Misplaced Pages

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©_ontributions 01:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You deleted my edits because it SEEMED wrong?

You delete my edits to Trap Lord album by A$AP Ferg because it SEEMED wrong? You can't delete stuff because it seems wrong to you. So your telling me that I randomly picked songs and said that they sampled it? Fucker it's on WhoSampled just type in ASAP Ferg and you are gonna look stupid as fuck.

Have a nice day fag!

Whoa watch out with the personal attacks, and if you actually provided a source i wouldn't have reverted it. Koala15 (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 in hip hop

Source? Keep in mind if the push backs are real, we need to also update the artists articles with the respective sources. If you removed them just for being unlikly, I do not think we should remove any just for that reason, I mean ELE2 has a single, and another one waiting release, Hustle Gang makes more sense since BoB said they barely started really recording it last month. STATic message me! 03:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Most blogs are reporting the Busta Rhymes album is set for 2014, like and . Koala15 (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks, also double thanks I had no idea "Thank You" was released today, I have been awaiting this song for awhile. STATic message me! 04:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on Misplaced Pages

Did you seriously just try to insult me over a genre change? I was only trying to establish a consensus on the Misplaced Pages talk page instead of starting an edit war. You refused to discuss our disagreement and then attempted to insult me in the edit summary. That was really immature. Seriously, grow up. Metalfan72 (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In what way did i insult you? Koala15 (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Monsters, Inc.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages. However, please remember that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Monsters, Inc.. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

How it is inappropiate that the {{redirect}} template is "incorrect" if "Monster Inc." redirects to the film, and there is a company legally operating as "Monster Inc". Congratulations for the GA status, but you don't own the article to revert other people additions without a valid reason. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 04:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering that you said "Those two things are not even close", when a) Monster Inc. does redirect there and b) Monster (company) is legally registered as "Monster Inc.", I can assert you do, and even if not template:uw-delete1 would apply, but you, then, would have said "I gave a reason". © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 04:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Pawn Stars episodes

Hi. You removed content from Misplaced Pages with this edit of yours to List of Pawn Stars episodes, but without providing a rationale for this in an Edit Summary. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you do not understand it does not mean that it makes no sense. If it didn't make sense to you, then you could've asked me about it, since I wrote it, just as I wrote almost all the material in the article. Sources are needed in order to indicate where one season ends and another begins. The note, which self-explanatorily does this, and is indeed in the right section to do so, addresses this issue, and also addresses the fact that not all sources agree on the question. Nightscream (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you even know what OR is? OR refers to material that is derived from the personal knowledge of the editor, as opposed to being derived from sources. The material in question explicitly discusses what the sources say, so the idea that it's OR is inane. Which section do you think a note about the sources from which the material in the article is derived belongs in? The next time you blank relevant content from an article without a valid rationale or edit summary, I will contact an uninvolved admin and have you blocked from editing. Nightscream (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

"First of all the episode list is self explanatory..."

But where it comes from is not. Sources are needed to indicate where seasons begin and end, in part because most seasons have a mid-season hiatus that some editors have confused for the end of the season, which is one of the reason the note became necessary. And because some sources contradict the others, explaining to the reader which sources the article info is based on is valid. Since sources go in the Ref section, notes that further explain those notes go in that section. The Bloomberg article is one of the sources cited to support the article's version of the seasons. Your statements, therefore, are without merit. Nightscream (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Good work! Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Toy Story 2

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Toy Story 2 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mediran -- Mediran (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for The Marshall Mathers LP 2

On 10 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Marshall Mathers LP 2, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "Berzerk", produced by Rick Rubin, and "Survival", which appears in Call of Duty: Ghosts, are both songs from Eminem's eighth studio album, The Marshall Mathers LP 2? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Marshall Mathers LP 2. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Berzerk (song)

On 10 November 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Berzerk (song), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that "Berzerk", produced by Rick Rubin, and "Survival", which appears in Call of Duty: Ghosts, are both songs from Eminem's eighth studio album, The Marshall Mathers LP 2? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop changing my edits. This is the second time your changing something I have done with reliable sources.

Yes WhoSampled is user generated however they show solid proof of the sample. Maybe you have never used WhoSample which is why you love changing my edits.

I repeat STOP changing my edits when I have solid evidence. In regards to Albert Einstein album by Prodigy & The Alchemist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyschopathicMan (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Communication

Mind making a note on my talk page before reverting my edits? Just because I'm anonymous doesn't mean I'm fighting you or anything, but whatever. 75.141.15.56 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem man, i just thought it was unnecessary to make a separate "Response from ABC" section. Koala15 (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A Bug's Life track listing debate

I'm not going to revert your edit, but I thought I'd address the comments you made in your edit summary:

First of all: I read the discussion the talk page differently. It basically goes like this, from top to bottom: omit, keep (you), , agree with omit (me), agree with omit, , omit. This is hardly "only one guy in favor of it", assuming "it" is the change you reverted. It looks like consensus to me.

