting removed? It was uploaded almost three years ago and nobody's ever had an issue with it. Are advertising material/promotional photos not allowed on Knowledge? I kept asking

320:

It's set between the first two movies, focusing on the events that happened in between. Spin-off is yet again more accurate than "based on". Technically it's an interquel but since it's in TV series format, spin-off is a better term to use.

865:

5. "dates that appear in the film"? You think filmmakers or book writers never went back and said, "yeah it states year X but I've really decided it's year Y instead". If they wanted to, the filmmakers could very well state that

768:

2. You seem baffled by the fact there's a "2" in the title (and no "Rambo: First Blood Part 2", does not equal "Rambo 2" in terms of titling) and one of your main arguments seems to be that (paraphrasing) "well since there's

747:

is not a spin-off because it does "follow the characters and locations of the previous film", adressing itself to the same market. Perhaps I was unclear in that statement yesterday so let me try again. It is easiest to label

163:

If it is because the intro says it was shown on a Canadian channel then let me preëmptively inform you that isn't sufficient. That argument could be said of every American network drama from the past three years that isn't

797:

3. "if filmmakers state that the film is unofficial". Then please give a source to a statement where such a person states such a fact. Claims of the film being "official" are sourced. Claims that it isn't currently

1172:

and other ones you ignored... You should go ahead and remove files on those pages and see how it goes. I honestly don't know why you haven't already, since you try so hard to remove files of the same type on the

173:

This hopefully explains where the disambiguation comes from and where it is used. If you have any questions or there is a reason i have overlooked for using the North American distribution then please do reply.

2217: 21: 2202: 2133: 886:? There are two films that tell basically the same story. Is one of them "official" and the other one not? The series' article just lists both as installments even though they can't possibly co-exist. 2155:. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 2100:. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from 539:

your opinion. The fact that it is an "officially sanctioned" sequel and that they had "permission to shoot the film" absolutely makes the film an installment in the franchise, in the same way that

260: 2078: 1929: 688:

immediately after leaving her boyfriend's house after she killed him (events of PA1). So anyways, technically this film isn't a part of the series and neither is the Latino spin-off. Look at

786:

publications at the time of its release referred to it as a "parallel sequel". Please not the term "parallel" rather than "unofficial". You say it is "a completely different situation" with

2321: 1910: 1817: 644:

previous film, which the American sequels did, it "spins off" in another direction with new characters and a new locale." Well this is yet again entirely your opinion. So in that case is

980: 2306: 1798: 1769:, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Knowledge administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you 613:

however, is an official, possibly retconned, parallel sequel/spin-off to Oren Peli's spin-off. You are wrong sir and nothing you say can make you right. Thank you and have a nice day.

2166:

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with

2254: 2147: 1766: 2373: 1873: 1072: 1055: 1854: 38:! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 1127:

I would really appreciate if either of you responded, or else I might take this as the end of the discussion and that a consensus has been reached due to my valid arguments.--

1037: 617:

I'm pretty sure you didn't so please don't lecture me about "acting like children". Out of courtesy however, I will refrain from re-reverting your edits once again for now.

447:

and is "the officially sanctioned Japanese sequel to 2009’s hugely successful Paranormal Activity, as directed by Oren Peli", as stated by press releases. See for yourself:

2022: 2197: 2111:

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our

568:

saga?), but this wouldn't be the first time events in a franchise have been retconned, which does not make the retconned works suddenly "unofficial". Take for example

2358: 2249: 1351:

world wide impact in countless fields for the last 50 years, How can a slasher flick compare to that? Also Star Trek has made almost 600 million in just there last

2128: 806:), you must have seen that "spin-off" is listed in that page. Like all those terms, "spin-off" is a type of sequel invented for people to better categorize films. 1985: 743:

1. I have not contradicted myself a single time (you however, that's another story) and no I have no professional relationship to the film, thanks for implying.

