Hello, TurokSwe. Instead of getting into an extensive WP:Edit war with an editor who is committing WP:Vandalism or other WP:Disruptive editing, as you did with User:GORIZARD, report the editor at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection after warning the editor. You don't need to warn the editor several times.

Also, if you need a Welcome template to better help you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia, just let me know here on your talk page and I'll provide you with one. Flyer22 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see here that you did report GORIZARD at the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; seems that, despite being a fairly newly registered editor, you're familiar with some aspects such as that already.

Anyway, take care. Flyer22 (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should please stop adding false information about the American Godzilla (or officially, Zilla) and providing links to your own, biased Wiki. I won't remove any "American Godzilla" links or renaming the page to what it officially is known as (Zilla). I am warning you. You can add all the false information in the world on your own Wikia Wiki, but you cannot add it on a site that people will actually visit and believe in. Do not keep this behaviour going on, or there will be consequences. 108.214.32.91 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What I'm writing on the "American Godzilla" article is what can be verified. The supposed name change to Zilla is nothing more than a myth caused by misinterpretations by fans. I'm trying to give people the verifiable truth that so many fans wants to ignore. I havent done anything wrong, my friend, so don't try to threaten me. Unlike many dissatisfied fans I'm not vandalizing, I'm accepting and giving you all the truth you want to cover up for others. TurokSwe 09:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only person in the entire world that thinks the Zilla name change is a myth is you (unless you have a few friends in real life who you've convinced as well). There are absolutely no sources that say it is a myth other than your biased Wiki. If it was true, don't you think better sources for Godzilla information like Toho Kingdom would list it? Don't you think that the ground-breaking fact that Toho actually let the American Godzilla be called so? A photo of a logo on a DVD re-release in 2006 that TriStar was too lazy to change does not count as fact -- you are just assuming, and assuming is not factual. Many thousands of people call GINO "American Godzilla", but at least they know the fact is that he has been officially renamed ZILLA™ by Toho. And no, Zilla is not a childish mockery of the American Godzilla. Why would Toho waste money in trademarking Zilla and saying in GMK that the Americans believed that it was GODZILLA® when it wasn't? Don't those two things count as enough proof that Zilla ≠ Godzilla? Zilla is the official name, and that is the fact, proven by Toho themselves in Final Wars and in GMK. You know man, I'm really sorry if I sound angry. Please just leave the page alone, please. Just don't revert the facts, you'll be doing all the American Godzilla fans, including me, a favor. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.214.32.91 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Faizan Al-Badri. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ceratopsia, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 13:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm HCA. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Perentie because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! HCA (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Perentie, you may be blocked from editing. HCA (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ceratopsia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HCA (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been vandalizing, I just corrected false information. On Perentie, it should be mentioned that Megalania is the world's largest lizard, how is that vandalizing? On Ceratopsia, it should be acknowledged that the claim of extinction is nothing more than a claim. The extinction myth doesn't even have any supporting evidence, and therefore we should make clear that it's just a controversial claim. There are no evidence for extinction and everyone does not believe in extinction and there are often evidence which contradicts the extinction claims. How is my corrections vandalizing? You're overreacting.

