User talk:Ribbet32: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:09, 5 September 2017

DYK nomination of Highway of Tears (film)

Hello! Your submission of Highway of Tears (film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Highway of Tears (film)

On 17 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Highway of Tears (film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the documentary film Highway of Tears was created to draw attention to Canada's unsolved Highway of Tears murders, and won an award at the Malibu Film Festival? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Highway of Tears (film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Highway of Tears (film)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Sweet Hereafter (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Sweet Hereafter (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 Popcornduff -- Popcornduff (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornduff: Thank you for your time and consideration. Please allow me several hours before I can begin to address your feedback. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I haven't finished going through the article yet either, so no rush. :) Popcornduff (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Room (2015 film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Room (2015 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 Famous Hobo -- Famous Hobo (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Room (2015 film)

The article Room (2015 film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Room (2015 film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Famous Hobo -- Famous Hobo (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Decline of the American Empire

On 14 August 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Decline of the American Empire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1986 sex comedy The Decline of the American Empire was the first Canadian film nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Decline of the American Empire. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Decline of the American Empire), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Sweet Hereafter (film)

The article The Sweet Hereafter (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Sweet Hereafter (film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Popcornduff -- Popcornduff (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Tamas and Juli.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tamas and Juli.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit the Frog references

Dear Ribbet32,

I have restored the Kermit the Frog article to before your revisions. The way that you have the references fails to make them machine readable, and more closely follows Wikipedia:Citing sources, specifically the WP:CITESTYLE section. If you would like to add the dates & access dates into each reference with the template, all it takes is |date=<date>|access-date=<access-date> it be inserted after another variable in the template.

Concerning ''[[George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight|The Hour]]'', [[CBC Television]], aired 4 April 2007., I deleted it and placed the {{citation needed}} tag there because, according to IMDB, the show did not air on the date listed. If you can find and prove the correct date, then I am all for having this citation. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source and is incorrect about that. Information should not be removed from the article, I'm under no obligation to reenter info I already spent a lot of time entering. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will add the dates later tonight (I'm in Eastern Time Zone). For now, I will revert it back to the ones with the templates. As for the George Stroumboulopoulos Tonight citation, I cannot find a reference anywhere that even proves that the episode took place that day, let alone the quote. If you could provide another citation, that would be great. Elisfkc (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Here you go; I look forward to seeing what you can do with this. DS (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Léolo

On 18 September 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Léolo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite losing Best Motion Picture at Canada's national film awards in 1992, Léolo was named one of the Top 10 Canadian Films of All Time by critics in 2015? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Léolo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Léolo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rubino Romeo Salmonì

On 1 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rubino Romeo Salmonì, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the stories of Italian author and Holocaust survivor Rubino Romeo Salmonì were an inspiration for Roberto Benigni's 1997 film Life Is Beautiful? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rubino Romeo Salmonì. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Rubino Romeo Salmonì), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for The Best Intentions

On 4 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Best Intentions, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ingmar Bergman based his script for the Palme d'Or-winning film The Best Intentions on the life of his father Erik Bergman, salvaged from scattered notes, stories, and conversations? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Best Intentions. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, The Best Intentions), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Equus (film)

Hello! Your submission of Equus (film) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reviewed this DYK nomination, it looked good and I just had some comments about the hook. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Princess Jasnenka and the Flying Shoemaker

On 2 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Princess Jasnenka and the Flying Shoemaker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1987 Czechoslovak film Princess Jasnenka and the Flying Shoemaker is based on a fairy tale by Communist writer Jan Drda? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Princess Jasnenka and the Flying Shoemaker. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Princess Jasnenka and the Flying Shoemaker), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Do that again and I will report you. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty far stretch of NPA compared to gems like this Ribbet32 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was wrong on that. That doesn't mean I will accept cyber-bullying from you. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ribbet32. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

List of films considered the best

It seems like this editing is a bit disruptive, the sheer amount of content removal without any discussion on the Talk page. Why remove Bosnia? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed nothing. User:TompaDompa is removing lots. Some edits may be justified. I have not had a good look at all of them. Talk to him, and start a discussion on the article's talk page. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Vernon and Ribbet32: If my editing seemed disruptive, I apologize. I was going for WP:BOLD, not disruptive. Going to the article's talk page (per WP:Bold, revert, discuss) sounds good to me. TompaDompa (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa, as I said, some of your edits may be justified. Sometimes a lot of junk gets added to Wikipedia. But it's not a bad idea to discuss on talk if you're removing referenced material. I noticed you removed some for dead links, but per WP:LINKROT, some links can be salvaged. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32: My experience with articles bloated with junk is that all too often, not enough people are interested in replying to the discussion for there to actually be one (meaning, there is often no one besides the person who started the discussion). I was worried the same thing might happen in this case. Perhaps I was mistaken. Regarding the dead links, I did try to salvage some (though admittedly not all) of them by using the Wayback Machine and/or locating the same information elsewhere. TompaDompa (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Equus (film)

On 28 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Equus (film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1977 film Equus featured real horses rather than the masked men seen in the original play, but critic Roger Ebert said this was less realistic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Equus (film). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Equus (film)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Our Loved Ones Poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Our Loved Ones Poster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugetsu GAR

Nice work on the article there. One of the best films I've ever seen IMHO. I would very much like to review it if that's alright with you. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 11:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Ssven2:, I don't think you need my permission to review if you wish to. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opened the GAR. I'll provide my comments tomorrow.

— Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ugetsu

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ugetsu 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ugetsu

The article Ugetsu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ugetsu for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

I disagree your moving page from List of accolades received by Arrival (film) into List of accolades received by Arrival, because it's about the contexture of the title. Arrival is really a film, not place or something else... I am not going to argue with you because it's moved yet and I can't moved again...

IreneTandry (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IreneTandry, I find it hard to see what you're trying to say- I think you mean context rather than contexture- The opening sentence is "Arrival is a 2016 American science fiction film". No place called Arrival has a "List of accolades received by" page... In fact, the only place listed on Wikipedia with "Arrival" in its name is at Arrival Heights rather than just Arrival. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's useless for arguing with me. Although you explain everything, I am still disagree with you. IreneTandry (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I hope I never see you editing again at List of accolades received by Arrival or judging me like idiots. IreneTandry (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Sorry Irene, but you don't have the power or right to unilaterally ban me from List of accolades received by Arrival, just as I didn't remove your useful edits to an article I got up to B-class. You don't own the accolades page; that would be, in your words, "selfish" [1] [2] [3] [4]. Speaking of which, using that word comes across as inexplicable and hypocritical- someone else adding to an article you edited is "selfish"? I'm not sure whether "judging me like idiots" is supposed to mean you're calling me an idiot ("judging me like an idiot") or if I treated you like an idiot ("judging me to be an idiot"), but I never judged you to be so. The link I gave you on your talk that you removed contains useful advice- "Lack of technical expertise: Insufficient technical knowledge is not usually a problem, unless when adding, deleting, or changing technical content. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable, differences in skill sets are not a problem." There are a lot of technical features on Wikipedia I don't understand and am not interested in learning, but I'm not going to remove them just to make the person who added it have to re-add it twice. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I copy. I don't care about what you said. The other users may edit that page, except you. You will ruin me and that page. Then, you "kick" me from Wikipedia like the boss... A user accused me as vandal, now, you accused me as selfish. That's amazing. I hope I never see you, I don't know at Wikipedia or else. And I don't care of what pages I edit or what pages you edit...

Can you read my messages before this? Should I say continously? Honestly, I hate saying continously.

"It's useless for arguing with me. Although you explain everything, I am still disagree with you." So, you can close this "discussion" (or should I say "edit-warring"?) and I don't argue with you again... I will make that page better than La La Land's accolades and I follow Wikipedia's rule, not like you... Note: I'm not American or British or Finnish or whatever....

IreneTandry (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sattam Oru Iruttarai

I thank you for showing support for moving Sattam Oru Iruttarai (1981 film) to exclude the year. But Lugnuts and In ictu oculi do not seem to have come to an agreement. Andrewa, I thank you for showing the same, but if a consensus is not reached, then the move proposal will be closed. If we show those two users the naming style of The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Thillu Mullu (both of which have 21st century remakes) as well as the policy WP:TWODABS, you think they will agree without saying WP:OTHERCRAP? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Kailash, but to be honest, I don't think IIO is going to be open to persuasion on accepting a primary topic no matter how much evidence is provided. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I come to your page to talk about one personal attack, and I find another. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That comment about my children was truly disturbing. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...I didn't say anything about "your" children. It's just that your mentality of "only old people look up movies made before 2000" is usually one I see in very young Internet posters. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So "you children" wasn't a typo, you were attacking me because you thought I was a child? That's worse. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the discussion must be re-opened? I am fine with it, but I fear it will become an endless cycle if users like IIO interfere. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm sorry this didn't work out User:Kailash29792, some of us did our best to support. But it's too soon, and frequent renominations because you didn't get the desired outcome the first time are not looked upon kindly by the community. Best to wait if something drastically changes (a huge spike in page views), or at least give it a year, and try to come up with a more detailed move proposal. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Review for Third Murderer

Hi Ribbet32. I've reviewed your DYK nomination and have only two minor concerns that should be easy to address. Once those are addressed, I intended to approve the hook. Lepricavark (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Third Murderer

On 6 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Third Murderer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that scholars have debated whether the mysterious Third Murderer in William Shakespeare's tragedy Macbeth was Macbeth himself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Third Murderer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Third Murderer), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For the great work on the article for The Salesman. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palme d'Or Flags

Hello I see you reverted my edit of switching the flag for The Best Intentions from Sweden to Denmark. Is it true that the flags are aimed for director's nationalities and not the film's country of origin? Because I edited the page for the recent Palme d'Or winner The Square, saying it was the first film since 1951 for Sweden to win, and then someone reverted my edit claiming The Best Intentions counts in between them. - Theironminer (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Theironminer, I'm the one who also reverted The Square edit. The problem was one of precise wording- the edit to The Square claimed it was the first Swedish film to win the Palme d'Or, which I knew to be false- The Best Intentions was Swedish, even Pelle the Conqueror was a Swedish co-production. The film's country isn't necessarily the same as the direector's- a whole host of factors are counted. However, if you look at the top of the tables on the main Palme d'Or article, they focus on the nationality of the directors rather than the films. Not something I necessarily agree with, that's just the way it was before I ever edited that article, and I guess that's what other editors thought was best. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your message about tagging.

Hey, I didn't perceive it quite that way. I just assumed it was more of a general "this article has some content, but could use beefing up". Someone tagged one of my previous new articles, Small Town Crime or Permission (film) with it. I figured it was something that was attached to all stubs in order to urge expansion. But I felt like A Woman, a Part was my best new film article yet. As you said, it contained the most references with just about everything accounted for. (Quick aside: thanks for the compliment, too. I felt accomplished after writing that one.) The only thing it's really missing is a plot section (which I don't want to write myself without having seen the film, as to avoid spoiling it for myself). So thanks for the heads up! I'll remove that as it's quite unnecessary now that you mention it. I'll leave it on Letters from Baghdad. I dunno why, but I feel quite exhausted and/or apathetic about adding further references to that. So yes, laziness/fatigue from creating new movie articles in regards to that one page. But I appreciate the tip nonetheless, and won't add it to future articles unless I feel like I'm under-sourced (see: Letters from Baghdad) and need assistance in expanding it.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 08:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits at Kagemusha

Those were nice edits you made at Kagemusha. Recently, another editor requested that a sortable list of directed films be put in at Kajirō Yamamoto and I was wondering if you could glance at that section for possible enhancement. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words JohnWickTwo. I would tend to agree a table would help that article in the very least in aesthetics. Sortable can give the reader more convenience in finding a title as well. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Wrath

Hello Rib, just noticed your reversion of my edits for the film Day of Wrath and the classification as drive by tagging. I wanted to let you know that my additions were not drive by tagging as the article is incomplete and those sections (and missing information) still need to be expanded and added respectively. The Reception section is way too short and only briefly states that the film received mixed reviews on its initial release and later acclaim. The reception section, although relatively well written, doesn't address the issues the film had during its production. Other issues that are mentioned in the talk page still need to be addressed in the article as well as the fact that the article still needs work done to it. Hopefully I've clarified the reason why such additions were added to the article and the reason that they should remain in the article and this doesn't sound like me rambling like a madman.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not every article needs a tag; this is more substantial than many articles. Every article is a work in progress; not every one needs an incomplete tag. You have a history of tag bombing articles, but I seriously doubt you have ever seen this film or have any interest in it. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the help with regards to "My Cousin Rachel" and such, but there are better ways to address users who have made mistakes then the way you did with me. Please be aware of that. Your message on my talk page insulted my intelligence by pointing out grammar errors and then insulted my personality by calling me whinny. I don't apprieciate that at all. Repect all users. Anyway, thank you for addressing me and helping me out by providing that template. I hope we can be friends. TheMovieGuy.

Thanks

Thanks for weighing in on ANI about that OTRS issue. I gotta say, I love your comment, "Perhaps the fucking tone in that fucking quote isn't fucking sunshine and fucking lollipops, but there's no fucking personal attack." Spot-on.

I maintain a list of notable quotes on my user page and if I didn't think it might reflect poorly on you without the context of the ANI discussion, that would be at the top of the list. Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations

@Ribbet32: Hi Ribbet32, I'm MagicatthemovieS. You might remember me - you passed my nomination of "A Rape on Campus" as a good article. Since we work well together, I was wondering if you might like to check out two articles which I recently nominated to reach good article status - Gerald Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento and Tawana Brawley rape allegations. Let me know if you are interested in either article or both of them.

Thanks, ~ MagicatthemovieS

Hi @MagicatthemovieS:, of course I remember you; right now I have my hands full with another review, sorry. Maybe I'll take a look at Gerald Ford and see if I can give it a copyedit, but that's about all I can do for right now. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ribbet32:; let me know if you're able to review either article when you're less busy.

Legal action

Explain to me, how legal action for a movie 2 years after the previous, effects the legal action taken on the original movie? That'd be a help. Thanks. Oogles (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Save you the suspense. It doesn't. If you want to form some kind of lawsuit post (With no judgement) feel free to do that. Oogles (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 223: / Line 223: @@
 That'd be a help. Thanks.
 [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 02:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
+: Save you the suspense. It doesn't.   If you want to form some kind of lawsuit post (With no judgement) feel free to do that. [[User:Oogles|Oogles]] ([[User talk:Oogles|talk]]) 02:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)