User talk:Yarrrick

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Yarrrick, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Wild Flowers (2000 film), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Wild Flowers (2000 film) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The plot summary you added was copied wholesale from http://www.jakubiskofilm.com/en/movies/2-wild-flowers/ —C.Fred (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Wild Flowers (2000 film) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Wild Flowers (2000 film) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE7rUdbK4-s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Bt3hYhCn4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUaR7ABJvvg, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmxxxAhmhts) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Sitting on a Branch, Enjoying Myself[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you recently made a contribution to the Sitting on a Branch, Enjoying Myself article that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! However, test edits on live articles disrupt Wikipedia and may confuse readers. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to 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. Thank you! Epic Failure (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Bathory (film), because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.
Your edit here to Bathory (film) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bathory/31174999208?fref=ts) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of An ambiguous report about the end of the world[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on An ambiguous report about the end of the world requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.solarmovie.mx/watch-127064-An-Ambiguous-Report-About-the-End-of-the-World.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. C 679 21:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's Better to Be Wealthy and Healthy Than Poor and Ill[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of It's Better to Be Wealthy and Healthy Than Poor and Ill, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://hdmovie.moviestream.website/hd-streaming/259436-lepsie-byt-bohaty-a-zdravy-ako-chudobny-a-chory.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of It's Better to Be Wealthy and Healthy Than Poor and Ill[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on It's Better to Be Wealthy and Healthy Than Poor and Ill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://hdmovie.moviestream.website/hd-streaming/259436-lepsie-byt-bohaty-a-zdravy-ako-chudobny-a-chory.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to The Millennial Bee[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Mediavalia ^talk 16:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just uploaded original poster from the film. The real contributions I will made durring the weekend (list of awards, info about film ect.). Honestely, I dont see any difference between them (one is maybe lighter than other) Yarrrick (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bathory[edit]

Can you explain why you reverted this edit? BOVINEBOY2008 12:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appetite your interest in this film, but please do not edit this page. Firstly yo use strange terminology (for example you use Accolates instead awards), secondly you are deleting the dates of local releases in worldwide distribution. Please stop revising your editions. Thank you. (talk)

Accolades is standard per MOS:FILM, and the dates I removed are not notable and unsourced. Please review WP:FILMRELEASE and WP:RS. BOVINEBOY2008 16:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice, that you refer to the template, but In film industry terms awards (festival competition) and accolades (honourable award - no competition) have a different meaning. The releases are checked by distribution contracts (this was proved to Czech Wikipedia site - the information is translated). Also, you can check different DVD and BD covers (for example french, german, Romanian, Russian etc.). Are you any high ranked representing? If not please respect what is on the page and leave it alone. Thank you! (talk)

Per MOS:FILM, accolades "include award wins and nominations, recognition from film critics' circles, and presence on lists of critically acclaimed films". That is what the section is talking about, and that is what the section should be called.

And per WP:RS, you must cite your sources, and you cannot use another Wikipedia as a source. BOVINEBOY2008 16:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to discuss first and than make changes. Please respect that. It is polite and regular behaviour. Change the name of the category. Than I have following questions: 1) What is the acceptable source for you for distribution release and festival attendance? 2) Where is written you cannot use flags on wiki page? Thank you for your answers (talk)

I would also appreciate if you discussed first as well. A reliable source for a release date could be a listing in the festival brochure, a news report, or from a notable film registry; nothing that is user contributed (like a wiki, or IMDb). Flags should not be used to emphasize nationality per MOS:FLAGCRUFT. The nationality of the film festival or release can appropriately stated with words. BOVINEBOY2008 16:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start to change the page and I am discussing the issue. Ok if you want to do a visual redesign of the page, go ahead. But do not delete any information (for example country, release date, film award etc), because you was editing some the info from IMDB. Mark them and I will find sources to them. Give me one week. Now I will undo all your pages and you can start with structural and visual redesign than make info which has to be linked. Thank you for your cooperation. (talk)

I'm sorry, I don't get permission from you to edit. This page does not belong to you. You need to follow the guidelines and policies which we have, and I have pointed to them. I will leave content that may be notable with a citation need tag, but I will remove things that should not be there per the guidelines I have already pointed to. BOVINEBOY2008 17:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, community rules are changing every year, so that is not a solid argument. The page is not mine, but I am taking care of information on this page. Ok if a page does not fit into the new wiki visual and structural standards, go ahead and change them. But you are deleting info from the page and that is a huge deal. If you think there might be missing sources, mark them and wait. That is a regular procedure. Or do think that something is incorrect? For example, you are deleting link for trailers, bonus content and official web. Why? All major films have similar links on their page. (talk)

I realize consensus can change from time to time, but these edits are using current consensus. It seems like you are insistent on keeping the information exactly as you have presented it and not taking into consideration other viewpoints. I want to assume good faith that you are trying to provide the best information, which is why I am coming to you. It is not a matter of a change in presentation of information, it is a matter of matching the consensus reached by the community at large about what is appropriate in film articles. For instance, We don't indiscriminately list every single release date or every single festival appearance. That's why I keep pointing you to look at MOS:FILM. If you looked at my last edit, I did add tags to the information that was encyclopedic, but unsourced. Also, other film articles do not link to a youtube links bonus content, or making-of content because it goes against copyright issues, see WP:ELNO and WP:YOUTUBE. You can also see what is recommended at MOS:FILM. BOVINEBOY2008 17:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking through the page history, it seems that every once in a while, you come back to this page and restore this version of the page despite other editors changing it, without explanation. Please avoid doing that. BOVINEBOY2008 17:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any problem to give you relevant sources, so mark the problematic parts (missing source). I will track all the relevant links. Links on youtube videos (especially the content owner Youtube videos and websites) is not against any copyright issues. It is public content and it is on the same level as the article used for sourcing of information. All the provided links are official free content uploaded by the producer. (talk)

The others make minor changes you made a major ones. That is difference. (talk)

@Bovineboy2008 and Yarrrick: You both need to take the matter to the article talk page at this point, since it looks like you're both at the three-revert brightline. —C.Fred (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive the templated warning, but to make sure it's been said[edit]

Your recent editing history at Bathory (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSFILM[edit]

Hi Yarrick. Please take some time to have a look at WP:MOSFILM, the guidance on what to (and what not to) add to a film article. For example, this section details the release info and states "Do not include information on the film's release in every territory". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bathory, 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. BOVINEBOY2008 16:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add or change any content on that page.

Oh, you restored unsourced information, same thing... BOVINEBOY2008 17:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well If you have any doubts about information, please mark it in the article. I will give you the source. If you want to make any visual and structural changes go ahead.