User talk:BrandtM113

Hello, I'm Crboyer. I noticed that you recently removed content from Psylocke in other media without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Crboyer (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep an eye on the Birds of Prey (2020 film) article. You wrote that the box office was a disappointment but an overenthusiastic editor reverted your changed claiming it was not sourced. (The whole film was a disappointment in general but that's another discussion). Disappointment is a perfectly fair summary of the information in the Box office section of the article, especially when even the director of the film is acknowledging the "unsatisfactory" performance. Still some editors are managing to be incredibly pedantic about words that are practically synonymous.

Maybe you could add to the box office section with a few more sources to make it even clearer? Box office mojo, Deadline, Forbes, et al usually spell it out in enough detail that even the most pedantic Wikipedia editor will have to admit what should already be clear. -- 109.77.195.80 (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I got it :\ BrandtM113 (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Some days I just don't have the patience for it. -- 109.77.195.80 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there BrandtM113! I saw that you added to the article that it was the lowest-grossing installment of the DC Extended Universe. I also saw that Autumnking2012 had reverted the edit already, but I'd like add that a talk page discussion about that point had taken place and that it did not result in a consensus to include said point to the lede, so if you'd like to re-include it, please begin a new discussion and obtain a new consensus. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 09:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it is possible to mention, cause' it was mentioned on Fantastic Beasts 2 article. But I understand, it's supposed to be discussed BrandtM113 (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Birds of Prey (2020 film), 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw that you removed the film's position on the list of the highest-grossing films of 2020, which you have done before. A talk page discussion to include the film's break-even point relied on it being one of the year's highest-grossing, so both points should remain until a consensus is obtained to remove one or both of these points. Thanks. KyleJoan^talk 09:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did it because the movie is not in a top 10 any more. But if it should be mentioned, OK. Also, why can't we add "least-grossing in DCEU" and "box office bomb" details? After a year, I think it's kinda obvious facts) BrandtM113 (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited lists the film as the tenth highest-grossing. A prior discussion about stating that it is the lowest-grossing in the DCEU did not result in a consensus to include. About it being a "bomb", I personally believe it is unnecessary since the lede already says that it did not break even, therefore, saying it is a "bomb" would belabor the point. Of course, you're welcome to begin a new discussion on any of these points on the talk page if you so choose. KyleJoan^talk 10:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at John Wesley Shipp. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Stop with these edits – you've already been reverted multiple times for this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ezra Miller, you may be blocked from editing. Continued improper use of rowspan after being reverted on it multiple times. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Maisie Richardson-Sellers. You've been warned enough to know that use of rowspan this way is not kosher. P.S. Have you ever edited Wikipedia before with another account? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm InfiniteNexus. I noticed that you recently removed content from Black Widow (2021 film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have self-reverted my revert, but my point still stands. Please use the edit summary feature to explain your edits next time to avoid any confusion, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm YoungForever. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Naomi (TV series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 08:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tom Cavanagh, you may be blocked from editing. Now you're just trolling, as you know this kind of use of rowspan is against the MOS. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kara Danvers (Arrowverse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livewire. 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) 05:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hellraiser: Judgment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pinhead.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Katherine McNamara. Now willfully ignoring the WP:FILMOGRAPHY guideline. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harper Row, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CW.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:REDLINK:

"Add red links to articles to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Red links help Wikipedia grow.[1] The creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start.[2] Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."

"In general, a red link should remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. It may be possible to turn the red link into a redirect to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic (see Notability – Whether to create standalone pages)."

Michael Thorn was the president of Fox and Sarah Barnett the president of AMC. Both of these people could reasonably have a Wikipedia article, and the fact that I haven't made one myself doesn't mean it should be removed.

Please also note that engaging in a WP:EDITWAR, even when separated by weeks and months, or repeatedly reinstating your edit without an edit summary when the other person uses summaries, is considered rather bad manners. I am not a vindictive person and I would not take anyone to WP:ANI unless they are a vandal or add extreme bias, but do note that if administrators saw you repeatedly edit warring and not putting summaries for those edits, they might take you there. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ice Age (franchise), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Powell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Katherine McNamara. Already received a Level 4 warning for this exact same edit in March 2022. No discussion, and absolutely ignoring WP:FILMOGRAPHY written instructions. Clearly slow-motion Edit warring. Next time, I'm reporting you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amie Doherty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DreamWorks.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources for the information you add to articles, per WP:V you can't just add unsourced information and say that you don't know what source to use. If you have those sorts of questions you should go to the talk page of the article first and discuss with other editors. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Andi Matichak. At this point, you're ignoring the MOS is straight-up vandalism. The next stop is a report on you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I noticed that you recently removed content from DC Extended Universe without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm InfiniteNexus. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Batman (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Tracy Spiridakos. You do this even one more time, and the next stop is an ANI report. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CastJared. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Last of Us (TV series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CastJared (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wham2001. I noticed that you recently removed content from DC Extended Universe without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wham2001 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Purge, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. — Manticore 08:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kerry Shale, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ARandomName123. I noticed that you recently removed content from Bloodsport (film series) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]