User talk:NowIsntItTime/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:NowIsntItTime. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Hey! I thought I'd reply to you here since I don't think we are supposed to edit in the GA reviews after they have been closed. Will try to have a look at your edits later today or tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok. I'm still fairly new to this and I didn't know how that worked. Thank you. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 11:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roar (1981 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 GamerPro64 -- GamerPro64 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Roar (1981 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roar (1981 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 GamerPro64 -- GamerPro64 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. If you are interested in working on articles together, I have been slowly working on movies that appeared on Mystery Science Theater. I think a few of them have potential for becoming high-quality articles. GamerPro64 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, MST3K is a show I really like, and the movies can be outright hilarious. Improving upon them as much as we can sounds like a good plan! -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have five movie articles that I think could be viable: Zaat, Parts: The Clonus Horror, The Giant Spider Invasion, Squirm (film), and The Horror of Party Beach. There could be other articles that might work but those five I definitely found information about. GamerPro64 02:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Right on. A couple films here are of definite interest to me, The Giant Spider Invasion and Squirm. I was actually watching the episode for Squirm when I did the review for Soultaker, and Spider Invasion is so fascinatingly campy. I'll check out the other film articles in the following week or so, but I'll probably end up editing those two articles. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 02:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I had an idea for expanding Foodfight!'s article, but I think we'll just focus on the ones you have mentioned, and maybe you can tell me if you want to help with that one in the future too. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Just got done reading the synopsis of Squirm. Its a good start. But I would have to recommend watching the actual film instead of basing it of the MST3K riff. I have seen Squirm twice and there are a couple of factual misinformation in the plot right now. Trust me when I say MST3K took a lot out of the movie when riffing. This is why I watched Soultaker unriffed before writing the plot. GamerPro64 04:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Yeah it wasn't until I was nearly finished writing it up that I realized the actual run time would differ against the hour-long episode, plus there's an animated gremlin-spring short they did before they started which would make the already cut movie even shorter! Will try to order/pay to stream it online sometime like I did with Roar, or see if a video store can order it in for me. Then I'll add to the plot -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 15:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have Amazon Prime? That is how I saw it. GamerPro64 17:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my dad has it actually. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I bought Squirm online and made tweaks to the plot after watching it. What do you think about it now? -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 20:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely looks more factual. Will have to trim this down but definitely better than before. GamerPro64 05:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The file File:Roar original soundtrack.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Roar (1981 film)#Music. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Downfall (2004 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 Spintendo -- Spintendo (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, NowIsntItTime. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Roar (1981 film) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with PR and FA. All the best, Miniapolis 23:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

valereee (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The article Downfall (2004 film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Downfall (2004 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 Spintendo -- Spintendo (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beside You (Marianas Trench song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lineup (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) 07:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, according to Template:Reflist, the syntax {{Reflist|2}} has been deprecated. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ohh...Ok. A couple of articles I've been editing have that template, so I'll have to update them. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Guy (help!) 10:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, you made some changes to the Maidstone article, but left no reasons. I know the article needs work, but perhaps the synopsis you deleted could have been added to the lead that you think is too short? I just wanted to touch base first, instead of reverting your changes. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:Grlucas. I had removed the synopsis because it was described in the (really long and overly detailed) plot. If possible, it should be incorporated properly into the lead, or the beginning of the plot to describe the events that take place in the movie. If you want to bring it back, please feel free to do so, but keep the plot below the lead instead of below the cast. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear colleague,

Thank you for your help in reviewing the subject article for GA status. The purpose of the present post is simply to report to you that it does not seem possible to create a new section at its talk page; my two attempts at doing this have resulted in the new section's contents ending up nested inside the final cell of the GA Review table you created in the previous section; see my recent test as evidence.

Seeing as I am unfamiliar with the GA review process and its templates, please would you be so kind as to investigate the root cause of this symptom? It may be something very simple, of course. This is not an urgent problem, as I have been able to communicate with Jack via my own talk page, as you know. However, I am concerned that someone else, in the future, might wish to post a message there, and be unable to do so unless the current condition is resolved. Thank you for your understanding, and any assistance you might be able to extend. If not, then I'll contact the Wikipedia Help Desk.

With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 16:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pdebee: I am so sorry! I forgot to add the vital "|}" (closing code) at the end of the table, so it was left open the whole time! You'll find that you can paste your comments to the article's talk page now with (hopefully) no problems. Also, thank you for your work on copyediting the article. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 20:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear colleague,

Thank you so much for applying that small correction, and for letting me know. Thank you also for all your own work in advising Jack during your GA review; I think the article is now ready for a peer review, as you suggested, before seeking FA status. Onwards and upwards!