1961: 1136: 1002: 351: 1849: 989:, no non-free images are allowed in anything except articles (i.e. not userspace, sandboxes, etc.). In fact, you probably need to acquaint yourself with the 377: 1966: 1014:

all? If so, since when and why hasn't the image gotten removed years ago? I have read the NFC article and I haven't found anything about this. And I've seen

2353: 75: 2301: 560:!). There is indeed continuity problems with the rest of the franchise due to Katie's fate (but then again, who's to say, this takes place directly after 373: 1905: 2073: 1561: 474:"...produced without the consent of the creator of the original work. These may be dubbed unofficial, informal, unauthorized, or illegitimate sequels." 1761:

by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Knowledge account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at

2159:

is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Knowledge policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an

2104:

is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Knowledge policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an

20: 1741: 407: 2017: 1762: 964: 895: 722: 626: 502: 123: 477:

sequel, and you said it is yourself, it can't be a spin-off. Nobody has ever called that film a spin-off. So to put it together more bluntly:

93: 2405: 465: 417:

Dear sir, I work in the entrtainment industry and thus know fully well what a "spin-off" is. I am additionally mystified at your claims that

1793: 1695: 1206: 521: 450: 345: 1027: 89: 1224: 191: 2156: 2101: 1477: 1458: 1416: 1402: 1387: 1374:

fans Star Trek fans, it's still a film franchise, and so is Scream. There is absolutely no difference. So it's absolutely moronic that

1345: 1311: 1287: 1251: 1187: 1159: 1113: 1067: 1049: 412: 660:, and the fact that there's a "2" in the title pretty much confirms that it is was in fact intended to be a sequel. A spin-off of the 201:

Hello DesignDeath. I noticed that you've been adding a lot of flag-and-country templates to film infoboxes. Please don't do that. Our

146: 2112: 1075:

Is an image of a box set, regardless whether you think it's "eye candy" or not. These are some articles that use images of box sets:

387: 103: 1568:. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Knowledge. Our 1364: 1326: 2393: 2341: 2289: 2237: 2167: 2061: 2005: 1949: 1893: 1837: 1517: 454: 2160: 2151:. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Knowledge may not meet the criteria required by 2105: 2096:. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Knowledge may not meet the criteria required by 158: 128: 452: 1765:, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with 1576:. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. 1084: 182: 1164:"Do not re-insert them." I'm sorry? How about you at least try to prove your point once before making such orders? Files will 380:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 96:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1487: 448: 383: 330: 315: 99: 1618: 2163:; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. 2108:; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. 151: 1733: 2171: 2116: 1721: 205:

discourages adding flag icons to infoboxes unless they are about military topics or international competitions. Regards,

985:

Please do not abuse this noticeboard by posting reports of users that are correctly implementing Knowledge policy. Per

1545: 1536: 1494: 419: 2377:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2325:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2273:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2221:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2045:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1989:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1933:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1877:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1821:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 910:). "Is Manhunter suddenly unofficial because Red Dragon exists?" Yes it is if you were to create an article about the 2269: 1661: 1565: 1528: 1332:

Sidney Prescott may as well be more iconic than Kirk or whoever idk I'm not a nerd. The impact of Scream though : -->

679:

might have been an actual, official sequel that was retconned. However this isn't the case since an actual, official

1585: 1679: 1502:"The basic rule....is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". 1272: 1691: 1532: 295: 228: 133:

Hi DesignDeath, just so you know where I am coming from, adjacent Wiki links are discouraged in Knowledge's MOS:

1147: 300: 2382: 2330: 2278: 2226: 2050: 1994: 1938: 1882: 1826: 1444: 214: 356:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

252: 80:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

263:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2092: 2041: 1685: 1673: 1464: 1667: 1709: 1590: 2378: 2152: 2097: 1435:

Also that cast photo is replaceable, just do what Trek did and use free shots of the three characters.

535:

The fact that is isn't "an ACTUAL (or official, whichever you like) entry in the series" as you say is

188: 1378:

can't have 3 files on it's page (2 of them non-free) and Star Trek can have 14 (2 of them non-free).--

794:

yet seem to argue that it isn't. And if you think a spin-off can't have a number in the title, well...

1639: 891: 622: 593: 461: 134: 665:

right to say what is or isn't a part of a film series other than the person who created it? Look at

552:

franchise and your argument about there being a "2" in the title is meaningless (how can there be a

1263:

Well I hope you removed the second non-free file since the Scream article clearly can't have two.--

776:

that came out it supercedes this one" while somehow ignoring the fact that the films were produced

701:

but it's still not an installment, and unlike this film, it's even canonical. Oh and PS, about the

43: 282:

portrayed by (Yuya Ozeki) was the son of Kayako and Takeo. In life, he enjoyed drawing and owned a

65: 1758: 1646: 1612:

Hope this makes you feel better. Barnstars are like Christmas presents to us, Knowledge editors.