Second: Yes, we should remove the track listings from any article where it doesn't add anything, per the guideline. This is not a black and white issue, i.e. keep them all or remove them all, with no room for anything in between - a track listing in one article is not necessarily just as as valid or invalid as another. In this case, and probably in the case of plenty of other articles, it adds very little, except to indiscriminately (in my opinion) collect information. Also, "it's already this way everywhere else", i.e. inertia, does not trump consensus, guidelines, or policy.

Like I said, I'm not going to revert (though someone else might), but I disagree with your reasons for putting the track listing back.

--Fru1tbat (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I just don't get it, it used to say in the guidelines that we should put the soundtracks in the movie articles, did someone rewrite it? And almost every other animated film article has the soundtracks in them. And the dude just blocked me for 3 hours with no warning, this is ridiculous. Koala15 (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@Koala15, I have briefly blocked you in order to give you an opportunity to reconsider your interpretation of consensus in the dispute at Talk:A Bug's Life. I will be glad to unblock you when you are willing to abide by the determination of consensus reached in the discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bro, that is very unprofessional of you to block me without warning. Isn't that abusing your admin powers? I mean all i do is revert vandalism all day. And you block me over a disagreement without warning. I mean really? Koala15 (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What did you think would happen when you casually reverted the implementation of a consensus-based close, twice? I have made it clear above that this block is only for so long as it takes you to accept the fact that the discussion at issue ended in a consensus-based close. bd2412 T 20:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

But you could have warned me first and we could have made a compromise. But instead you chose to abuse your power and block me without a warning. It is an insult when all i do is try to improve Misplaced Pages and you block me over a disagreement. Koala15 (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverting consensus-based editorial changes is not improving Misplaced Pages, nor is it merely "disagreement"; it is action against consensus. I tried to explain the outcome of the discussion to you, and you refused to see it. If my words explaining the discussion do not dissuade you from acting against consensus, why should I have any confidence that words of warning would have any better effect? bd2412 T 20:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you be in favor of moving the soundtrack to a separate page like A Bug's Life (soundtrack)? Koala15 (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you look on the history of that page the soundtrack article was merged into A Bug's Life, were the guidelines against recently rewritten or something? Koala15 (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I have no opinion on the matter one way or another; my only function with respect to this dispute is to determine and implement consensus as to the presentation of the information in this article. Having a separate soundtrack article, if the soundtrack to this film is independently notable, is a matter to broach with other editors of the page. Second, local consensus can override the application of guidelines to a particular article, if editors believe that the article will thereby be made better. I am not participating in the content dispute on this matter. bd2412 T 21:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well you should know your facts before blocking someone over a disagreement. Koala15 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The facts are as follows:

1. There was a discussion, which was initiated nearly a month ago.
2. This discussion resulted in four editors preferring one presentation of material and one editor preferring another presentation.
3. This discussion thereafter went without further comment for over three weeks.
4. This discussion was closed by an administrator with a determination of consensus.

Those are all the facts that are pertinent to this discussion. bd2412 T 21:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. Please respect the consensus arrived at in the dispute at issue here. If you are unable to do so, I will have no choice but to reblock you until you are able to do so. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Alright, i won't revert it again. But i think i will start a discussion to see if we should move it to a separate article. Koala15 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Toy Story 2

The article Toy Story 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Toy Story 2 for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mediran -- Mediran (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For making Toy Story 2 a GA. Keep it up! ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Medieval Chamber

While agreeing that it doesn't look like a very notable subject, A9 doesn't apply because the artistes have an article. A9 is an 'and' criterion - non-notable AND redlinked performer. For an album that passes one of these conditions, prod or AfD are the only options (assuming all the things like spam and copyvio are also passed, which they seem to be...). Peridon (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"Son of the Bronx" Citations

I just wanted to point out that WP:RSN already "ruled" on whether the site could be used . By reverting your edits, I'm not trying to be a jerk. :)--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah you ruled it yourself. Koala15 (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I politely asked them if we could use it (because I did want to use it, since it had numbers the page needs), but someone else said its not a good source.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but that was only one editors opinion, people are still using the source on tons of other pages anyway. Koala15 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foreverly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Edits on Toy Story 2 Plot

Hi Koala15, no offense but could you please explain why you have undone three of my edits on the plot section of the Toy Story 2 page, even when I had explained my edits the second and third times. Broman178 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

As a third party who apparently watches many of the same articles, I would also appreciate it if you would explain your edits. I understand that it can get repetitive, but many of the edits you're reverting were made in good faith, and it's courteous (and considered good practice, especially in this case) to provide some reason. Thanks! --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Like i said to Broman178 the plot was at 699 words and the plot has to be under 700 words. And considering an editor had just trimmed the plot i didn't think it needed anymore detail. Koala15 (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for this late message as I was busy with other things, I can understand what you mean Koala15 but the problem I have with this version of the plot is that it doesn't explain what became of the new Buzz in the end of the film, the edits you have made make an impression that both Buzz Lightyears go back to Andy's house when this doesn't actually happen (since the new Buzz remains behind with Zurg) and this may confuse other people who are reading this plot. I am fine with the other edits you have made in the page and it is true most plots should be below 700 words. However for films which are even longer is that really possible to just keep plots below 700 words because that ends up leaving out important details? Broman178 (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I just want you to know now that I have edited the plot again Koala15 replacing the bit saying Woody believes all owners will discard toys (due to excessive explaining) with a small explanation of the new Buzz remaining behind. However, the plot is now at 695 words, 4 words below your edits and still below 700 words. Please notify me if you are happy with this new change. Broman178 (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Misplaced Pages articles, as you did in the article How to Train Your Dragon 2. It is generally expected that the subjects of Misplaced Pages articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Misplaced Pages's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Sorry, I thought I was deleting that sentence in the future section, not adding it back in. Sb1990 (talk) 05:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Koala15 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wolves, and your arbitrary declarations on inclusion criteria

Hi there. The list of released albums in 2013 in hip hop music is a list of albums released by notable hip hop artists in 2013. It is NOT a list of albums released by artists who have Misplaced Pages articles in 2013. Wolves is a supergroup made up of five artists, three of whom (Ghettosocks, D-Sisive and Muneshine) have their own articles. It is therefore not simply a release by one notable hip hop artist, it is a release by THREE notable hip hop artists. The fact that it redirects to one of those artists' articles is absolutely irrelevant. Now either show me some Wiki policy that backs up your actions, or stop removing the entry. You simply wrote "no redirects", which would mean that even an artist with an article of their own would be denied a listing if they released something under a pseudonym (like Ron Contour, Burgundy Fats, Viktor Vaughn, Black Elvis, etc), which would obviously be absolutely arbitrary and absurd. The issue is notability, not having an article. Try to understand the difference. And also understand that you have no personal authority over the article, and your tendency to arbitrarily declare what can and cannot be included, without citing policy or even explaining yourself, is extremely tiresome, and it's not the way Misplaced Pages works. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Well you have a tendency of creating articles for non notable underground hip hop artists so i can't really trust you. And i had no idea who Wolves were but now i know. Koala15 (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that right? I can count on no fingers the number of my hip hop BLPs that have been deleted. Sleep and Kay the Aquanaut won't be deleted either. You not knowing who the artists are, and you not understanding WP:MUSICBIO, and you not understanding WP:BEFORE, and you not respecting WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, does not make the artists non-notable. I notice from your talk page that you have a history of nominating articles on notable subjects for deletion. I too wonder about your motivation, but mostly I just wonder whether you understand any of these processes. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of your BLPs have been poorly written and barely have any reliable sources. And Sleep already has one delete vote that shows how notable he really is. Koala15 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Poorly written? Most of the BLPs I've created are stubs with infoboxes and discographies; I have rarely added prose. And no, a delete !vote from a user who describes himself as an "aggressive deletionist" (see his user page) and which cites no policy and engages with none of the arguments made in the AfD is actually meaningless, as Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and !votes in an AfD must be backed up with facts and policy-based arguments, his contentless !vote therefore counts for nothing. The !vote says more about the user than it does about the subject. It appears you still don't understand what notability means. Nor do you understand what a reliable source is, as demonstrated by your mixing up of the concepts of reliability and notability. You think 'reliable' means 'notable'. I've explained the difference to you, but you mystified and aggravated people before with your reckless AfD nominations, so you seemingly need to be told something several times before it sinks in. If you're so confident, you are free to argue your position at the AfD, but you will have to appeal to policy and the actual facts, which means that you'll have to understand the policy and give up your arbitrary and unexplained declarations and delusions of authority. Good luck. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because you think an underground rapper is notable does not make him notable. You continue to make theses arguments about how they are notable but you have yet to prove it to me with coverage in reliable sources or charting albums etc, those are the main factors. Koala15 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You realise that there are established notability criteria, yes? Notability criteria is not something Koala15 makes up in his own head. Both artists have been shown to have received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. That is notability criterion #1 at WP:MUSICBIO. If you were familiar with these criteria you would know this, but you're not, as evidenced by your use of WP:GNG over the more specific WP:MUSICBIO in both AfDs. Go to the articles or the AfDs to see these sources (which, as the AfD nominator, you should have already seen - but this is really just another case of you needing to be shown something over and over again, isn't it?). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that both artists meet notability criterion #5 at WP:MUSICBIO, that they have each released two or more albums on an important indie record label (Strange Famous and Circle Into Square). The problem here is not the notability of the artists, it is your unfamiliarity with the notability criteria, your failure to understand what constitutes a reliable source (you think 'reliable' means 'notable'), your ignorance of the subjects, and your arbitrary and reckless habit of nominating articles for deletion. Again, if you're so sure of yourself, then respond to my points on the AfDs. I'm done with this discussion now. Wolves stays, and redirects to notable artists' articles will continue to be added where appropriate. This is your talk page, so feel free to have the last word. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess we shall see what the community thinks of these so called "notable" artists then. But you still have yet to show me these artists coverage in reliable sources. And you calling those record labels important is just an opinion not a fact. Koala15 (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

- Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to respond or swear. Koala15 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Garcia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Incredibles

I see you simply reverted all my changes without an edit summary and without any kind of comment on the talk page of the article. That is not considered to be appropriate Misplaced Pages behavior. Would you please explain on the talk page what you were thinking? Invertzoo (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I was going to pose the same question. Edit summaries are good practice for all edits, but making sweeping reversions to good-faith edits with no explanation is not helpful to the editor who was reverted, or any other editors who are paying attention (me, in this case), and is largely considered bad form. In this case, your reversion fixed a few issues, but also undid several helpful edits. If the reason for the revert is "undoing the last 6 edits because it's easier than picking and choosing", feel free to say so... --Fru1tbat (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well sometimes i forget to use edit summaries but i try to as much as i can. Koala15 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Incredibles continued

I have copied this reply of mine from the talk page for that article because the discussion is no longer simply about that article:

"In this case your opinion was a personal attack; that doesn't make it OK. The adjective "lame" is a simple pejorative expressing contempt, it does not carry any useful information. Misplaced Pages is not a school playground; you have to be careful what you say here, it's all permanently recorded in writing. And just because you "disagree" with an edit, that does not automatically give you the right to revert it -- it is not your emotional response to an edit that counts; what matters is whether the edit actually improved the encyclopedia article or made it worse, worse in a way that is clear to most people, not just to you.

"It is also meaningless to say I took your words "out of context"; the complete context is preserved right here on the talk page; it is a part of the permanent Misplaced Pages record, which anyone can look up at any time. Your responses to me do not reflect well on your understanding of how to behave properly on Misplaced Pages. For one thing, you really do need to start putting edit summaries on all your edits. I see that in a note from 14 April 2013, Dan56 mentioned that you have to "give a valid reason...in the edit summary". You were told again to use edit summaries on 11 June 2013, again on 23 June, and again on 1 July 2013, when you were also warned about a content dispute. On 10 May 2013 you were warned about using sarcasm, and also about assuming bad faith, and it was pointed out to you that those attitudes can lead to blocks. On 7 November 2013 another editor complained about your being insulting. On 16 November 2013 an editor asked you to leave a message on a talk page before reverting edits. Reverting edits with no explanation tends to lead to edit wars, which often lead to one or more editors being blocked.

"I admire your enthusiasm Koala15, and I think it's great that you edit articles that are viewed a lot, and also which have a lot of editing, and I think it's great that you have helped several articles to reach GA status. However, at the same time you need to learn to use basic necessary politeness here, all of the time. Edit summaries are really a very elementary thing that everyone is supposed to do all of the time. Not reverting any good faith edits without a careful explanation on the talk page is also a very basic necessity. I am trying to point out that these habits will get you into trouble on Misplaced Pages sooner or later. There is enough time for you to make an effort to be more polite, more considerate and more careful, and that way you will be on your way to becoming a long-term, highly valued editor who is respected by others. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)"

First off why are you quoting yourself? Secondly if you check my contribs all of my edits are good faith so i really don't have anything to prove to you. I am done with this conversation. Koala15 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You may consider yourself to be "done with this conversation", but if you continue to practice the same patterns of behavior -- making a lot of edits without edit summaries, using the revert button on other people's good faith edits with no explanation, and then also being insulting, believe me, it will all catch up with you one of these days and you will find yourself blocked, first for short periods of time, and then if you persist past that, for longer. Don't say you have not been warned. You do show promise as an editor. You have done some good work and it would be a pity to lose you; I don't want that to happen. But on Misplaced Pages we all have to learn how to cooperate, how to work with others using respect. That's it, that's what it takes, sink or swim, your choice. Invertzoo (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand, i regret reverting your good faith edits and in the future i will try to use edit summaries as much as i can. Koala15 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Finding Nemo

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Finding Nemo you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jionpedia -- Jionpedia (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Finding Nemo

The article Finding Nemo you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Finding Nemo for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jionpedia -- Jionpedia (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Planes: Fire and Rescue Cast

On the Planes: Fire and Rescue page, you put information saying that the three actors from the first Planes film would return. The source I put on the article doesn't confirm this, so until Disney announces the official cast, you have to leave the info be. You can't just "assume" that something is so unless the source says it. Also, Chug, Dottie, and the Skipper are never seen nor heard in the teaser trailer. I've posted a link of the trailer below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzWygkJlGcQ

Rowdy the Ant talk to Rowdy 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i never saw the first movie so i'm not even sure who the characters are, a cast list should be out sooner or later. Koala15 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi Koala, might I please encourage you to use more edit summaries? I noticed that you basically reverted all the edits made by DanDud88. While I don't materially disagree with that decision, it's not particularly helpful for that user, or for other users to understand the rationale behind your reversion without an edit summary. Thanks mate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry about not using a summary, i just thought his edit was redundant since we already resolved that episode dispute. Koala15 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand, and here's another example: IP user 68.228.153.247 has on numerous occasions changed the Sanjay & Craig production codes, which you then reverted with no explanations, although probably because the content was unsourced. The user keeps submitting the information, but in my warnings to him, I can't point at the edit summaries and say, "Look, it was clearly explained ten times why this content is being reverted. Stop submitting it." Anyhow, food for thought. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well those are not the real production codes first of all and the reason i don't add summaries for those cause it seems like these random ip's don't read the page history. Koala15 (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Shrek

The article Shrek you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Shrek for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Do not automatically revert changes by other editors

I just recreated my edits to the "Critical response" section of The Nut Job, and you should not automatically revert them as you apparently did yesterday. You may think that "It doesn't really make sense to move that to its own paragraph" but you are wrong. Firstly, that addresses only one of the edits I did. As I have written in my summary, I pulled out positive reviews from the long listing of negative reviews, and therefore changed "received negative reviews" to "received mostly negative reviews" because that is more accurate. Secondly, I pulled out the reviews that positively commented on the film's style. This is interesting information, as a number of reviewers saw fit to mention, so those mentions deserve to be grouped. Just because you are compulsively hanging over this entry and updating its gross does not mean that others have no input. Get over yourself and leave my edits alone. — Molly-in-md (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i think it looks more concise in three paragraphs and frankly it just looks stupid the way you wrote it. And there is no need for your personal attacks i doubt anyone else would have expanded this article. Koala15 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Berzerk

Why threaten? This is exactly you: WP:THREATEN. You know you're both the genre warrior and edit warrior. Will come to a consensus on this. Start it on the article's talk page now. Hiddenstranger (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Your recent editing history at Berzerk (song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. STATic message me! 19:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Side Effects of You may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian's a Bad Father, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Sheridan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Family Guy (season 12) end date

I don't see what's wrong with adding the end date for the twelveth season of Family Guy even if it's ongoing. All I'm doing is adding the air dates for the rest of the season according to The Futon Critic. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Were not supposed to add the end date until the show ends on May 18, and it seems kind of odd to add all those dates seeing as those could be repeats. Koala15 (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Fantasia

Hi Koala15! Thank you so much for taking time for the beloved Fantasia article. Like me, I'd love to see this turn into GA status one day, especially before its 75th birthday in 2015! I thought I'd let you know, before working on it too much, that I've been working on a new version (though unfinished) of the article that is, I think, a lot better to work from as it's coming to a direction where it should be. Have a look at it, and let me know what you think. I could replace bits onto the current article and you could do your fantastic reference edits to this version? http://pastebin.com/3tnFG3tz LowSelfEstidle (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought the article looked great as it is, but if you have any other new info to add to the article go ahead. Koala15 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there are a few dead links in the article. I'm sure at least one of u has substitutes for them links. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, ill try to look in the archives tomorrow. Koala15 (talk) 05:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, cool. I'll get onto it soon. Some parts definitely need to be rewritten. Thanks you two. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "Shrek"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Shrek article, with the comment "Not a Universal film.", which leaves me confused as to why you would revert my changes rather than just removing the references and links to Universal Pictures. Would you please be so kind as to explain?—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your whole edit seemed pointless and factually wrong. Koala15 (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"Factually wrong"? I don't understand—I made no factual changes. I only alphabetized the categories and made corrections to the layout.—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You added the "Universal pictures films" films category which is clearly incorrect. Koala15 (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken—if you check again, you will see that I did not add it, I only moved it around. It was already present in the article.—DocWatson42 (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, i checked you added them. Koala15 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Where did he add them, Koala? If you're basing that on the fact they're highlighted in that diff, then I'm afraid you're wrong. I don't know who added those categories, but I removed them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then i must have been confused by the changes. Koala15 (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Setting aside the Universal Pictures categories, do you have any other objections to my changes to the article?—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Koala15 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cars (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cars (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 3 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 18:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It has now passed. Rcsprinter (indicate) @ 23:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Universal Pictures films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page As Above, So Below (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The Nut Job Blu-ray 3D

Why have you removed it away from me? Check the website: http://movies.wikia.com/The_Nut_Job#Release

or check the page or that page.

You were saying? So, stop removing it at this page. 68.170.223.13 (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Movies.wikia is not a reliable source it looks like a hoax to me. Koala15 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Ninja Turtles 2014

This site shows the "official" first look of this year's upcoming Ninja Turtles film. But is it trustable? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well i don't think so, people have been adding too many fake posters lately so i wouldn't wanna take any chances. Koala15 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

But since the site claims that Paramount Pictures presents the poster and there is no proof that it is fake, we'll keep the poster (someone will surely "upload a new version" of it soon). As for the Pinocchio GA review, all the best. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Mastermind (Rick Ross album), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. STATic message me! 00:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm i told you why i removed it, theirs no reason for you to give me some warning like i'm some kind of amateur. Ill just expand it myself cause i'm not a lazy editor that just places tags so someone else will do the job. Koala15 (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Since when is there a time to be waited before maintenance tags can be added? You know the rules, and to remove the tag with such a ridiculous response, I just thought you needed to be reminded that problems must be fixed before a removal. As I said, you might want to see WP:LEAD, to better understand how they are supposed to be written. A single sentence stating who its by and when it will be released, definitely does not comply with WP:LEAD, another thing you should know. Instead of complaining, realize maintenance tags are not a bad thing at all. There is an issue that needs to be addressed and you did not. Removal of maintenance templates without fixing the problem is disruptive and is blockable if it is repeated frequently. Calling me a "lazy editor" for doing a diligent job in making sure the article is of good quality, is a border line personal attack. The lead has looked like that since November when it was created and no-one has expaneded, it should have been tagged a long time ago. STATic message me! 01:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well the information on the album is scarce, that's why i don't see the point for the tag at the moment. I could try to expand it but their really is nothing to write beyond noting the singles. And i didn't call you a "lazy editor" you just assumed i was talking about you. Koala15 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There are sections on background, recording and singles, all things that can and should be summarize in the lead as WP:LEAD, says to summarize all the major points of the article. Also, you obviously were. STATic message me! 01:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Busta Rhymes discography: The Abstract and The Dragon

Please explain why you reverted my referenced non-destructive edit. Thanks. DanteLectro (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

They were both the same thing, so your edit made no sense. Koala15 (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, they were not. This mixtape has two variations: the full 28-track "The Abstract and The Dragon" released in 2013 which is free for download on livemixtapes.com (it's linked to from Billboard and the album's official website), and an abridged 10-track version called "The Abstract Dragon" made available for purchase in 2014 on iTunes, Amazon and others. The album covers differ respectively. The latter is a derivative of the former but they're hardly the same thing. You haven't done your research and you were being self-righteous. DanteLectro (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This just looks like an unauthorized download to me, definitely nothing different. Koala15 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong and being negligent. I've been adhering to the rules, I don't need your approval. See Talk:Busta Rhymes discography. DanteLectro (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Typo in reference for Despicable Me review

Hi! Since you built so much of the "Critical reception" part of this article, I was hoping that you might chime in over a trivial editing concern at talk:Despicable Me#Typo in reference. -- ToE 12:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i will. Koala15 (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Lego Movie

I don't disagree: "generally positive reviews" is how the consensus currently has it.

While many longtime WP:FILM project editors are moving away from any interpretive statements at all in favor of just giving the objective data from RT, MC and CinemaScore — which I agree with — that hasn't yet been solidified as consensus. Where the project stands right now, "generally positive reviews" is absolutely fine as far as I know. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No, we had the LA Times at the opening of the section, and then Betsy Sharkey of the LA Times again later. A 1,200-word reception section is completely over the top. Please join the discussion on the talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh cmon i just spent hours on it, lots of articles have long sections this isn't even that long. Koala15 (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

3RR warning

This is the required warning that you have reached three reverts at The Lego Movie. A fourth revert will result in a WP:3RR violation. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTPAPER does not mean WP:INDISCRIMINATE. When we have four excerpts all saying the same thing with slightly different words, that's repetitive and redundant. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to have bad writing and bad organization any more than would a college paper or an Encyclopedia Britannica article. For instance, there's no reason whatsoever to bury a negative review in the middle rather than breaking it out separately. And there's no reason not to group related thoughts. These are just basic tenets of good writing, let alone about trimming an indiscriminate glob that hurts Misplaced Pages by turning what should be a neutral section into a hype-y fan page. WP:BRD says when your bold edit is reverted, discuss it on the talk page. At least two editors are already there discussing it. We'd welcome your discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing airdate sources

Hi Koala, I was wondering if I could ask that you please not remove airdate references from articles, as you did in these edits. As you are aware, we have a lot of difficulty dealing with vandalism, and references are crucial to fighting it. Though you did also add the SonoftheBronx citation, finding out when the episode in question requires some digging, as episode titles are not listed. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok sorry, but we usually do remove the sources after an episode airs on most episode lists. So i thought it was common practice. Koala15 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You might take a gander at this. I think erring on the side of fewer references is almost never the best approach. Anyhow, thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Dude, i understand, but lets say after a new The Simpsons episode airs we remove the source for it because its not necessary anymore. So i just thought it was common practice. I mean on most episode list i edit they always remove the source after it airs, but if you want the sources there i won't remove it. Koala15 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited God Forgives, I Don't, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Usher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

February 10 Planes edits

Hey there, I saw that you reverted my edits made to the Planes films here and here. I added credits to Prana Studios in the studios section because they are, in fact, responsible for the animation in both of the films. It is stated not only on their wiki page and their official web site, but the end credits for Planes as well. I will be reverting your edits but feel free to talk to me about it. Would be great if next time you could add summaries to your edits so I can understand what your reasoning was. Thanks, Zsxd —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Are they credited as an official production studio? Cause if i don't see proof i'm gonna have to revert it again. The movie came out last August and the fact that this hasn't been added till now is alarming to me. Koala15 (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD nomination

Hi Koala15: You nominated Stony for deletion; fair enough, but you forgot to add the edit summary to notify anyone who might be watching the page that it had been nominated for deletion; there's a reminder to do that in the AfD instructions, and I see you've been reminded several times that you aren't giving enough edit summaries. You also didn't inform the page creator, whose talk page was still a redlink; they hadn't even been welcomed. They should know their article is up for deletion, so that they can improve and/or defend it. There's a suggestion on the AfD template, with a template to use, but I would consider it just good manners. I've now remedied this, but please be more communicative. Concerning edit summaries, in Preferences -> Editing there is the option to check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary", and looking at your last page of contributions, I recommend you do so; you should be leaving an edit summary in the case of all but minor edits to explain what you did and why, and not using them only to respond to others. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know you had to do that. I guess will next time. Koala15 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I'm done with changing the article, but see WP:OWN. If other editors are removing the boxes, they are probably trying to help improve the article, and your rationale for reverting is very weak "that makes no sense", "wait and see if the reviewer has a problem with it", etc. C679 20:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the person that is adding the content that is being reverted is allowed to use these warnings. Koala15 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Half Million Award

		The Half Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Cars (film) (estimated annual readership: 964,012) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Misplaced Pages's readers! -- Bobnorwal (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Go get 'em, tiger! :D Bobnorwal (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Breaking links

Hi, if you change headings in List of episodes pages, could you please ensure that you don't break any links, as you've done twice now at List of The Penguins of Madagascar episodes. I did point out that this happened, but apparently, my edit summary was pointless. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that i didn't understand what you meant. I did it correctly this time. Koala15 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Berzerk (song)

Rap rock is another genre of this song as well has hip hop. hadji87

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Lego Movie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wizard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Potential copyright violations

Hi Koala, please note that episode synopses, such as the ones you added here cannot be copied/pasted from other sites, even from official sources, unless they can be verified to be in the public domain, or to bear a license suitable for use at Misplaced Pages. Otherwise, synopses must be re-written in our own words. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well keep in mind that i'm not the only one doing that. Feel free to re word them if you want. Koala15 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

"I'm not the only one doing that" doesn't legitimize the "doing" of it. Restoring the content with the instruction that *I* should reword them is a burden shift and could be construed as an open disregard for existing policy. Rushing to "get the scoop" by copy/pasting someone else's work is intellectually dishonest, and of no value to the project if it opens Misplaced Pages to liability. There is no deadline. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Well than is using the episode titles a copyvio too? I don't get this, is the shows plot copyrighted? Anyway i don't see the harm of using the summary till the episode airs, than after it airs we can re write it. 90% of the summary's on Misplaced Pages are copy and pasted, i know that doesn't justify doing it but i'm just saying. Koala15 (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Titles can't be copyrighted, facts (dates and such) can't be copyrighted. Content is automatically copyrighted. Excessive plot summaries can be considered "derivative works" (see WP:TVPLOT. Anyhow, I think I might be wrong in this particular instance, so I'm going to apologize in advance: I'm sorry for getting a little sharp and scold-y. There may be some allowance for small snippet summaries, although my feeling is that we cannot base the bulk of an article on this lifted content. I'm floating the question over at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Television in case you want to watch me make an ass of myself, and I highly recommend that. :) My apologies again. Let's see what happens. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit war at Ratatouille

I would ask you to kindly please stop warring. You have now reverted me FOUR TIMES. You should be aware that such warring is not accepted behaviour, and could result in blocks. You reverted firstly in a complex edit but without edit summary; then you revert again with "Do not bold names". And when I try to accommodate by not bolding, I find that I've been reverted again. "We just don't" is not rational argumentation, and is about as good a reason as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You then state "We just don't. Check the guidelines." If you had even bothered to check on the talk page, you will find that I tried to explain the edit, and mentioned that there is no prohibition of this in the guidelines. Now will you please participate in rational discussion? Regards, -- Ohc  04:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen this type of cast format used on the encyclopedia. And i am not sure if there is a guideline against it. Try to discuss it on the talk page to get other opinions on it. And you are basically saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Koala15 (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Dumb and Dumber To

Can please explain why you keep remove the entry in Dumb and Dumber To? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hommininent (talk • contribs) 04:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that i didn't understand how it was relevant to the article but now i do. Koala15 (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pinocchio

Good job on the article. I think I might be able to find more in google books though. Any objection to me formatting the book sources like I did in City Lights?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean like a bibliography section? Koala15 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah with the Template:sfn notes for google book sources e.g Anderson (1983) p.7 and then the full book at the bottom in bibliography, makes it easier I think. I'll try to add to it over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have the page numbers for the Hollywood Cartoons book? If so, when I convert to sfn notes can you simply add p= whatever for each ref?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If it wasn't you can you let me know and I'll ask the other editor of it instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me those sources were already there when i started working on it. Koala15 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit on Rick Ross

Hi Koala15,

Why did you delete my edit? He still hasn't released the album yet.

thanks, Robert4565 (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Its not worth noting in the lead and it will get outdated quickly. Koala15 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"All for You"

I admit I did base my revert slightly only on what was already in the ref title, but I've done a bit of checking: I think ol' Kelly only appears in a remix of "All for You", and not the original which appears on Coke Boys 4. I personally don't think it's necessary to list every single remix version of a song with multiple different artists (*cough* "U.O.E.N.O." in the case of Future *cough*) in the guest appearances table to avoid breaking WP:INDISCRIMINATE (I usually only tend to do so if the artist whose discography it is wasn't a guest on the original version), but I'll see what you think before I make any more changes to avoid it getting messy. Fine evening to you, sir! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 22:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well i think they might have added him in a couple days after it was released, but if you listen to the tape on Datpiff you can hear his verse. Koala15 (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Frozen

Whoops — looks like we were editing at the same time, with the same goal and some of the same edits. Didn't realize. Hope we're cool. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh i didn't even notice i was just trying to revert an edit. Koala15 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: Kung Fu Panda 2

You undid my revision, which is fine, but I didn't see an official reason in the edit summary. By default, no explanation for a reverted edit equates to the edit in question being classified an act of vandalism, however I'm certain that this wasn't vandalism. I'm curious as to what your reason was for the revision though, hence the post. Note that I am not going to readd the material, I'd just like to hear back from you on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, well a lot of editors add to the movie plots everyday and the plots are supposed to be under 700 words. So when i see an editor over detailing the plot i usually revert it. But if you feel your edit was necessary add it back. Koala15 (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pinocchio (1940 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pinocchio (1940 film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Loeba -- Loeba (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pinocchio (1940 film)

The article Pinocchio (1940 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Loeba -- Loeba (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Koala - I was happy to do this GAN but wanted to mention that it's a wee bit disheartening not to get a word of thanks (reviewing does take time and effort). I'm sure you didn't mean to be rude but I wanted to give you a head's up for the future - it's always good to thank your reviewer. That's all, no hard feelings. Keep up the good editing --Loeba (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hobbit 2 box office

Hi Koala15,

Regarding my edit in the Hobbit 2 box office section, I would like to know why you consider that the references at the end of the paragraph are in a bad format and which Misplaced Pages guidelines your judgement is based on. In my opinion, I consider this grouping of references very efficient, as it saves space and avoids a lengthy series of small supersrcipts.

Furthermore, my edit also includes other changes. I would like to know if you disagree with any other parts of my edit, like (for example) the other reference which is higher up in the same paragraph.

Thank you. Spinc5 (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We need full references, if you re do it with full refs ill be fine with it. Koala15 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I would appreciate if you were more specific from the start, as I have done many changes in that edit and I wasn't sure which part of my edit was wrong. The whole edit-war thing just causes frustration and annoyance, especially when you don't know why the other editor is undoing your changes. Thank you again. Spinc5 (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Good Article Barnstar
	For making Disney's Pinocchio a GA! Kailash29792 (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Lego Movie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michelle Morgan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fantasia (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fantasia (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

2. "livemixtapes".
3. "Billboard".
4. http://www.theabstractandthedragon.com/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)