User talk:Rcarter555

You should make comments on the talk page before you revert information with reliable sources. Edits need to follow Wikipedia regulations. Where reliable/multiple sources have been included - reverting edits, aren't needful. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rcarter555. 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]

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was just working on a new section for the "Fire Walk With Me" article. The 91 minutes of footage are counted as a standalone film at IMDB [1], which gives the date of the original 2014 airing by Lynch and mentions a release in January 2017 in Spain (was about to look for more backup on this). The Buzzfeed article talks about the 91 minutes as a single package of material under the title "Missing Pieces" [2], addressing sub plots and Laura's relationships. I saw this as more than just out takes, but since it only exists as a companion to the more official release of "Fire Walk", I was working to put it as a section (with some of this explanation) and taking the last paragraph from the "Production" section in the "Fire Walk" article. Your thoughts? Jmg38 (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read this article http://www.imdb.com/help/show_leaf?infosource — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSENDER007 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rcarter555. 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]

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) 09:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: do you know of any other times than the one I found when someone said "Trig"?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rcarter555. 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]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Aurora Teagarden.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 16:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

I'm trying to understand the constant reverts by an editor on Star Trek canon. Please see the note I left the editor HERE. If this fails, I'm going to have to invite an administrator to review and block/protect. StarHOG (Talk) 00:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carter,

Below was my first ever attempt to correcting a wiki article. I apologize for the initial post. I wanted to turn it over to someone who knows what they are doing. Your response "This is not the way to do this" was not very helpful. So I had to google this.....

My area of expertise is in genealogy and more specifically the Marvin surname. Leericmarvin (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

====

To whomever knows how to edit this stuff, please note that "Lamont Waltman Marvin" is inconsistent with the entry under "early life" which states he and his brother Robert were named after Robert E Lee. All the sources attached to Lee Marvin at: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/K2V6-QVP indicated his name is Lee Marvin. The statement about being a 1st cousin 4 times removed is correct based on: Gen Robert E Lee's entry: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/LC3F-GT3 and common ancestor: https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MQH8-VD4 Feel free to use familysearch links as a source. Anyone can access them, registering with a free account.

====

It would be useful if a birth certificate for Lee Marvin could be recovered. That is currently lacking in the genealogical realm. The one source from the 2 Sep 1987 Variety article, can't be substantiated. The link doesn't take you to the article. I can't read it with my own eyes for my interpretation. I haven't checked the two sources yet for the story that Lee and his brother Robert were named after Robert E Lee.

Best regards, LeEric Marvin Leericmarvin (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we've got to come to an agreement on Margot Robbie. I'm fine with adding additional roles, but it has to be sourced. ~ HAL333 02:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please

    I extend the olive branch.
    –Davey2010^Talk 12:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rcarter555, I wanted to reach out and sincerely apologise for yesterdays comments which were totally uncalled for, There was only one person yesterday who acted like one and it wasn't you!, But anyway I'm sorry for yesterdays comments, Going forward I hope we can work together in future in much better circumstances, Take care, –Davey2010^Talk 12:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Newtlamender (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, Rcarter555. I'm a volunteer with the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and I've begun a discussion on this topic. If you would like to participate, please join us at
  Tell me all about it. 13:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hi, I noticed you changed an edit on the Catherine Bell page, and wondering why. The article is being written in English - and the English word for "farsi" is Persian. Just as it would be absurd to say "The family spoke Deutsch at home", or "The family spoke Français at home", or "The family spoke al-Arabiya at home", or "The family spoke Svenska at home", ... ... ... it's the same in Persian. In the above instances, you'd use the words "German", "French", "Arabic" and "Swedish", respectively. It's the exact same with Persian.

The same from a different angle : If you're communicating in German, you DO use the word Deutsch. If you're communicating in French, you DO use the word Français. If you're communicating in Spanish, you DO use the word Español. If you're communicating in Turkish, you DO use the word Türkçe. and If you're communicating in Persian, you DO use the word Farsi.

But using any of those words in an English mode of communication is incorrect. Based on a safe assumption that the above explanation makes sense, I will re-revert the edit.

Have a great day.

Hi, not sure why my edit on the Star Trek page was reverted. Star Trek literally premiered on September 6, 1966 in Canada. Two days later, it premiered on NBC in the US, so the sentence "That series, now often known as The Original Series, debuted in the United States on September 8, 1966, and aired for three seasons on NBC" is 100% correct. If anything, it should say "That series, now often known as The Original Series, debuted in Canada on September 6, 1966 on CTV, and in the United States on September 8, 1966, and aired for three seasons on NBC", because that is completely factual and accurate in every way. Kubrickrules (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you please tell me why you reverted my edit on the page about the Fast & Furious film series? It doesn't really have to be a national movie with some of the same characters from the series to be considered a spin-off movie. Foreign remakes can also be considered spin-off movies. Take a look at this example: Step Up (franchise). There's a Chinese remake of this American film series named Step Up: Year of the Dance. It's a Chinese remake that doesn't have anything to do with the American films, but it's still considered a spin-off movie. Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was no sourcing that those films were spin offs of the Fast and Fueious franchise and not just films with similar themes. Should we list every film that has a street racing theme as a “spin off” of the franchise? No. Rcarter555 (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Rcarter555. I'm contacting regarding this revert. You may be aware that

In light of my message above, could you please explain this revert? The article has sourced content which states "In a 2009 interview, Underworld co-creator Kevin Grevioux revealed that he had based the Selene character off of the Marvel Comics character of the same name, without the company's permission." Your edit summary on that revert is misleading. It is also hypocritical to direct me to discuss the issue, when you are refusing to engage in that discussion. — Manticore 09:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Elizabeth Olsen. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. KyleJoan^talk 05:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the SAG protects for that in the strictest of senses, and not back then. Everything I have seen suggests that it is an individual contract thing, not a union protection against. Even then, the protections they did add were not done until after 1989, when the Crispin Glover/Back to the Future 2 lawsuit played out. Basically, they just put a clause in all of their actor's contracts that say their likeness is their likeness and you cannot have it without permission and compensation. That didn't exist when JLC actually filmed the first 2 Halloween films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bud, please stop with the edit-warring on the Die Hard (film series) page regarding a new entry to the franchise.

Your edit notes stated that IMDb tag was unusable - and later removed - and that the Easter inclusion was improperly sourced. The latter is unsubstantiated and carries little weight as numerous citations were used. The section opens with the information that the star recently retired, so of course there is no news coming out of an unfinished/still in-development work. As for IMDb, the McClane page https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5117432/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 was severely truncated last month precisely because of Willis' expected lack of involvement there, yet the Easter (2018) page https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7517148/ is approved. That should provide a clue as to the direction of the project. I'm going to reinstate (undo) and add further references to the section, just not

Continue the thread here.

The 'Future' section profusely mentions 'McClane', which has been deprecated. The Easter reference is the MAIN WEBSITE that is hosting the fundraise, where you can find all the PUBLIC information about it that you seek.

Again, per some stupid WP rule, IMDb tags are to not be included, but it's better to leave it be within the context of the article as the references already cited (e.g., Ric Flair, etc.) are legit. Otherwise, you're making it seem as if movies don't go through the rumor mill before and after production.72.174.131.123 (talk) 07:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Futures section mentions McClane, but NONE of your references indicate that Easter is a variation of that. There isn’t a single reference you included that indicates Easter has anything to do with Die Hard or Willis. If true, it shouldn’t be hard to source. Sorry you find Wikipedia’s rules “stupid”. Rcarter555 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure they're making a sixth Die Hard movie. Pretty sure it's Easter. Also, you don't need Bruce Willis to make a Die Hard flick; he may have licensed his likeness for any number of reasons. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Pretty sure” is meaningless. Unless you can back it up with reliable sources, it doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. We don’t do rumors here. Rcarter555 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at User: 60.241.118.253's edits. Ryan Miller 2 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just reread that specific comic (Marvel Two-In-One #4) and I still fail to see where the Guardians appeared, are you able to help me out? Connorguy99 (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, that was an error on my part. Rcarter555 (talk) 06:56, 12 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) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	I commend you for your defense of Roman Polanski and for your commitment to honest dialogue about whether or not committing sexual assault is more or less noteworthy than winning a film award. Keep fighting the good fight! Listen1st (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Reunion

With all do respect, Jim’s mom sadly passed away so therefore Jim’s dad is a widower. The last time Jim’s mom was seen living was in American Wedding. Robbie Whalen (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the character appeared in a video clip that was shot new for American Reunion. So the actress appeared in new footage as that character. Rcarter555 (talk) 07:58, 5 July 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]