And you're using sophistry to conceal your obvious cryptozoological agenda. By your logic, we should erase all the death dates from historical biography pages, since just because Lincoln hasn't been seen lately doesn't mean he's not alive. When you lose your car keys, do you spend all day searching just one room for them, no matter how many times you come up empty, because no number of failures is ever enough to prove they're not in the room and therefore you should search a different room? If something hasn't been seen in thousands or millions of years, it's probably dead or non-existent. Yes, rare exceptions occur, but the vast majority of extinct species really are extinct. And I notice you aren't flogging this position for conodonts or Bothriolepis, just the "cool" animals - selective reasoning in the extreme. Science isn't philosophy; that's why it's much more successful and useful. We don't endlessly look for absolute proof; we test a hypothesis and if the odds of our results being inaccurate are miniscule, we accept it and move on until and unless evidence prompts re-examinating. If you're going to argue for the survival of something after a very long gap in evidence, you need to actually provide evidence (good evidence, not drunken eyewitness accounts). HCA (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lincoln example was very bad. Lincoln was one man (not an entire species) and he lived and died in recent times. We don't even know how long all organisms or even our world has been around, that topic is a matter of opinion/belief and controversy. We don't know if any animal or plant or a planet have been around for tousands or millions of years. But using your logic, since Coelocanths werent seen alive until about the 1930s or something, then they would probably be dead or non-existing right now? Yet we know they are alive and well. Personally, I tend to believe more in reality and possibilities than what you believe in, I don't just swallow someone's claim that a species is extinct without tasting the claim first. I question everything. And I certainly question extinction claims, especially since there really arent any evidence for extinction (although I know that extinction doesn't leave evidence), anyway, I never see any reasons to assume that a species is extinct. Just because I havent seen a specific species alive in the flesh that does certainly not give me any reason to believe that this species would be extinct. Extinction is possible, but many times unlikely, especially when there are (cryptozoological) evidence against the extinction claim. I don't have a paradigma like you, I don't hold on to traditions of simply believing everything that you're told that has the word "science" in it. I'm living in reality and treats reality as it should be treated, I never expect that I know more about reality than reality itself does. Science is truly philosophy, even I can't ignore that, practically anything is philosophy. Eyewitness accounts are also evidence, it's also thanks to eyewitnesses that we even know anything about our world, it's thanks to eyewitnesses that even have science. Eyewitnesses can be wrong, but they can also be very right. And even when I do provide anything more thats close to conrete evidence it is just ignored and removed, I would guess mostly because of people with biased and ignorant minds, don't take it as an insult. And your attitude and behaviour about all this shows evidently a very bad and biased way of thinking, my friend. Don't play God. TurokSwe 20:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Perentie, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HCA (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added the word "known", how is that even vandalizing??? You're clearly overreacting and/or ignoring me and the obvious. There's no need to warn me just because of that word, my silly friend. Shall I maybe give you a warning too? Is that what you want? TurokSwe 20:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Settle your conflict at Talk:Megalania. Don't edit the article until you have formed consensus. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

(edit conflict) When i posted my comment on WP:AIAV you were already far past the WP:3RR mark on the Megalania. As Mufka already warned above - don't edit (revert) the article unless you have consensus which is clearly not the case here - hence the 24 hour block for 3RR and edit warring. If you are in an edit war you discuss the issue, rather then reverting over and over. In cases where there are multiple editors disagreeing with you, at times the only thing you can do is drop the issue and move on. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How come I've been blocked but not HCA (talk)? TurokSwe 21:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HCA has not steppe over the 3RR line. Several other editors - including you - did pass that line though. Par 3RR that is a valid reason for issuing a block thought i initially opted against that measure since i hoped that everyone could leave the article's alone and head to the talk page instead. Yet even after my and Mufka's warning to leave the article alone you made another partial revert continuing the edit war. Since you were already far past 3RR that resulted in the current block. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning. Please, stop vandalizing the content from the page Zilla! 66.26.66.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're being ridiculous. You can't give me a warning for reverting the content into your vandalism (I'm sorry if you feel insulted by this word). The content you're providing is unsourced and highly questionable and your edits can easily be seen as vandalism, not only according to me. For the record, the page is named American Godzilla, and not "Zilla" as you'd want it to be according to your opinion. TurokSwe 23:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You edits there are disruptive, and need to stop. Consensus is clear, and further discussion is just wheel spinning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on reflection, I should be clearer: do not make any substantive edits to this article until you have consensus for them on the talk page. i.e. don't be "bold", gain consensus first. Failure to do so will result in a 1 week block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you explanations why I keep reverting your bias: because it's pure, blatant bias. I tried to reason with you but you want things done only your way. 108.214.32.91 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at American Godzilla. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I don't need to cause edit warring, I understand that when evident vandalizing is in progress I can just warn the user and/or in the end report the user. I wish to be unblocked in order to help saving the page American Godzilla from further vandalism by users who are and are more than willing to be vandalizing but who are not blocked. TurokSwe 00:35, April 13 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Despite what you say below it seems clea rthat you do not understand the difference between vandalism and edits you just don't happen to agree with. If you had in fact simply been reverting vandalism, you would not be blocked right now, so arguing to be unblocked to continue what you were doing is pretty much a dead end. Ubless and until you can understand and abide by the edit warring policy you can expect to keep getting blocked, with each block longer than the last, so it would be in your best interest to make an effort to demonstrate you truly do understand it instead of just saying "I get it now, unblock me." Actions speak louder than words. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2013 (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.

