User talk:Aquila89

The reason I removed the image is that, while Wikipedia does encourage use of images, it doesn't tend to support the use of screenshots/film images of the actor on the biography page. They are generally used on the pages for the film itself. The only time that a screenshot/film image would be appropriate would be if it is used to illustrate some particular point that the image uniquely reflects or better clarifies. Offhand, the example that comes to mind might be in an article about Robert De Niro, if the section discussed his willingness to gain weight for his role in Raging Bull, but only if it covered something pertinent in the image. You don't often see a film image in the articles that carry a

Occasionally, some of them will, but there should be some critical commentary going along with it. In Bette Davis, Vivien Leigh, Judy Garland and Sharon Tate, each are featured articles that have extensive film details, which discusses specifics of the films in the text. I'm not completely convinced that Diane Keaton's does have that depth of commentary. For Jane Fonda's, there is only one sentence covering Barbarella. But thanks for responding. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be quite appropriate for Barbarella. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to intrude- but I added several of the images you've mentioned, and most of them are free of copyright which completely changes their suitability. All of the images in Judy Garland are free images from theatrical trailers that are not subject to copyright. Most of the images in Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh are the same - not subject to copyright and carefully chosen for that reason. At least a couple of the images at Sharon Tate are free and the ones that are not free are accompanied by discussion of the specific role/film. I can't comment on Diane Keaton as I have not added those images. As Jane Fonda is a more recent performer it would be difficult to find film images that have fallen into public domain whereas the films of Davis, Leigh and Garland predate the copyrighting of film trailers which was only widely introduced in 1963. If you click on any of the images in any of these articles you'll see which ones are free and which ones are not. Hope this helps. Rossrs (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aquila. Thanks for the message. Generally all trailers prior to 1963 were released without a copyright notice. Before 1977 some trailers were released without a copyright notice. If the Barbarella trailer was released without a copyright notice it would be OK to use. All trailers released after 1977 are assumed to be subject to copyright. I'm sorry, when I commented previously I was assuming that the image was from the film, rather than the trailer, which was wrong of me to assume. Rossrs (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those images were all missing some vital information. For example, File:ARB-Alva-Myrdal.jpg and File:Irène Joliot-Curie.jpg have no author, while others have improper licensing. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the page is a

FL, every image needs to be properly licensed. See this for more information. As for why individual images weren't added, ask User:Sephiroth BCR, he's the one who started the list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. For some reason your restoration of the "Flight 11" section in Hijackers in the September 11 attacks appeared to me to be its removal. Sorry about that. I reversed my edit as soon as I noticed - just explaining that it was an accident in case you were wondering what was going on. Euryalus (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aquila89. You have new messages at Amsaim's talk page.
Message added 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Amsaim (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your addition to Chitty Chitty Death Bang. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you come across any other reception for that episode, it'd be most appreciated. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Ukraine Barnstar
		I give you this Ukraine Barnstar for improving the article Talk to me! 15:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply ]

For the record, if you see something like that again, yes, please do delete it. Thanks for helping keep an eye out for that stuff. Happy editing! Millahnna (mouse)talk 19:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. It's probably protected at the moment or something (I haven't checked). It's been getting a lot of heavy editing so we're usually pretty quick to remove the ugly stuff. But if you see something stay up for a while, go ahead and mention it on the talk page like you did before; one of will see your post if we miss the vandalism. Millahnna (mouse)talk 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aquila89. I do not get the following statement by you on the Megan Fox article: "breakout role is not related to breakout character."

I ask, "How so?" Breakout character and breakout role are synonymous with each other. They are used interchangeably all the time, and mean the same thing in every context. This is why I reverted you on this matter. I mean, how is the word "role" different than "character" in this case?

Just letting you know I replied on my talk page.

talk) 20:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't revert anything from you. Fighting for Justice (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that was 11 days ago, so why are you complaining about it NOW? Fighting for Justice (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not. I got a new message about it yesterday. I log in every single day and a message from you only appeared until yesterday. Fighting for Justice (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on all the months effort you've put into List of accolades received by Black Swan. After doing some of my (still ongoing) edits, I think this list meets the FL criteria. Would you like for you, User:Bruce Campbell (and big contributor) and me to nominate it at FLC together? Crystal Clear x3 09:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you have read my above message yet but I have just now submitted it at FLC: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Black Swan/archive1Crystal Clear x3 05:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I hope you're not mad =/ Crystal Clear x3 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me completing the missing information in the article

]

WikiProject Film Invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Film? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stirking

Please don't strike my concerns at

I'm (and others) are NOT turning Wiki into a gossip magazine, contrary to your silly assertion by mere mentioning in a short sentence a serious relationship that has been reported by many, many reputable media sources (ex, The Huffington Post), whether the two people acknowledge it publicly or not! So, if they *never* say anything 'officially' (from their publicists?), Wiki can't say a damn word about it??? Since when is Wiki dependent on what someone else says (or doesn't say) about anything? This makes absolutely no sense! After what arbitrary length of time does it take for Wiki to mention an ongoing relationship since it has now been 5 months? Is it: 6 months? 9 months? 1 year? 1 1/2 years? 2 years? WHEN? This also makes no sense, and is entirely and completely arbitrary for any admin. to say, which I presume you are an admin. Isn't there *some* guideline by now on time length in Wiki's vast arsenal of rules and regulations regarding serious relationships if they aren't mentioned by the couple themselves? [Is their privacy (not accurate in Mila-Ashton's case now) on 'going public' more important than Wiki reporting the fact?] If not, maybe there should be one? Just asking on that last idea. Please reply to these important concerns, because I'm sure with other couple-relationships after a decent period of time (3-4 months perhaps), with reports also of these two now living together, this problem in reporting it on Wiki is going to occur over and over again. And that crazy idea you mentioned with, "The lead section usually doesn't need citations" leaves Wiki wide open for anyone to say anything with no documentation needed merely by placing it in the first paragraph! How inconsistent is that with the general rule Wiki pounds into every editor's head that each fact or idea posted needs a reference? In Mila's case, there are already ref.'s on her birth name and birthdate in the first line, so your point on no ref.'s needed (in the opening para.) is already broken and totally inoperable, not to mention inconsistent and arbitrary. Wiki is a mess of inconsistencies and arbitrary rulings (i.e., deletions of properly sourced facts) by whomever wrote these rules/ideas! Thanks. --Katydidit (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit saying "as far as we know, they're not partners, just dating", my question is: how would you describe the difference between dating someone and being their partner? Also, Huffington Post is most definitely NOT at all a reliable source, @

talk) 16:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd say living together makes the difference. We have no reliable sources about whether they live together or not. Aquila89 (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you should mention that on their talk pages if you haven't already.

talk) 17:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Walter White (Breaking Bad)#Real life meth dealer named Walter White. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mila Kunis 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/oz_the_great_and_powerful/ |title=Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)) |publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|accessdate=March 8, 2013}}</ref> [[Kim Newman]] of ''[[Empire (
• <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blood_ties_2013/ |title=Blood Ties (2014)) |publisher=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|accessdate=April 6, 2014}}</ref> Kunis was also cast in the comedy '

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

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Congo Free State may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• is that the forced labour system directly and indirectly eliminated 20% of the population.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2005/oct/06/in-the-heart-of-darkness/?
• alleged violations of the Berlin Agreement. [[Roger Casement]], then the British Consul at Boma (at the mouth of the Congo River, was sent to the Congo Free State. Reporting to the Foreign Office

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

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aquila89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't understand why was I blocked Aquila89 (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not blocked, however you have recently tried to edit from an IP address that's blocked as a web host provider. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To clarify - you should follow the instructions in the box below.

The

web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked

from editing Wikipedia.

You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.

We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.

If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a web host's IP address:

If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host.

Administrators: The

SPI Quick Checkuser Requests

. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

PhilKnight (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aquila89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Requesting an IP address block exemption, because I think my IP address was blocked because of "collateral damage", I am not using a webhost. Aquila89 (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as we humble admins can't just up and grant it anymore. You need to go to

WP:IPBE and follow the process there to use the OTRS. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Kristen Stewart does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Chamith (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Aquila89. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

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.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an 80 year old book and this isn't the first time it's been politically relevant. I remember it hat an uptick of popularity when W passed the Patriot Act. However, you make a compelling point. If you want to revert my revert, I won't stop you.

I'd be very careful about comparing Trump to the dictator in the book, and would only use published statements by well-known people. If people think you're using Wikipedia to promote a political view (however relevant), you'll be reverted.

talk) 19:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Aquila89. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

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.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aquila89. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aquila89. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

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.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	Thanks for all of your work completing and formatting citations! Marquardtika (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The New York Times Book Review, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Carey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mary-Claire King, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benjamin Franklin Medal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As I've seen you changing reference formats on several occasions, I presume you are unaware of

As it says, "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor". This is the same for things like

WP:DATEVAR, where if there are inconsistencies, you go back to first decent length version of the article (i.e. anything more than a couple of sentences) and look at the reference/English type/date format. Number 57 20:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, really the original format should be followed if you want to make an article consistent. Cheers, Number 57 01:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gideon Sa'ar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Election Committee.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Fall of Kabul (2021) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a

 → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Book Award for Nonfiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blood in the Water.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Actor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hidetoshi Nishijima.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tomás Diez Acosta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cuban.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aquila89! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Trumpism that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Los Angeles Times Book Prize for Science and Technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endless Forms Most Beautiful.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that in this edit, you replaced a wikilink to a redirect page with a piped link directly to the page that was redirected to. I understand that instinct, but Wikipedia standard is that we actually prefer that simple link to a redirect page. You can see this preference discussed at

Hello, could you help me improve this English in this article Kevin Peraza https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Peraza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.223.137 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, can you lock an Wikipedia article about a Pakistani senator who justifying holocaust so that some random unregistered Pakistani bot can't edit it, they are trying really hard to protect their own senator from bad publication even though that senator is justifying holocaust Spartan Alpha (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't lock articles, I'm not an administrator. Aquila89 (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]