User talk:Wrath X - Knowledge

4802:

identity Shortcut MOS:GENDERID Main biographical article on a person whose gender might be questioned Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). Direct quotations may need to be handled as exceptions (in some cases adjusting the portion used may reduce apparent contradictions, and "" may be used where necessary). The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first.

1282:- most of what you did in this edit is fine - a lot was written before the game was out and thus using developer statements to qualify things about gameplay. However, as a note in the future, there is no reason that the developers or other third-party reactions can't be named in the plot or gameplay sections, if they have made a statement about either that helps to clarify the topic, that's great, as that's more out-of-universe and the better style we want. For example, one part you removed (in an earlier edit) was about the comparisons various journalists made about Columbia, including Levine's quote about the Death Star; that information is not inappropriate to include in the plot section, though arguable it is clunky text for the section and removal can be seen as appropriate. But just as a caution that plot and gameplay don't have to be as "pure" from development information, if it flows right and explains things better. -- 2862:

endorsed soundtrack isn't. The recent consensus agrees that they should be ordered in list of contribution, I mean, the writer field already is. Hondo is even clearly credited as "lead composer" in the game anyway. And of course all four writers should be listed, the "three or less" rule really applies when people try to add every writer in the game, ending up with 10 or something. Not having any listed because it's more than the general guideline is asinine, and fails to improve the article at all. I also don't mean to be rude or hostile, but if Konami properly did their credits, instead of splitting both composers into two seperate sections (one for "music", other for "composition"), this wouldn't even be an issue. ~

4082: 4721: 2140:

Syncopy Inc. had a larger role in that film than in either The Dark Knight or The Dark Knight Rises. I'm inclined to side with the American Film Institute because these films are the intellectual property of an American film studio (Warner Bros.) and were produced by an American production company (Legendary Pictures). Syncopy Inc. was cited as a production addition namely due to the fact that it Christopher Nolan's company, but to warrant a country of origin for solely Syncopy Inc. is not wise.

618: 4879: 846: 4499: 5210: 6206: 6066: 5825: 5444: 5131: 4288: 4200: 4144: 3255: 3059: 2499: 2443: 2387: 1902: 1846: 563: 5037: 2580:"Originally there" is not a valid reason. "Terrorism in fiction" is already covered by its subcategory "Films about terrorism". Adding both is redundant. Moreover, according to Category:Terrorism in fiction, "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable. This category may require frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large. It should directly contain very few, if any, articles and should mainly contain subcategories." 6260: 6120: 5636: 5503: 5336: 4962: 4375: 3959: 1099: 962: 297:, about your recent edits. I want to be clear that I do not feel you have done anything substantively wrong, it is simply that a very large number of edits, in a relatively short amount of time, especially in the absence of edit summaries, is puzzling to other editors, and it is difficult to discern the reasoning behind the changes you have made. We would like you to take the opportunity to provide that explanation, please. Thanks! --- 3540: 657: 3623: 3313: 3129: 1677: 712: 4620: 4108: 4031: 5083: 4759: 2984: 2697: 200: 156: 121: 2247:

Nolan, Legendary Pictures was the main production arm of the film. Look up Legendary Pictures and you'll see it was this production company that brought The Dark Knight to Chicago and set up everything with regards to the production of the film, this truly is quite easy as any search would suffice. Nobody is removing any sort of citation for the British Film Institute so your point is moot.

1026: 793: 2925:. I didn't oppose since I thought he made a good point. Then you come along and do the same thing I did. I revert your edits, edit war ensues, and then Soetermans takes your side. Lol. Basically, I'm in the wrong regardless of whether I follow or go against the template. This isn't the first time I exceeded the infobox limit and got reverted by editors who cited 6223:. 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 6083:. 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 5842:. 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 4305:. 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 4219:. 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 4163:. 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 2518:. 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 2462:. 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 2406:. 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 1921:. 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 1865:. 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 582:. 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 5094:. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at 2305:

British Film Institute citation due to the fact that we have contradicting institutions as to where the country of origin is. So, I decided to merely add it in addition to the British Film Institute citation, so both citations describe each country of origin according to both the American and British

4253:

Please be more careful about editing infoboxes. While your edits haven't broken anything, you have been reverted a couple times lately for jumping the gun. Changing templates can put a lot of load on the server, especially widely used ones like infoboxes, and those changes can take a long time to be