1569: 1498:. The comments you removed were about the article concerned, when they were written. Please see 1522: 689: 652: 2184:-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the 1729: 1655: 1581: 1550: 1088: 341: 311: 176: 142: 2193: 1168:

be removed just because you say so, you are not in that kind of position. Again, how about

1080: 1018:

has been locked now as well, so can somebody at least give a proper explanation for once?--

1015: 998: 887: 870:

takes place at a different time. But if it didn't, once again, it would just make the film

618: 457: 357: 291: 1032:

Usage of non-free media is highly restricted, its usage must comply with all 10 points of

8: 1779: 1503: 1257: 1220: 1104:

of publicity photographs on Knowledge. Why haven't all thousands of those been removed?--

646: 443: 233: 765:

films aimed at the Latin American market aren't dubbed "unofficial" on the series' page.

1613: 1540: 210: 196: 50: 35: 456:

You are wrong sir, and your changes shall be reversed. Thank you and have a nice day.

2185: 2124: 2069: 2013: 1957: 1901: 1845: 1708:. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may 1473: 1440: 1398: 1360: 1322: 1283: 1247: 1155: 1143: 1076: 1063: 1045: 695: 433: 403: 394:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

202: 119: 110:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

61: 1725: 1715: 1650: 1577: 1450: 1408: 1379: 1337: 1303: 1264: 1198: 1179: 1128: 1105: 1019: 956: 902: 714: 513: 494: 493:

sequel. It has nothing to do with me disliking either of the films, so calm down.--

361: 337: 322: 307: 220: 138: 2401: 2349: 2297: 2245: 2189: 1573: 1092: 994: 986: 287: 244: 1705: 2181: 1317:

what defines Star Trek. Scream's impact and influences cannot compare to that.

1216: 922:

is the actual follow-up to Silence and an installment in the film series while

1690:

that was created to violate Knowledge policy. Note that multiple accounts are

1535:

for opinions on that. (It's also the busiest WikiProject that I am linking).

1499: 1212: 1033: 990: 667: 206: 165: 2326: 2274: 2222: 2120: 2065: 2046: 2009: 1990: 1953: 1934: 1897: 1878: 1841: 1822: 1469: 1436: 1394: 1356: 1318: 1279: 1243: 1151: 1059: 1041: 1010: 431:

believe it shouldn't be considered "official and canonical"? This is not a

399: 395: 115: 111: 81: 57: 39: 1599: 576: 369: 365: 85: 1572:

usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be

1101: 2397: 2345: 2293: 2241: 599: 336:

Then I yield! I apologize for my mistake and I appreciate the reply.

1239: 1194: 2203:

Orphaned non-free image File:Sarah Michelle Gellar in The Grudge.jpg

2134:

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Saw Blu-ray Collection.jpg

1527:

Since Marvel and DC universe all originated in comics. You can go

1492:

Please stop removing the comments of others on article talk pages

1355:

film. The Star Trek related income is in the Billions of dollars.

926:

is just a film based on the same novel. It has nothing to do with

248: 605: 2079:

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Saw official poster.jpg

582: 256: 56:

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend,

1556: 1449:

Aren't screencaps of copyrighted material non-free as well? --

1911:

Orphaned non-free image File:Final Destination series set.jpg

1630: 1040:

that existed for just over 8 years that was a complete hoax.

570: 423:

is an "unofficial, uncanonical sequel"... Is it just because

2307:

Orphaned non-free image File:The Exorcist anthology DVD.jpg

1799:

Orphaned non-free image File:Poster for Ju-on 5 & 6.jpg

1531:

for opinions. Buffyverse originated in film so I recommend

1242:

has a lot of images, however only 2 of them are non-free.

2255:

Orphaned non-free image File:Ju-on The Curse 2 poster.jpg

981:

Your posting to the Administrator's Vandalism Noticeboard

168:, and it actually was partially filmed and set in Canada. 1215:

policy regarding inclusion of rationales, etc., etc. --

1704:, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban 360:, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages 84:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2359:

Orphaned non-free image File:Tristana Medeiros REC.jpg

2060: