User talk:DougheGojiraMan

Hello, DougheGojiraMan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding these edits: [1] [2] [3] could you engage in an active discussion on the article's

As you wish. “Tell them the Man in Black sent me.” DougheGojiraMan (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doughe. Regarding your edit to the box office on Avatar [4], when you change the box office gross please revise the numbers upwards if the more precise gross is closer to it.

For example $2,074,750,771 is closer to $2.075 million than $2.074 million. And thus it should be rounded up to $2.074 billion. Because $2,074,750,771 is closer to $2.075 billion.

Mathematical rules call for rounding to an approximate digit an accurate number is closer to, even if the accurate number isn't exactly equal to that figure. See this (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/geology/leveson/core/linksa/roundoff.html). We should not be making our own mathematical rules.

Oh whoops. Sorry about that. I just saw the first four digits and ran with that, after someone changed it back to 2.05 billion (I was kind of on a rush...) It won't happen again. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem, thank you. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you when you edit a page to always leave a summary of what you edited, so that others can see the contributions you made. Thank you kindly! BangGut (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. Which edit was this referring to? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question is @Tom Cruise. BangGut (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay. I put the summary as "Nah, I prefer Comic-Con pictures (very crispy in 4K)." It wasn't meant to be anything of malicious intent; Comic-Con pictures usually have the best quality of the person in the article (Gage Skidmore, you're amazing), not to mention, suddenly changing Cruise's page to an older picture feels very out-of-place... But I understand. May I change it back to the Comic-Con picture though? It has been a staple of the article since 2020. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about an edit you made after that one, it says "no edit summary", in the page's edit history. If you look properly you will see it. In regards to the image that is up currently. I would say it is high quality, (as it is not blurry at all). Concerning the date when the two photos was taken, they're just one year apart, and the actor doesn't look to different in either. I would also advise you to first seek consensus on the page's "talk section", with regards to an official image change. BangGut (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, it was just linking San Diego Comic-Con.

While true, you can notice that Tommy Cruise still has some wrinkles in his eyes, and while it is HD, Comic-Con images are much preferred usually, kinda like James Gunn's page using 2016 Comic-Con images, instead of using the 2017 Facebook conference page images, for his infobox. Wait, but I don't see your image change in the talk section though... DougheGojiraMan (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with the Wikipedia term "Edit-Warring"? I hope you know that persistent back and forth with an editor can get you block. I already reported you in the page's talk section! BangGut (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gut... you didn't even make an image edit consensus as well. Let's not get riled up over an image of Tommy Cruise. The 2019 Comic-Con image has been here for a while, and changing it now seems awkward, especially since it's an older image. Do we have a deal? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So just because it's been there for a longtime it shouldn't be changed? I am pretty sure governments repeal old laws all the time, don't they? That is not good enough of an excuse. For peep-sakes the image has been there for "YEARS NOW", aren't you tired of looking at it? I know for sure i am, and everybody else is too, so how about you quit your childish behavior and do as i command you! BangGut (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the difference is you're replacing an older image from 2018. Your government example is a false equivalence on levels, since it's not like they go back on older laws for advice (lol). And how would you know everyone else is tired of it, too? Did you ask them?

"Do as I command you"? Alright, I think that's enough internet for you. Get some sleep perhaps :) DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sware it's like talking with a brain dead zombie.💀👽 I never said g'ovts go back on old laws for advice. What i said is that they (repeal or change) old laws into new ones. What about that is so hard for you to understand? I feel like everyone is tired of that pic, but obviously you seem to be obsessed over it for some weird reason! BangGut (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"What I said is that they (repeal or change) old laws into new ones." Yes, because an image of 2018 is "newer" than a 2019 Comic-Con image.

"I feel like everyone is tired of that pic" Yes, YOU feel like. No one else would give a damn.

"Obviously you seem to be obsessed over it for some weird reason" Because it's the BEST image of Cruise we have. Not to mention, the coolest one. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to think you are brain damaged. I never said my image was newer than yours. I said "they're one year apart". Btw that is a blasted big fattass lie and you know it. There are plenty of other high quality photos of him on Wikipedia, but i guess this special one of him from Comic-Con makes your d**k "super", "duper" hard huh!😳 BangGut (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Comic-Con is a special place. I’m surprised you haven’t done the same to James Gunn’s page tbh. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you're bias towards Comic-Con because they "supposedly generate HD photos", it doesn't mean Wikipedians should only extend favoritism only to Comic-Con, and completely ignore all other avenues of photo distribution. Wikipedia is suppose to be fair, not prejudice. BangGut (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we held a vote 3 to 1, in favor of Comic-Con. G’day, sir DougheGojiraMan (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those who voted agreeing with you are Comic-Con lovers, like yourself. BangGut (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why they prefer the OG image. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, we’ve been at it for two hours. Can I at least see where you posted your request so we can be done with this? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well i have a strong will, so i'm the type to not back down from an argument, especially when i know i'm 100% right! BangGut (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are you “100% right” when you didn’t even show me the image change request? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bow down to me brother, you should be kissing my feet right now! BangGut (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once you show me, I will. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I still don't know where you put your image edit consensus as well, so why shouldn't I revert it, when you didn't say anything? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you have a user page? BangGut (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to change the topic. Where is your image edit appeal? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna tell you where it is, but you might cry!😁 BangGut (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll admit defeat when you show it… that’s the entire reason why I wanted to see it… because I might be wrong… and part of me may want to be, but so far, I haven’t seen any evidence of an image update request or anything like that. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a case that you "might be wrong". The fact is, (YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!!) BangGut (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then show me where you put it... DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DougheGojiraMan! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Tom Cruise several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Tom Cruise, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr. Wolf,

I want to apologize for the edit warring that I caused. I thought User:BangGut would get the memo, but I think my impulsiveness and frustration kinda got to me. It won’t happen again. I promise.

- DougheGojiraMan (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned, i hope you learn to be obedient from now on! BangGut (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned as well because both of you were edit warring. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:29, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine, he was the one warring with me. I was merely putting up a self-defense! BangGut (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, don't call me Wolverine. That's not my name. Second,

WP:EW specifically says "Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Don't be offended by the name. Ever since i first saw your surname, i already ascribed that "nickname" for you in my big head! (sense of humor) 😁 BangGut (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically state on my userpage that I prefer being called Blaze Wolf, Blaze, Wolf, Wolfie or some variation of them. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well bro, life doesn't always go the way you want. Sometimes people give us nicknames they think suits us better. We just have to accept it, don't we? BangGut (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question, is BangGut banned or something? DougheGojiraMan (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please don't replace cited information with uncited information; if you need help with an edit, it's much better to ask for assistance at the Talk page before making the edit in question. DonIago (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought someone was gonna do it for me... I'll source it later. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might be willing to do it for you, but just leaving a note in the edit summary can be ineffective if other edits are made subsequent to your own. Consequently, the best option is to post a request at the Talk page. In any case, replacing sourced info with unsourced info in the article itself is counterproductive as there's no way to know if or when it will be updated. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Star Wars sequel trilogy, but you didn't provide any reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. You did not provide any source(s) for your changes and your changes were not supported by existing sources in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The budgets are from the Forbes article that was recently unveiled. I will source them immediately on the page. DougheGojiraMan (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Good deal, thanks -Fnlayson (talk) 18:12, 24 August 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) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It has come up to the attention of several editors that the numbers on Box Office Mojo has weirdly updated after all these years on a number of films, which doesn't make any sense. Some internal formula on their site has likely gone awry, and if so, this wouldn't be the first time that's happened. If you look at the archived version of that BOM reference from 2019, it still shows $668 million, and the other source still shows that as well. We should leave that be, as there is no reason to adjust that now more than a decade after its theatrical run ended without an official explanation as why these numbers abruptly changed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]