3595:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

2950:

infobox should stay the way it is. According to the ending credits, MGS4 has a total of 11 music writers; all are credited as "music", no one is credited as "Lead Composer" or just "Composer". However the opening credits only list two music writers: Harry Gregson-Williams and Nobuko Toda. Listing 11

2840:

lists Marlon Brando first in the credits, then that's how it should in the infobox despite him not being the main character. Moreover, I get that you want Kojima listed as producer and writer as he's pretty famous and he's the creator of the franchise. But the game credits him equally with the other

737:

5928:

You should not revert this on "Maybe we should talk to the project then." and link to an offsite source. Knowledge's guidelines aren't driven by offsite sources, they're driven by .... Knowledge's guidelines. If you want them changed, you discuss it at the template or project, rather than edit war.

2891:

I guess I won't mind Ludvig Forssell being listed first in the composer field since he is credited "Lead Composer", and Daniel James being omitted entirely since he isn't even mentioned in the opening credits. But if the credits had explicitly stated "Music by Justin Burnett and Ludvig Forssell" as

6010:

BUT, as pointed out by you, the "technical/design directors" are mentioned after the "lead programmer/designer" in the template documentation. And you're saying that the infobox is supposed to follow that same order. Personally, I thought that the infobox should list the head staff however they're

2959:

infoboxes only list the composers appearing in the opening credits so I think this game should do the same. Moreover, MGS4's opening credits explicitly state: "Music - Harry Gregson-Williams - Nobuko Toda"; Williams and Toda are credited equally, with no lead among them, and with Williams credited

2896:

for example; its credits state "Music by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard" therefore Zimmer should be listed before Howard in the infobox. Going to the OST to check if Zimmer really wrote more tracks than Howard would be overdoing it. Another problem with using the OST is that they also contain

2845:

series, and he is already listed as those in the infobox. Honestly, I don't mind if the staff limit can be extended a bit but until that happens the infobox should stick to the current template. It's infuriating; I list more than three writers in an article only to be corrected by someone and then

459:

Oh! I'm alright with it. I was afraid you might read it like that. I don't even know why I left the above message to begin with; it doesn't accomplish much, it's silly, and it reads way too grumpy and upset. Don't cancel the nom, and I'm sorry for any problems, concerns, etc. my silliness may have

5191:

Changing established setups like this which are approved for use in infoboxes needs to stop. The functionality is new so there are of course fewer articles using than not. This is a featured article, that was approved as such while using Wikidata, so that should be all you need to know about it's

2246:

Warner Bros. is the distributor of the film (owns the intellectual property) but Legendary Pictures was the main production company of the film along with DC Comics. This is why it's introduced that way, friend. Syncopy Inc. was involved as well but mainly as a producer credit towards Christopher

4770:. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at 2139:

The American Film Institute does not credit the United Kingdom as the country of origin for either The Dark Knight or The Dark Knight Rises so this is why the AFI citation was placed. The American Film Institute only cites Great Britain as the country of origin in Batman Begins; this was because

408:

Thanks for your work on The Godfather. My edits there are not meant to disrespect your contribution in any way. Your ideas are fine. As I'm sure you are aware, everyone on Knowledge is edited, both of us included. I don't expect all my suggestions will be accepted, and neither will all of yours.

5089:

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files)

4765:

2861:

Original research is me asking the composers themselves. "Going out of my way" to fact-find violates that? Isn't that what a source is? I get what you mean about the actor credits, but screentime/who's the main character in a film is debatable, number of contributions from the game's officially

6021:

2. Max Payne 3's opening credits have one "lead producer" and 3 "producers". As mentioned previously, I would opt to list the head staff even if their labels didn't strictly follow the documentation so I prioritise the "lead producer". On the other hand you would opt to follow the order in the

5961:

and it does indeed say that "technical director" is synonymous with "lead programmer"; similarly it also says "design director" is a synonym for "lead designer" and of course it also mentions "art director" together with "lead artist". I'm going to add an edit summary in the article citing the

2232:

states "defining the nationality of a film is a complex task. There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film." Consequently "preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety." It

436:

problems!) and it's not your fault I was too lazy to nominate it myself. You're welcome to it. Anywho, I think the reception section it still a bit short, even for a GA, though there isn't a shortage of reviews on the talk page. And I seem to remember a discuzsion deciding against flagicons in

4801:

Hi. You recently made an edit without seeking consensus while suggesting that consensus should be sought. When discovering it had been reached, you again changed it back, again without seeking consensus. So here is the section of the style guide that led to the consensus being reached. Gender

2813:

I agree, but the discussion wasn't started by me, and the more people we get discussing it, the better. Game articles (including GA/FA ranked ones) have always had some exceptions to the infobox guidelines, even without violating any of the current rules, which I thought my edits fell into. ~

2623:

It's a terrorism themed movie hence it's placed in the Films about terrorism category. Subcategories exist so that the main category isn't bloated. Some works such as video games, tv series, plays, etc. don't have terrorism subcategories so they can be placed in the main category Terrorism in

1594:

Irrational Games, right? But Irrational Games is only mentioned once before that in the lead and separately in the infobox, and since the sentence starts off with the word "Irrational" directly followed by "and creative director" it might not be immediately clear for the average reader that

4387:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

4974:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2675:

In general, actors billed above the title are considered the film's stars, while those below the title, in what is called the billing box, are featured actors. If there are no actors listed above the title, then those in the billing box can be considered to be the film's stars.

2194:, stating that "defining the nationality of a film is a complex task." At no point does it mention the American Film Institute as the ultimate single source for film information. Other sources such as the British Film Institute and Lumiere itself must be taken in to account. Out. 1304:, while rewriting the prose is good, I'm a bit concerned about using the manual for everything, particularly when we can use third party sourcing for the same; personally I'd use the latter but I can understand using the primary source in other cases. I've opened the question at 6017:

1. The template documentation actually mentions "art director" before "lead artist" in contrast to "technical/design director" being mentioned after "lead programmer/designer". Is this not inconsistent? Does this mean that we prioritise "art director" over "lead artist" in the

4558:

Hello, Since you have made a considerable contribution to the Christopher Nolan biography I wanted to let you know that I've started working on a separate article for his filmography. If you have any opinions on that, feel free to let your voice be heard on Nolan's talk page.

2075:. It clearly states that "screenplay" is to be used only when there is a "story" credit. Also, please stop replacing "plainlist" with "plain list". "plainlist" is the name of the template, and you're linking to a redirect. This is the second time I've had to mention this. 2798:, where the focus is the template. Moreover, I don't mind much if the template is changed, but I do want the infoboxes in articles to stick to the template. That is why, until the template itself is changed then the article infoboxes will abide by the current template. -- 2736: 2201:

All major film schools are associated with the American Film Institute and this in its itself created the reputation it currently has. Furthermore, this was an American production done by Legendary Pictures which was the primary production company on the set.

2835:

original research. You have to manually go out of your way to see who wrote tracks in the OST as opposed to listing staff as how the game (primary source) objectively lists them. If the game lists Williams first then that's how it should be in the infobox. If

3023: 6022:

documentation. For the producer field, the documentation mentions "producer" first and in fact doesn't even mention "lead producer". Does this mean then that you believe that the 3 "producers" in Max Payne 3 ought to be listed above the one "lead producer"?

3881:

Sorry about making such a big deal about it. I've been cleaning up a lot of vandalism and hoaxing lately, and it's left me too short-tempered about minor stuff. I couldn't understand why you were changing the templates around, and i probably should have

5981:

title to look for, not as the preferred title. The Max Payne 3 credits use both titles however. As the actual Lead Programmers are designated, that title should be preferred. Right now, the actual lead programmers have been removed from the infobox. --

3971:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

3035: 2748: 1728: 1716: 5721:

Hi Wrath can you take another look at the infobox of this game. This idiot is messing about with it and I honestly don't know enough about the credits to keep arguing with them and they're too ignorant to understand "discuss it on the talk page"

4449:? You constantly add new talk sections and responses and then remove them before anyone has a chance to reply. If you're not going to wait, just don't post it. I had read that one last night and planned to reply today but I'll just leave it. -- 4475:

You shouldn't expect Knowledge to move so fast. You might be posting in the middle of the night while other interested editors are asleep, or busy at work, etc. Give things some time. Even if no one replies, no harm in letting it sit there. --

2261:

My main issue is that the AFI link states the films to be only American, while the BFI states them to both an American and British production. That's why I'd rather use the latter link. And of course, avoid redundant links. Moreover, my point

5976:

I feel you're not listening, especially since I just said not to use edit summaries and dummy edits to hold discussions. Yes, the documentation offers that Technical director is sometimes used instead of lead programmer. It denotes this as a