First, I don't think the other version of the article is "vandalism"; you're both defending your own favorite versions (both of which look fairly horrible, by the way). I don't believe you when you say you "understand" about edit warring. You were blocked for edit warring yesterday, and immediately started up again as soon as the block expired. Any admin is free to overturn this if they think it's best, without getting my approval first, but if they'd like my opinion, I think the propensity for edit warring (and pretty obvious disruption on Megalania) needs to stop, and the best way to show we're serious that it has to stop is to let the 1 week block remain in place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't paying attention to the idea of edit warring before, it was still new to me until very recently. I now understand it, I can promise you that. I'm a fast learner but I must notice, learn and understand what I've done wrong first, and I can assure you that I have learned that. I will avoid edit warring now that I understand it. I once again asks to be unblocked. TurokSwe 01:01, April 13 2013 (UTC)

Do you also understand Wikipedia's definition of vandalism? I'm not willing to unblock you if you've got the mentality that anyone who disagrees with you is editing with malicious intent. m.o.p 13:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the page and I'm sure I understand it. TurokSwe 18:58, April 13 2013 (UTC)

OK, enough wasting others' time. I;ve blocked you indefinitely; when you can convince another admin that you understand what "no edit warring" means, and that you won't do it anymore, they might unblock you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked because I didn't understand what edit warring meant, but I am sure I do now. In the future, I will not cause an edit war, but I will discuss with the other users about changes to an article and wait with editing the article until we've come to an agreement. I now ask to have the block removed. TurokSwe (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thsi does not demonstrate the knowledge, as requested. You claimed to understand in April - yet here we are again. You need to word-for-word explain a) what constitutes edit-warring, b) how you'll personally avoid it in the future, and c) where to go to get help instead of edit-warring. These will need to be in your own words, not a close paraphrase of the related policies/guidelines (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:54, 14 July 2013 (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.

Thank you for explaining that more in detail! TurokSwe (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2013 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have understood that if I make an excessive amount of reverts (over three reverts) in an article that might be considered edit-warring. I understand that edit-warring is unnecessary and not a good way of contributing. I don't want to cause any trouble or vandalism here on Wikipedia, and I learn from my mistakes, and I always try to understand what I did wrong. I hope that I will be allowed to once again be a part of this community and help Wikipedia grow. In the future, to prevent an edit-war I will first of all discuss the reason why I would want to revert an edit with other users who has a conflicting opinion, and as said earlier I will not revert any edits until I and the other users has come to an agreement. Or I'll just leave it alone. Secondly, if I would eventually need any help I will turn to the administrators for help and advice. TurokSwe (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given the admission of socking from a month ago, there is not sufficient reason to believe the user intends to follow our rules. WP:OFFER still applies. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2013 (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.

This seems to me to be a somewhat reasonable explanation of edit warring and it does seem that you understand what was previously wrong. You've in fact offered to hold yourself to an extra high standard (no reverts), which is a good indication. Since it is customary to check-in with the blocking admin before unblocking, I'm going to talk to Floquenbeam. Please note that even one single further instance of edit warring will result in your account being blocked without warning--you've stated you understand the policy, so no more warnings should be necessary. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not going to revert anymore, that's a good sign, and it addresses the reason for the original block. If we're being misled, it will be easily fixed. However, I would recommend that they also address their semi-recent sock puppetry as well (will dig up a link in a little while, can't recall offhand how long ago, maybe a month? Maybe two?). That said, I'm happy to accept your judgement, Qwyrxian, on when and if unblocking is appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, more recent than that, late October: User talk:Floquenbeam/Archive 6#TurokSwe..._back?. I'm sorry, I should probably have put a link to this somewhere on this page or his block log for a reviewing admin. I'll still defer to you, Qwyrixian. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a question, in case my unblock request is approved, I would want to know where I can find the administrators on Wikipedia. I'm still rather new to this site and don't know everything about it, so it would be appreciated to get some answers. TurokSwe (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TurokSwe, can you please respond to the concerns Floquenbeam has raised above--that you were editing as an IP address during your block? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I honestly have been editing under an IP address earlier, but I can assure you that I've learned my lesson since then and I will absolutely not attempt to repeat my previous behaviours. TurokSwe (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I am declining your unblock. Part of proving that you're serious about following Wikipedia's rules is, well, following the rules. By your own admission now, you broke those rules as recently as about a month ago. I don't see why we should trust that you've suddenly realized the error of your ways and are going to comply with our policies. Please stay away from Wikipedia entirely (no new accounts, no edits as an IP) for at least 6 months, then come back and try again. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I always try to do my best, afterall, I ain't more than human, and It's easy to make mistakes, but at least I'm being honest. I will do so then, 6 months it is, and thank you for considering my case. Have a nice day, my friend! TurokSwe (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

It has been about a year since I published a request to become unblocked from editing, and I have no intentions at all of repeating past mistakes, and I now ask again to become unblocked. I am aware of the reasons for previously being blocked and I plan to follow and learn the rules to the best I can whenever I intend to add or edit an article, or if necessary, I will just avoid editing. Though I would still like to help Wikipedia grow and provide help and information that do not harm the site or its members, and that is constructed after the rules and policies of Wikipedia.

Accept reason:

I am going to extend both WP:AGF and WP:ROPE. I could have asked for a CU to see if there have been additional socks - and I still might (if we find that there were, this block will be immediately reinstated). It is hoped that with a year of maturity, that things will indeed have changed - reblocks are very cheap the panda ₯’ 12:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You've been blocked in the past for 'edit warring'. Could you explain what you understand by 'edit warring', and how you would avoid getting into an edit war in future? PhilKnight (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, of course! I was engaging in an edit war with another user and what I did was that I constantly reverted the user's contributions back to my own version, and this went on without any of us coming to a consensus, exceeding also this limit of a 3-revert maximum. Evidently I did not fully understand or fully care about this issue or the rule at the time, although I do now (time brings experience and knowledge), and I won't try to get into any edit wars in the future at all, if another user have a problem with my edits, I'll discuss it with him/her. If any other problem would arise, I'll contact an admin wherever I may find one, or I may just leave the article alone altogether instead of making a big deal out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurokSwe (talk • contribs)

• That's a reasonable answer, however I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving Disputes. PhilKnight (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I'll have that article in mind and use as reference/advice if ever an issue of the sort would arise!

I must ask that you stop reverting the old edit to your current edit on the Godzilla (franchise) page. We have yet to make a consensus so there should be no reason for you to jump the gun else where. I've once again reverted your edit back to the way it was before you even touched it on August 24, 2014, before this minor controversy began. According to WP:DRNC, you cannot make an edit because there is no consensus yet. Please, be patient. Armegon (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted any edits, I was merely removing the link to the Zilla (Toho) article seeing as that article doesn't cover TriStar's Baby Godzilla. I also do think you're overreacting, I thought it would seem pretty clear that I do not care much whether or not TriStar's Baby Godzilla is mentioned on the Godzilla Junior article or not, so please calm down! TurokSwe (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing an edit is reverting an edit. We still have yet to reach a proper consensus. The Zilla article does indeed cover the Baby Godzilla but in the form of the incarnation from Godzilla: The Series. Please, I must once again refer you to the guidelines of WP:DRNC. Armegon (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus has already been reached, my friend. TurokSwe (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has now, yes, but we should be good sports and wait for the other users thoughts. I've brought this situation to the Junior page now whether we should link the Baby Godzilla with the Zilla (Toho) article and discuss notable mention, etc. Armegon (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should discuss this little issue between us whether the creatures should be MUTO or MUTOs in the American productions section of the Godzilla franchise page. I say it should be MUTOs. There is more than one MUTO and they are referenced as MUTOs when mentioned in general or as a whole quite a few times in the movie. Plus, the section it is listed under says Monster co-star(s). If we put simply just MUTO, readers will assume the section is only referencing one monster. Since there is two, we must list them under the way the film references them as a whole, as MUTOs. The only reference them as MUTO when mentioned individually. Armegon (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting how such a small edit can be taken so seriously. There are (among some examples) several Baby Godzillas in the 1998 American film and several Destoroyahs in the 1995 Toho film aswell, but just because there were a multiple number of the same creature present in the film doesn't necessarily mean we should denote them under the pluralis-term. The section says "Monster co-star(s)", yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should type the same character (as MUTO, Baby Godzilla, Destoroyah, Kamacuras, Meganula et.al.) in plural-form, that can mean merely several different characters (such as Destoroyah, MUTO, Baby Godzilla etc.). Not the amount of individuals that one character consists of. TurokSwe (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the thing about the MUTOs that separates them from the creatures you listed is that the characters in the film actually reference them as MUTOs when referencing them as a whole. It'd be different if they simply stuck with just plain MUTO the whole time but they do reference them as MUTOs at many points. The reason why Destoroyah or the Baby Zillas from 1998 aren't given the plural term is because they are never reference that way in their respected films. It would make sense if we list them as MUTOs because it implies there's more than one. Additionally, you said that... just because there were a multiple number of the same creature present in the film doesn't necessarily mean we should denote them under the pluralis-term, now that may apply to a character like Destoroyah but it doesn't apply to the MUTOs because they weren't the same creatures. They were a part of the same species but they were different characters, one was Winged and small and the other was 8-legged and much larger. MUTOs distinguishes them, implicating there is more than one and that they differ from each other. If they were the exact same character, like Destoroyah, then just simply MUTO would make sense. Armegon (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"They were a part of the same species but they were different characters", it appears you're trying to make the same case as I was with the 1998 Baby Godzilla earlier. It doesn't matter how many individuals of the same character were present in the film, whether it be two, ten, two hundred or just one individual, (unlike Godzilla '98 and the Baby Godzilla) MUTO still represents merely one single character (just as Godzilla '98 and Zilla Jr. represents the same character, despite not being the same individual in-universe), it doesn't matter whether it was expressed in plural- or singular form in the film. MUTO really is no exception (the MUTO article on here isn't listed as "MUTOs" either and that's really how it should stay to make sure we're talking about a specific creature/character, no matter the amount of individuals). I still think this is being taken a bit too seriously. TurokSwe (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you see, we're not talking about 1998 and its characters, it's a totally separate issue from the MUTOs. Additionally, it is an essential matter how many characters, especially when they're separate characters and distinguishable by design, are featured in a film. The MUTOs are not even officially published as single characters, the Female is published as the 8-legged MUTO and the male as the Winged MUTO. This is because they are not one fully single character, they are separate characters distinguished by their genders & designs. You can't really say it doesn't matter whether it was expressed in plural- or singular form in the film, you're just brushing the facts aside to justify your argument as the contender, despite the absolute fact the film clearly references them as MUTOs more than once. Additionally, the MUTO article not just covers the creatures identified as MUTOs but the acronym itself. Remember, MUTO is a military acronym to reference a creature before it is officially given a name, as was the case in the Godzilla: Awakening comic. Plain MUTO makes sense for the article (because of the acronym the article must cover essentially) but MUTOs makes sense for the monster co-star(s) section because it covers all the monsters featured in the film. MUTO just implies there is only one monster. Also, I reverted your MUTO edit back to the original, MUTOs. It should stay on the original edit before you edited it until an agreement can be reached. Armegon (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly aware that we're not talking about the creatures from 1998, but they provided a great example for my points, which I'm not sure really sank in. The MUTOs in the film represent different individuals ("characters" can be used as a synonym but one should do so with caution; they may represent different characters in-universe), but they're really two different representatives of the same character, that is "MUTO". Links to Amazon.com for different products featuring the two different individuals are a weak support for the claim that these two (8-Legged MUTO and Flying MUTO) would be registered under two different characters, and if that would be the case, then it probably should be noted in the "Godzilla (franchise)" article as "8-Legged MUTO" and "Flying MUTO" (if they would be different in the same sense that Meganulon and Megaguirus are different). You could make another example with all the variaties of Mechagodzilla; each displaying their own unique design, and each resembling different unrelated (in-universe) "characters", but yet still belonging to the same character, that is "Mechagodzilla". "you're just brushing the facts aside to justify your argument as the contender" Don't get defensive like that, that's merely indication that you cannot support your own argument, but lets not make this personal, keep it a civil and respectful discussion if you so wish to continue. "despite the absolute fact the film clearly references them as MUTOs more than once" it doesn't matter whether characters in the film labels it in singular or plural-form or how many times they do it, singular-form (as in what signifies the specific overall registered character; MUTO) is what should be used. Potential future incarnations of the MUTO might be different or contain more or just one individual, but they're still just one official character (MUTO), despite there being different individuals/variations of the same character and categorized under different titles, they're still the same character (MUTO). Anyway, I'm tired, and if it matters so much to you then please let it stay as "MUTOs". TurokSwe (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hedorah 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:

• * ''[[Godzilla: Battle Legends]]'' ([[Turbo Duo]]) - 1993)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gigan 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:

• * ''[[Godzilla: Battle Legends]]'' ([[Turbo Duo]]) - 1993)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mechagodzilla 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:

• * ''[[Godzilla: Battle Legends]]'' ([[Turbo Duo]]) - 1993)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battra 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:

• * ''[[Godzilla: Battle Legends]]'' ([[Turbo Duo]]) - 1993)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zilla (Toho), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDW. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of films considered the best, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metro. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Frozen (2013 film) into Frozen (franchise). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —zziccardi (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Oaken (Disney) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not a notable character, only appeared for 3 minutes

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that Oaken is indeed a notable character, being praised, remembered and quoted from by the audience to this day. He appears for a few minutes in both the film and the TV-show Once Upon a Time. He has also appeared in books, and it's very likely he may appear once again, and again and again. I will see what I can do to improve the article. TurokSwe (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Colossal Kaiju Combat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Smileguy91^{Spread the knowledge!} 22:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Godzilla video games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frozen (franchise), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jennifer Lee. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anaconda: The Writer's Cut, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Horror and Hans Bauer. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Anaconda (film series), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- GB fan 15:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have done step 1 of setting up the AFDs for Lake Placid (film series) and Anaconda (film series). You need to complete steps 2 and 3 also or there will be no discussion and the AFD tags will be removed from the articles. -- GB fan 15:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to follow the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO on both those AFDs as they still are not complete. -- GB fan 21:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you wouldn't fix them and complete all the steps to nominate these articles I have fixed the nomination pages and listed them correctly. -- GB fan 23:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lake Placid vs. Anaconda. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, my behavior is not "disruptive/unconstructive". I simply remove material that lacks reliable references which has only been speculative and never confirmed. If you can't support a sentence, don't keep it. TurokSwe (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it speculative when the film has already been released? You realise that you're also messing with other edits because of your WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Your edits have been problematic all along. From not understanding what qualifies as a franchise by our definition and editwarring the hell out of it, to your WP:POINTY AFDs. It seems you have no respect for our guidelines or for our MOS. You seem to have a history of problematic editing - you don't want to be blocked again, surely? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is speculative because there hasn't been any reliable sources published to confirm the contents added to the article. My edits aren't problematic just because I keep unsourced material away. You have to provide sources. Threatening with blocking me just because you want to add unsourced or badly sourced material is just bad and low. Get your (reliable) sources first (not IMDb, which can be edited by anyone)TurokSwe (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't threatening anything - I just can't understand your actions. It's not specifically this article where your edits are problematic, but you keep editing against guidelines and our MOS, and then editwarring to your view, not Wikipedia's. Things like that will get you into trouble. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Problematic according to Wikipedia, or according to you? It's an important question. TurokSwe (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well going against our MOS and guidelines would be problematic by Wikipedia, wouldn't it? Blanking pages because you don't like them, that would be problematic too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be blanking pages "because I don't like them" as much as because the contents or articles would be unnecessary. TurokSwe (talk) 11:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking a page for any reason is problematic. Moreso when it's in reaction to your request for speedy deletion being rejected. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True! TurokSwe (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to add films that are not explicitly of the "natural horror" genre to this list, then you are going to need sources. You cannot claim that The Amazing Spider-man 2 or Harry and the Hendersons are of this genre just because they have a giant lizard or a bigfoot in them. These are not even horror films, so they cannot belong to the natural horror subgenre. Anything controversial and unsourced will be removed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at List of natural horror films, you may be blocked from editing. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with your nonsense that I'm practicing "disruptive editing". If anything, you are using disruptive editing by constantly removing contents without a proper reason. Most/many of the contents on that article are what you call "original research". Basically everyone or anyone who has experienced The Amazing Spider-Man would feel that this film falls within the "natural horror"-category. TurokSwe (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then find some reliable sources to back up this claim, otherwise it's just your opinion, which is WP:OR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need to find sources for this just as much as I'd need to find sources for other movies like the The Fly, The Little Shop of Horrors, Godzilla, Jurassic Park, King Kong, A Sound of Thunder, Bigfoot, Tremors, Jaws, Lake Placid, Alligator, Planet of the Apes, Anaconda, or the Mega Shark Versus-films for example. You're just being stubborn because of your personal opinion that this film somehow does not include any elements of natural horror, which is ridiculous. The film is full of natural horror (basically every scene that has to do with spiders or the Lizard or references to the Lizard for example). It's not a stereotypical horror movie or the best of horror, but there is plenty of obvious natural horror-elements in the film, and enough to have the audience freaked out and disgusted. Please stop your WP:OR-nonsense. TurokSwe (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it doesn't contain any elements, I'm saying it's a bit of a stretch to claim that it is a natural horror film. It's not, it's a superhero film. If you want to make the claim, you need to substantiate it with a source, otherwise it's just your opinion, which is WP:OR, plain and simple. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of an intended superhero-film turned part superhero-film part natural-horror-film, which can be easily observed by basically anyone who watched the film (the majority that is). It doesn't matter whether you market it as a "comedy" or "adventure" when it is something more or something else. This is just you demanding something from me because of your personal opinions, and Wikipedia is not about personal opinions. The Amazing Spider-Man is a superhero-adventure-film containing the spirit of a scifi-natural-horror-film. It's not an issue. TurokSwe (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit the nail on the head: "Wikipedia is not about personal opinions". It is your personal opinion that "The Amazing Spider-Man is a superhero-adventure-film containing the spirit of a scifi-natural-horror-film". If you want to include it in a list of natural horror films, you need to prove that it is widely accepted as being a natural horror film, otherwise it's your personal opinion and as such WP:OR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Ropen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Zilla (2004).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do copy and paste moves. These screw up attribution and the article history. You should do a Requested move (RM) instead. You can publicize the RM at WikiProject Film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Anacondas DVD Collection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lake Placid Collector's Edition Blu-ray.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anaconda (film series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ice Age (franchise), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Carniolus (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lake Placid Collector's Edition Blu-ray.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Alien, Predator and Alien vs. Predator games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PC. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genesis 3D (film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis 3D (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Genesis3DMovie.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You think it's probably time to change the title of the Zilla article from Zilla (Toho) to Zilla (TriStar Godzilla)? It would be more specific in regards to the character and it references both TriStar's Godzilla and Zilla, which those two names are official trademarked names that the character has gone by (which the article emphasizes) and shows that those incarnations are indeed tied together and related. Zilla (Toho) is technically correct but at the same time misleading, it implies that the article is only about the 2004 Zilla and the incarnations that came after. It makes you question "well what about TriStar's Godzilla?" Since Zilla is an incarnation of TriStar's Godzilla, it would make sense to rename the article to "Zilla (TriStar Godzilla)", since the article covers all incarnations. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I surely agree, and I have already considered bringing that up for discussion. Shall we take it to the community? TurokSwe (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably discuss your ideas to the talk page before making major revisions like that. I'll open a discussion, if you want to chime in, but the logo and DVD issue was already previously discussed so, it kind of seems like you're trying to revert the page to what it was like a year ago. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did not respond, but instead continued to revert the page back to the content of last year. Therefore, I've reverted your edits, as you need to bring it up in discussion before you make such unilateral decisions like that. That page has had discussions about the structure, infobox, organization and relation to Alien vs Predator for about nine months now. You can't just revert it all without discussing it. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence of such discussions? I sure can't find any, and as far as I'm concerned, there should be nothing really problematic about my edits. The box image for the franchise, for starters, is much better represented by a home media collection of films rather than a blurry title that is even assigned to a sequel to Prometheus and not the main Alien series. The crossover films are a series of its own that includes the Aliens and so should be mentioned below the other films. The franchise is also commonly branded as Aliens instead of just Alien, and the creature itself is repeatedly recognized as a "Xenomorph". TurokSwe (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Dino Crisis: Dungeon in Chaos

added a link pointing to Mobile

Dino Crisis (franchise)

added a link pointing to Mobile

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Dino Crisis franchise requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. The1337gamer (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this was a mere simple misunderstanding, since the original template didn't work earlier but I was redirected to a "Create template" page instead and I couldn't find the original. TurokSwe (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TurokSwe. 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]

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Frozen_(franchise)}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Alien vs. Predator 1 & 2 Boxset.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dino Crisis 3D.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TurokSwe. 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 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 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 Turok (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mobile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lake Placid - Collector's Edition Blu-ray Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Alien, Predator and Alien vs. Predator games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TurokSwe: The way to contest an AfD outcome is not to edit war to reinstate the article, but to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this very much ridiculous. Battra (and Jet Jaguar for that matter) shouldn't have been deleted/merged in the first place. This is beyond me. It's petty if anything. TurokSwe (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then make these points at the noted venue. Expressing your outrage on your talk page and/or edit warring is not going to be productive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh believe me, that's not my intention at all. I merely responded to your comment on my own talk page and I did not intend to engage in any edit wars. TurokSwe (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Alien, Predator and Alien vs. Predator games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VR (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Independence Day (film series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Action and Mobile (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jurassic Park 25th Anniversary Collection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Independence Day 2-Movie Collection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak 08:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Jurassic Park 25th Anniversary Collection.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kick-Ass & Kick-Ass 2 Collector's Edition Blu-ray.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Independence Day 2-Movie Collection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see you’ve been repeatedly removing well-referenced material at cryptozoology and list of cryptids. Judging by your edit summaries (example), this is simply because you disagree with the sources, all of which strongly meet WP:RS. This is a request to refrain from edit-warring, to revert your removal of well-sourced content, and to take whatever argument you may have to relevant talk pages. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make unconstructive edits that go against consensus as you did yesterday. It's been three years since the franchise pages were separated and with consensus via discussion, designated as being separate entities. The AvP franchise page already covers those two films so if you want to contribute there, be my guest. The page was semi-protected for the specific reason of avoiding edits such as what you made. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I just noticed that you've had this very same issue in years past and I was gracious enough to point you towards the associated discussion. You need to avoid edit-warring, or else you'll risk getting blocked again. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]