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 00:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Woops! you seem to have added the section discussing the copy-edit into my review. Please fix this. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I noticed all along that Talk:Begotten (film) already contained your review, which is also in Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1. I have no idea why the content of the latter is duplicated in the former, other than due to the redirect, perhaps? Nor do I know how to fix this so that your review appears only in Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1, i.e. without being duplicated in Talk:Begotten (film). Maybe you should ask the Help Desk, since you are the author of Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1 and all I ever wanted to do is create a totally independent section in Talk:Begotten (film)? I am hopeful that you will agree the onus is on you to fix this since, as I mentioned before, I am not familiar with the guidelines concerning the GA process and its template(s). Thank you for your cooperation.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 02:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL!! Then this is totally on me and not your fault. I will try to get some help; God knows I need it. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 02:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I think I might have fixed it. Please let me know if any other problems arise. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 02:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear colleague,
A very big Thank You for your helpful assistance in looking into, and fixing, this issue; it confused me no end, not least because it was after 2am this morning and I no longer had any energy left to look into it myself. One of the aspects of this which puzzled me is that, every time I accessed the talk page, I found your GA review, and I therefore lost awareness of whether I was looking at Talk:Begotten (film) or Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1!
Having now looked back at my 'contributions' crumb trails, I realize that, after you fixed the earlier glitch (the missing '|}'), I added the exchanges section in Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1, here, instead of Talk:Begotten (film)! And, because of the redirect, the two looked identical to me!
In any case, I can see that the reason why my section was included in your GA review is because the latter was missing the {{Archive bottom}} template you added here, at 02:50; then, you were quickly able to copy & paste my section, at 02:51 into Talk:Begotten (film) and, finally, delete it from Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1, at 02:52. QED!
Well, I've learned a lot from all this, including my need to study the GA Review guidelines and associated templates; you never know, I might even join you as a GA reviewer!
Finally, thank you also for your patience with me; it's much appreciated.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 21:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem Pdebee! I had some questions myself that took the form of mostly confusion and annoyance, haha.

This was probably able to happen because this was, overall, my second or third time reviewing an article for GA status, and all of the stuff I had to go back and fix resulted of the templates I wasn't familiar with and had little experience in using, nevertheless closing. But despite all this, I think Jack is able, with the help of your copyedit, to submit and hopefully get the article approved as Featured.

I'd love to have you and Jack join me in reviewing, expanding, and creating more Good Articles in the future! Three heads are better than one, as the old saying goes...is that how the saying goes?? -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 19:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(P.S. Thank you so much for my first barnstar!)

I saw the note you left Espngeek regarding their use of bare URLs on the above article, and agree with you. Would you like me to make an effort to clean up the links, or under the circumstances would you rather we gave Espngeek some time to clean up the links on their own initiative? Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Well it's up to you if you want to edit the page and fix anything so that it looks presentable. I do think that Espngeek should edit the links on their own though, as they need to get the gist of using the citation template; it will help them immensely in the future if Espngeek heeds my advice. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll give it at least a couple of days to see whether they make the improvements. DonIago (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

All righty; sounds good! NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago: you can probably help to clean up the links now, as Espngeek hasn't made an effort to reply to me yet, and continues to make contributions with bare links elsewhere. Since I've talked to them, I'm not sure what else can be done as I don't know if someone can be reported for improper use of referencing, and also adding sources that don't match the article's content, as I've seen him do this too. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I tried my best to find reliable sources, but which ones are not? By the way, I fixed the bare links to 5001 Nights at the Movies. Espngeek (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You added a source on how animator Bill Kroyer later wrote and directed Technological Threat, but it doesn't mention or pertain to Animalympics at all. I think you also may have added an interview with Brad Bird about The Incredibles, but again it only makes context if it were in a legacy section and again, with mention of the film he worked on. I don't know about the last one, but I know for sure you had added the first citation.

Espngeek, you're a good editor, and you've found some really good sources for this article, and it looks much better than a week ago. I'd just like to see this issue addressed, and I just wanted to bring the reference template to your attention too. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Espngeek: please let us know whether you're planning to clean up the bare links still present in Animalympics, or whether you'd be more comfortable deferring to us. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:BegottenTheatricalReleasePoster.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).

Hey! I thought I'd reply to you here since I don't think we are supposed to edit in the GA reviews after they have been closed. Will try to have a look at your edits later today or tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh ok. I'm still fairly new to this and I didn't know how that worked. Thank you. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 11:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roar (1981 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 GamerPro64 -- GamerPro64 (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The article Roar (1981 film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roar (1981 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 GamerPro64 -- GamerPro64 (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. If you are interested in working on articles together, I have been slowly working on movies that appeared on Mystery Science Theater. I think a few of them have potential for becoming high-quality articles. GamerPro64 01:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, MST3K is a show I really like, and the movies can be outright hilarious. Improving upon them as much as we can sounds like a good plan! -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have five movie articles that I think could be viable: Zaat, Parts: The Clonus Horror, The Giant Spider Invasion, Squirm (film), and The Horror of Party Beach. There could be other articles that might work but those five I definitely found information about. GamerPro64 02:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Right on. A couple films here are of definite interest to me, The Giant Spider Invasion and Squirm. I was actually watching the episode for Squirm when I did the review for Soultaker, and Spider Invasion is so fascinatingly campy. I'll check out the other film articles in the following week or so, but I'll probably end up editing those two articles. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 02:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I had an idea for expanding Foodfight!'s article, but I think we'll just focus on the ones you have mentioned, and maybe you can tell me if you want to help with that one in the future too. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 04:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Just got done reading the synopsis of Squirm. Its a good start. But I would have to recommend watching the actual film instead of basing it of the MST3K riff. I have seen Squirm twice and there are a couple of factual misinformation in the plot right now. Trust me when I say MST3K took a lot out of the movie when riffing. This is why I watched Soultaker unriffed before writing the plot. GamerPro64 04:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: Yeah it wasn't until I was nearly finished writing it up that I realized the actual run time would differ against the hour-long episode, plus there's an animated gremlin-spring short they did before they started which would make the already cut movie even shorter! Will try to order/pay to stream it online sometime like I did with Roar, or see if a video store can order it in for me. Then I'll add to the plot -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 15:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have Amazon Prime? That is how I saw it. GamerPro64 17:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my dad has it actually. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 17:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I bought Squirm online and made tweaks to the plot after watching it. What do you think about it now? -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 20:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Definitely looks more factual. Will have to trim this down but definitely better than before. GamerPro64 05:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The file File:Roar original soundtrack.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Roar (1981 film)#Music. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE.

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

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Downfall (2004 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 Spintendo -- Spintendo (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, NowIsntItTime. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Roar (1981 film) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with PR and FA. All the best, Miniapolis 23:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

valereee (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The article Downfall (2004 film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Downfall (2004 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 Spintendo -- Spintendo (talk) 00:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beside You (Marianas Trench song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lineup (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) 07:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, according to Template:Reflist, the syntax {{Reflist|2}} has been deprecated. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ohh...Ok. A couple of articles I've been editing have that template, so I'll have to update them. Thanks for taking the time to let me know. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Guy (help!) 10:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, you made some changes to the Maidstone article, but left no reasons. I know the article needs work, but perhaps the synopsis you deleted could have been added to the lead that you think is too short? I just wanted to touch base first, instead of reverting your changes. Thanks. —Grlucas (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello User:Grlucas. I had removed the synopsis because it was described in the (really long and overly detailed) plot. If possible, it should be incorporated properly into the lead, or the beginning of the plot to describe the events that take place in the movie. If you want to bring it back, please feel free to do so, but keep the plot below the lead instead of below the cast. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 15:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear colleague,

Thank you for your help in reviewing the subject article for GA status. The purpose of the present post is simply to report to you that it does not seem possible to create a new section at its talk page; my two attempts at doing this have resulted in the new section's contents ending up nested inside the final cell of the GA Review table you created in the previous section; see my recent test as evidence.

Seeing as I am unfamiliar with the GA review process and its templates, please would you be so kind as to investigate the root cause of this symptom? It may be something very simple, of course. This is not an urgent problem, as I have been able to communicate with Jack via my own talk page, as you know. However, I am concerned that someone else, in the future, might wish to post a message there, and be unable to do so unless the current condition is resolved. Thank you for your understanding, and any assistance you might be able to extend. If not, then I'll contact the Wikipedia Help Desk.

With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 16:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pdebee: I am so sorry! I forgot to add the vital "|}" (closing code) at the end of the table, so it was left open the whole time! You'll find that you can paste your comments to the article's talk page now with (hopefully) no problems. Also, thank you for your work on copyediting the article. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 20:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear colleague,

Thank you so much for applying that small correction, and for letting me know. Thank you also for all your own work in advising Jack during your GA review; I think the article is now ready for a peer review, as you suggested, before seeking FA status. Onwards and upwards!

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 00:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Woops! you seem to have added the section discussing the copy-edit into my review. Please fix this. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 01:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I noticed all along that Talk:Begotten (film) already contained your review, which is also in Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1. I have no idea why the content of the latter is duplicated in the former, other than due to the redirect, perhaps? Nor do I know how to fix this so that your review appears only in Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1, i.e. without being duplicated in Talk:Begotten (film). Maybe you should ask the Help Desk, since you are the author of Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1 and all I ever wanted to do is create a totally independent section in Talk:Begotten (film)? I am hopeful that you will agree the onus is on you to fix this since, as I mentioned before, I am not familiar with the guidelines concerning the GA process and its template(s). Thank you for your cooperation.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 02:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

LOL!! Then this is totally on me and not your fault. I will try to get some help; God knows I need it. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 02:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I think I might have fixed it. Please let me know if any other problems arise. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 02:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear colleague,
A very big Thank You for your helpful assistance in looking into, and fixing, this issue; it confused me no end, not least because it was after 2am this morning and I no longer had any energy left to look into it myself. One of the aspects of this which puzzled me is that, every time I accessed the talk page, I found your GA review, and I therefore lost awareness of whether I was looking at Talk:Begotten (film) or Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1!
Having now looked back at my 'contributions' crumb trails, I realize that, after you fixed the earlier glitch (the missing '|}'), I added the exchanges section in Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1, here, instead of Talk:Begotten (film)! And, because of the redirect, the two looked identical to me!
In any case, I can see that the reason why my section was included in your GA review is because the latter was missing the {{Archive bottom}} template you added here, at 02:50; then, you were quickly able to copy & paste my section, at 02:51 into Talk:Begotten (film) and, finally, delete it from Talk:Begotten (film)/GA1, at 02:52. QED!
Well, I've learned a lot from all this, including my need to study the GA Review guidelines and associated templates; you never know, I might even join you as a GA reviewer!
Finally, thank you also for your patience with me; it's much appreciated.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^{(talk)(become old-fashioned!)} 21:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem Pdebee! I had some questions myself that took the form of mostly confusion and annoyance, haha.

This was probably able to happen because this was, overall, my second or third time reviewing an article for GA status, and all of the stuff I had to go back and fix resulted of the templates I wasn't familiar with and had little experience in using, nevertheless closing. But despite all this, I think Jack is able, with the help of your copyedit, to submit and hopefully get the article approved as Featured.

I'd love to have you and Jack join me in reviewing, expanding, and creating more Good Articles in the future! Three heads are better than one, as the old saying goes...is that how the saying goes?? -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 19:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(P.S. Thank you so much for my first barnstar!)

I saw the note you left Espngeek regarding their use of bare URLs on the above article, and agree with you. Would you like me to make an effort to clean up the links, or under the circumstances would you rather we gave Espngeek some time to clean up the links on their own initiative? Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Well it's up to you if you want to edit the page and fix anything so that it looks presentable. I do think that Espngeek should edit the links on their own though, as they need to get the gist of using the citation template; it will help them immensely in the future if Espngeek heeds my advice. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 16:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll give it at least a couple of days to see whether they make the improvements. DonIago (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

All righty; sounds good! NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 18:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago: you can probably help to clean up the links now, as Espngeek hasn't made an effort to reply to me yet, and continues to make contributions with bare links elsewhere. Since I've talked to them, I'm not sure what else can be done as I don't know if someone can be reported for improper use of referencing, and also adding sources that don't match the article's content, as I've seen him do this too. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I tried my best to find reliable sources, but which ones are not? By the way, I fixed the bare links to 5001 Nights at the Movies. Espngeek (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

You added a source on how animator Bill Kroyer later wrote and directed Technological Threat, but it doesn't mention or pertain to Animalympics at all. I think you also may have added an interview with Brad Bird about The Incredibles, but again it only makes context if it were in a legacy section and again, with mention of the film he worked on. I don't know about the last one, but I know for sure you had added the first citation.

Espngeek, you're a good editor, and you've found some really good sources for this article, and it looks much better than a week ago. I'd just like to see this issue addressed, and I just wanted to bring the reference template to your attention too. -NowIsntItTime^{(chats)(doings)} 22:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Espngeek: please let us know whether you're planning to clean up the bare links still present in Animalympics, or whether you'd be more comfortable deferring to us. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:BegottenTheatricalReleasePoster.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) 03:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:N'chi Ya Nani sample.ogg. 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) 03:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Roar on set.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) 03:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roar (1981 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)