5299: 1603:. Same goes for the subject of this new section: you could see it as an "edit that is irrational" or an "editing of/at Irrational". I'm not saying that the previous revision was better somehow, but it could be interpreted differently. -- 2777:

EDIT: If you aren't going to actually contribute to the discussion, then why be so pedantic with the outdated guidelines? I'd like to resolve this soon, and your input on something other than the edit summaries would be appreciated ~

1641:

Thanks for that, I'm glad I could make you see my point. English isn't my mother tongue, and even though I consider myself to be very proficient in the language, it can be quite hard to explain stuff like that. I've pinged you on the

2288:(maybe because Superman fights for the American way?). Our discussions are getting us nowhere as agreements are only reached through a consensus. Honestly, I'm much more frustrated by the fact that no one but me has responded to the 2882:

That was not a consensus, only two people agreed (Mable, PresN); I'm not even sure about Mable since he actually said "order or hierarchy credited makes more sense" with PresN noting that was the opposite of what you said. Anyway,

5286:

articles, particularly with finding the awards that I missed (and fixing up my frequent mistakes). I wanted to seek your opinion about a different format for the Accolades article; rather than trying to imitate the format set by

5778:

I actually agree that we can list more than 3. I am however more reluctant to do this for sub-leads since they don't lead the overall department and there generally tends to be several of them (potentially bloating the field).

2216:

Did you work on the film? How do you know which company was on set? The film credits state "Warner Bros. Pictures presents, in association with Legendary Pictures, a Syncopy Production". The film is explicitly stated to be

4583: 3758:

is the star. Period.Now, all this has been explained to you before, and it seems, from looking at your talk page, that you don;t pay attention to what people are saying, simply close your eyes and ears and pretend that

2280:(all of which state "Warner Bros. Pictures presents, in association with Legendary Pictures, a Syncopy Production" in their respective credits). Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't removed the United Kingdom entry in 1278:

First, I really appreciate the work you're doing on the BI article; nearly all you've done to date is fine. I did restore those two paras you removed only because the aspects were heavily sourced. One other comment

2732: 3214:. 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 5091: 4767: 540:

I am trying to edit the plot for Godfather, but I am having a disagreement with User:Ring-Cinema on the talk page. I was wondering if you would like to add to the discussion your thoughts on the plot draft.

1104: 1092: 5098:, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the 4774:, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the 3751:

that actor is the star of the film. This is how the film business works, and you cannot ignore it or wave it away. The rest of the actors on the poster are co-stars, or featured actors, but the person

6011:

labelled and that it necessarily didn't have to strictly follow the labels of the documentation. However, you're saying that if I want to dispute this then I should start a discussion in the talk page.

878:

edit, but then restored them after looking more closely and seeing that another editor, Indopug, had reinserted stylistic errors and even a large number of dead links. FYI, I have a discussion open at

3019: 6289:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 6149:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 5663:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 5530:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 5363:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 5027: 4986:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 4399:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3983:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2510: 2491: 1586:

for that matter), but the reason why I changed the wording because of the following: the sentence is "Irrational and creative director Ken Levine...", which means to say Ken Levine is both director

673:. 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 1440: 2595:

It's still a terrorism themed movie. Please leave it in anyway. I have many other movies listed in that same category. You're better off removing all the movies in that category at that rate...

651: 6039:

I'm actually on team "We should remove credits from infoboxes unless notable and linkable". To get clarification on the template's instructions, I recommend posting to the template or WP:VG. --

5053: 1712: 935: 929: 1857: 2301:

I also hate redundant links but as to why the British Film Institute solely gets citations when this is an American financed and American intellectual property is beyond me. I didn't change

4830: 1838: 4297: 2901:

soundtrack but since they were all songs and not the music score then he shouldn't be in the film infobox. OSTs also, I think anyway, can omit certain tracks from the film, game, etc..

6305: 6165: 5679: 5546: 5379: 5303: 5043: 5028: 5002: 4415: 4211: 3999: 1397: 4282: 1433: 4608: 2310:

article had no citation when I came across it and the American Film Institute stated the country of origin was United States, so this is why the article solely has a AFI citation.

6274: 6134: 5834: 5649: 5516: 5349: 4192: 1131:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 994:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 1393: 5736:

If it's any help the end credits of the game list the staff alphabetically by surname. As for the editor, if they keep doing this then maybe request protection for the page? --

4346: 3807: 2134: 1785:, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at 933:, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at 1787: 5819: 1127:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

990:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

665: 4708:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting

6215: 2398: 2379: 574: 265:

Thank you for responding. Having examined many of your revisions, I had never imagined that your editing was anything other than well-intended. Well done! Kind regards,

2172:

The American Film Institute is not only the most prestigious, but also the most reputable source for film information; with that said, I'm going to take their word for it.

2454: 2362: 2158: 1913: 555: 5935:. You made a bold edit. I reverted it, with a guideline (template documentation) backed reason. You should revert yourself and open the wider discussion you desire. -- 4155: 3793:, and yet you ignore it and still continue to edit how you want. Responding to you will yield no results. This matter will be discussed with other editors... again. -- 2435: 1148: 814: 684:

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

4591: 4584: 193: 1894: 967: 955: 5047:, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the 6075: 5871: 1464: 1379: 1326: 6007:) credit the "technical/design/art director" ahead of the "lead programmer/designer/artist"; to me this suggests the former roles take precedence over the latter. 3739:, are obligated to report that to our readers. THere is no "must", for instanxce, about the billing box. As has been told to you before, when an actor's name is 5075: 2186:

Where are your sources that the "American Film Institute is not only the most prestigious, but also the most reputable source for film information"? Knowledge's

2089: 1989: 1517: 1206: 701: 5070: 4243: 2884: 6200: 4864: 4136: 3851: 1062: 2892:

opposed to "Music by Justin Burnett; Lead Composer Ludvig Forssell" then Burnett should be listed above Forssel per the credits. Do you agree with this? Take

5295: 4898: 1153: 837: 482: 432:

for GA. Makes me a bit jealous as there haven't been many editors other than me (though I've ignored it lately). But then that's my problem (Ack! I'm having

2542: 1116:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 979:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 3903: 3554:. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 2149: 1889: 1781: 1452: 321: 274: 3082:

with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Knowledge's

1171: 4248: 4017: 2345: 2311: 2248: 2203: 2173: 2141: 253: 1535: 1482: 1344: 1120:

if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

983:

if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

5090:

normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to

4849: 4766:

normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to

1825: 5925:

Please don't use Edit summaries to hold a discussion. You made a change. I reverted it based on a reading of the documentation of Infobox video game.

5423:. I tried adding real world information but it lack in-universe so it's quite incomplete. If you can add more important information I'd appreciate it. 4329: 1167: 500: 6060: 5706: 5572: 4751: 4440: 5405: 5020: 4433: 2430: 1531: 1478: 1340: 677:

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

5866: 5288: 5245: 5174: 4894: 3094: 1011: 783: 140:. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! 5238: 3157: 3087: 606: 496: 5757:

a hard limit by the way. We can list up to five or so if their importance dictates it, although this doesn't change anything in Sekiro's case. ~

5076: 3948: 3842:

is a redirect to the proper name of the template. What are you trying to accomplish by replacing a template with a redirect to the proper name?

3515: 2486: 1234: 1207: 3243: 2841:

three writers, thus all four writers should be treated equally. Besides, Kojima is primarily notable for being the designer and director of the

1945: 347: 5915: 5487: 4891:

Hello, I recently read the article on Abbé Pierre that you edited.I was wondering if you knew if he had any children, or any living relatives?

3152:

with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Knowledge's

2651: 2603: 2560: 1512: 1427: 1374: 2221:". Also, two of the film's three producers are Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan, both of whom are the heads of Syncopy. That means something. 2129: 2055: 1565: 5119: 923: 397: 5788:

s infobox has 5 people listed as programmers but since they're credited as "lead programmers" I don't mind. Had the various lead artists of

1201: 530: 343: 6332: 6192: 5291: 4948: 4187: 3943: 3778: 3008: 2721: 1701: 403: 377: 5173:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's

3093:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's

5626: 5493: 4277: 4072: 2211: 2181: 1305: 3895: 3876: 5478:

I see you have reverted, then please give a reason for your change in the appropriate page. You have been warned about this before...

5326: 4954: 4791: 4458: 4367: 864: 810: 674: 418: 6247: 624: 617: 5895: 4843:

doesn't have a story writer nor does it officially credit a source material, so the use of writer field is the de facto. Please read

4752: 3923: 3786:

You accuse me of not paying attention to people, even though you're the one ignoring consensus and the template rules. Most recently

3419: 2109: 2005: 1545: 1492: 1407: 1354: 1301: 1181: 1136: 1086: 999: 685: 510: 357: 3047: 2319: 2256: 2241: 1458: 5813: 5244:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Knowledge's

4796: 4076: 3488: 3163:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Knowledge's

2977: 2969: 2873: 2825: 2760: 6235: 6095: 5854: 4317: 4231: 4175: 2530: 2474: 2418: 1933: 1877: 1662: 1636: 950: 594: 6107: 5274: 4446: 3729:. We do not simply write down what's on a film's credits., If there is researc from a reputable and reliable source -- and the 3447: 2690: 1994:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

1833: 678: 669:. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Knowledge may not meet the criteria required by 4825: 4811: 3527: 6252: 6112: 4464:

Sorry about that. I guess I was getting frustrated that no one was replying quickly. I'll try to be more patient next time. --

4119: 3193: 2637: 2589: 2296: 1984: 1809: 1740: 476: 6048: 6034: 5991: 5971: 2951:

composers would be a too much for the infobox so I think only Williams and Toda should be listed per the opening credits. The

1538:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1485:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1400:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1347:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1174:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 503:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 350:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 5891: 5765: 5167: 4836: 4485: 3919: 3916:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3867:

was the proper name since plainlist is technically not a real word. I didn't know it was actually a redirect. My mistake. --

3563: 2105: 2102:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2001: 1998:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1541: 1488: 1403: 1350: 1177: 799: 506: 353: 5321: 6328: 6188: 5702: 5568: 5401: 5016: 4569: 4524: 4429: 4013: 3239: 2897:

songs which definitely should not be taken into account in the infobox. Phil Collins made significant contributions to the

2289: 1432: 1320: 681:; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. 4933: 4362: 3638: 3324: 5058: 4535: 1792: 1670: 940: 689: 5621: 3787: 5748: 4594:. Apologies for the delay in closing this RFC, there is a backlog of closures I'm working through when I can. Cheers, 4577: 3226:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1052: 631: 535: 316: 109: 6219:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 6079:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 5838:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4921: 4301:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4215:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 4159:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2771: 2663: 2643:

Then I suggest you get rid of all the movies in that category and move it into the "films about terrorism" category.

2615: 2572: 2514:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2458:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 2402:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1917:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1861:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 578:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 550: 5581: 4860: 3588: 234:

Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit, and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for

4902: 4268:

after the first time you were reverted, it should have moved to discussion, rather than doing it a second time. --

3460: 3283: 2084: 2795: 1657: 1614: 1385: 1228: 1080: 1046: 5730: 4654:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The

3188: 3122: 1280: 149: 6324: 6184: 5698: 5564: 5472: 5397: 5103: 5012: 4779: 4425: 4258: 4068: 4009: 3235: 2846:

you come along and do the same thing as me and I have to be the one to correct you. Then the edit war ensues. --

2547: 2233:

doesn't matter if YOU think the American Film Institute is the most important source, because Knowledge doesn't.

1950: 1804: 1619: 1245: 1113: 976: 828: 393: 270: 249: 4714: 3612: 2353: 4839:, the "screenplay" infobox field is used if films divide writing credits between screenplay and story writers. 4746: 4024: 3709: 3674: 3555: 3523: 3430: 3395: 3360: 2713: 1770: 1108:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 971:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 204: 6224: 6084: 5843: 5185:, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in 4514: 4306: 4220: 4164: 3482: 3302: 2519: 2463: 2407: 1922: 1866: 1121: 984: 918: 646: 583: 4911: 4655: 4624: 3908:

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

3412: 2887:: it's an RFC with editors voicing their opposition or support with a consensus reached. But never mind, for 2789: 2659: 2611: 2568: 2094:

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

1522:

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

1469:

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

1384:

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

1336: 1331:

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

1158:

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

1128: 1016: 991: 824: 471: 448: 188: 160: 125: 52: 31: 4493: 4131: 3453: 778: 6298: 6158: 5672: 5539: 5372: 5234: 5214: 5163: 5139: 4995: 4519: 4408: 4049: 3992: 3686: 3642: 3571: 3547: 3372: 3328: 3259: 3133: 3083: 3067: 1294: 1268: 762: 437:

infoboxes. Hope you don't take those first few sentences seriously. Plain text reads harshly. :P ~Cheers,

308: 57: 16: 5432: 3566:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

2685: 2344:

The American Film Institute does not credit the United Kingdom as the country of origin for Man of Steel.

6310: 6170: 5958: 5944: 5793: 5684: 5551: 5384: 5007: 4869: 4420: 4103: 4004: 3802: 3690: 3575: 3376: 3231: 3105:, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through 2926: 2922: 2855: 2807: 766: 294: 5269: 5203: 5051:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

4081: 891: 6220: 6080: 5839: 5727: 5226: 5182: 5155: 5095: 4771: 4573: 4358: 4334: 4239: 4063: 3891: 3847: 3422:

is going on about the things you are editing. Please stop now and wait for it to be finished first. ···

3102: 2080: 1980: 1775: 1447: 1262: 670: 453: 389: 266: 245: 145: 4030: 5876:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

5483: 5468: 5420: 5257: 5186: 4602: 4553: 3769:

get you blocked from editing, and I strongly advise you to stop, now, before you hit a wall of crap.

3733:

is certainly that -- which expands, contradicts or gives firther context to the credits, then we, as

3696: 3583: 3382: 3279: 3176: 3110: 2191: 2028: 67: 5877: 5222: 5151: 5048: 4739: 3184: 3149: 3118: 3079: 2284:

articles seeing as how you keep insisting they are only American productions, but have done so for

1995: 1757:, and I just wanted to drop by and personally say thank you for providing a good reference for the 642: 61: 4944: 4929: 4666: 4531: 3774: 3730: 3705: 3293:

Please do not just remove sourced material until we reach a conclusion on the talk page. Thanks.

3137: 3063: 2681: 1766: 1570: 1239: 909:. As a registered editor who has edited that page over the past year, you may wish to comment. -- 466: 443: 300: 168: 34:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 3649:

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

3335:

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

1816: 945: 3682: 3654: 3630: 3567: 3551: 3368: 3340: 3320: 3298: 3043: 2960:

above Toda so I think that Williams should be listed first in the infobox with Toda second. --

2756: 2349: 2315: 2252: 2207: 2177: 2145: 2013: 1736: 1273: 1220: 1072: 1038: 896: 758: 706: 176: 89:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out 38: 27: 2266:

be moot if you weren't removing the United Kingdom entry and its accompanying BFI link in the

6286: 6146: 5723: 5660: 5527: 5360: 5253: 5135: 4983: 4856: 4844: 4671: 4396: 4354: 4235: 4089: 3980: 3887: 3843: 3534: 3307: 3248: 2869: 2821: 2785: 2234: 2229: 2225: 2187: 2076: 2069: 1976: 1829: 1444: 414: 286: 184: 172: 141: 106: 94: 82: 74: 5804:

list no more than three people in this field" or something similar. Just my take though. --

4341: 1625:

I understand what you're saying, and good point. I'll rename it to "Irrational Games". ---

6297:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 6157:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5885: 5671:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5538:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5479: 5464: 5371:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 5308:. If you have any opinions on the matter, I would really value your input. Thanks again. – 4994:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4691: 4596: 4565: 4407:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4113: 3991:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3511: 3275: 3222:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3171:

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through

3052: 2995:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

2708:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

2647: 2599: 2556: 2339: 2060: 1688:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

1651: 1608: 1144: 1007: 78: 5154:

with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the

4590:

Hi Wrath X. This is a courtesy note to let you know I've closed an RFC you initiated, at

2552:

Why do you keep editing the article? It was originally there, keep the category, please.

8: 5920: 5414: 5230: 5159: 5099: 4775: 4731: 4710: 3913: 3861: 3836: 3826: 3678: 3646: 3559: 3364: 3332: 3227: 3180: 3172: 3114: 3106: 2268: 1969: 750: 697: 638: 235: 90: 5888:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 1213:

The articles are arranged by article name, not character names. Do not re-arrange them.

5716: 5437: 5124: 4940: 4925: 4821: 4807: 4527: 4127: 3816: 3770: 3701: 3617: 3519: 3436: 3401: 3288: 3000: 2765: 2677: 2237:

treats the AFI on equal standing as other sources, such as the British Film Institute.

1959: 1762: 1745: 1159: 914: 887: 461: 438: 114: 43: 293:

I hope that you will take a moment and come to the talk page and join the discussion,

6268: 6128: 5911: 5902: