User talk:Facu-el Millo/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Draft:Sam Wilson (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

If you're interested, this is my next focus, given the popularity of The Falcon & Winter Soldier trailer. BD2412 T 06:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Slight change of plans. With WandaVision premiering in less than two weeks, my next target for publication will be Draft:Vision (Marvel Cinematic Universe), with Sam Wilson being revisited after that. BD2412 T 02:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You currently appear to be 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. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I thank you for blocking the other user and understand the warning, I actually was weary of reverting them further because I knew I would get a warning for it, but it was always to revert clearly un, unencyclopedic edits which later proved to be straight-up vandalism, and felt that I couldn't leave the vandalized article in such a poor condition until the user was blocked. —El Millo (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I'd suggest it's worth being cautious of the reasons that you choose to revert. For example, it can be easier to refer to edit warring and BRD but doing that will almost certainly result in a warning since you're effectively saying that it's an edit war then continuing the edit war. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Names

I just wanted to say I really appreciate all of your time and energy in discussing all of this with me. I'm sure it was frustrating at times, as it was for me. However, you were very clear and informative. Unfortunately, I think I'm more confused then ever about how it works. Hopefully, I'll just step away in the future as it just seems to be random to me at this point. Although, I do understand some of the logic behind it, it doesn't appear to follow anything steady. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

One Night in Miami user:Naiman 2020

I'm having trouble reporting him on the appropriate page. I don't know if you're comfortable doing so. He continued to revert your edits in regards to linking Ali under the cast section. I know he reverted it multiple times. I changed it back to how you had it and now he's reverted it again. And once again, he's claiming it's because I'm a racist. I seriously feel something should be done about this guy but unfortunately I struggle with the reporting of it. I don't think I did it properly at this point. At the least I believe he should be reported for edit warring. He's aware of the talk page at this point and refuses to use it. He'd rather just revert your edits and when I change it he reverts it again and continues his personal attacks against me. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe at the least you can send him an edit warring warning? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: you should report the user at WP:ANI, citing the diffs of their edits so the edit summaries can be seen, which are the best example of their uncivil behavior. Choose the most problematic ones where they accuse you of racism and hate due to your religion. They really haven't been edit warring exactly, cause that warrants, as far as I understand it, two or three reverts in the span of 24-hours. Given that, you could cite the three-revert rule being broken, but that hasn't happened. The real problem here is the incivility and the almost complete lack of assuming good faith. Last time you reported them at the administrator's noticeboard, which isn't the correct venue. Administrator's noticeboad/Incidents is a more appropriate places for such instances, and I've seen it's highly attended, so it's far more likely you will get a response. —El Millo (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: Beware, though, because you might get warned for not assuming good faith as well, given that your accusations of sockpuppeting. You could perhaps apologize privately to the anon user and clarify it in the report. —El Millo (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback but as I said I really struggle with reporting it and properly citing all of his bigoted comments. I also think it may be better if it's you because you're a third party. That way you can provide an objective perspective and bring up anything you may feel I did incorrectly as well if appropriate. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to privately message an anon user. My iPad won't let me as far as I know. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I also don't know how to link specific comments. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I’m attempting to submit something. I’ve pinged you in it. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and link Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, I hope it goes well. —El Millo (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I was able to copy and past the example you left on the talk page. Hopefully that'll be a solid example for them. I referred them to the film page and talk page. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversiones

Oye, por que reviertes mis ediciones en Spider-Man: Homecoming, es cierto lo que digo --181.199.39.165 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No estás siguiendo las guías y políticas de Wikipedia, entre otras cosas. Mira WP:EASTEREGG, los links no deben llevar a un lugar que no sea el esperado, y si bien los "ocho años después" fueron un error de la película, es lo que la película dice, y la nota al pie ya aclara el error, por lo cual cambiarlo en el resumen de la trama es incorrecto. Los dos meses que pasan hasta que Peter vuelve a la escuela son un detalle innecesario para un resumen que debe ser breve y conciso. —El Millo (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Peticiones de ediciones

Hola, por lo menos puedo poner "2 meses", pero voy a poner referencias, te parece? --181.199.39.165 (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No parece necesario, con o sin referencias. Pero si quieres, adelante, yo no lo revertiré, pero es posible que otro lo haga. —El Millo (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

M. Night Shyamalan filmography

Hola Facu, he decidido solicitar tu ayuda debido a que al igual que yo eres un hablante nativo del español y se me hace más fácil solicitartelo a ti. Si está dentro de tus posibilidades quiero que le des una ojeada al artículo que nomine para destacado en Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/M. Night Shyamalan filmography/archive1 y me digas si está bien o en qué aspectos puedo mejorarla. Desde ya muchas gracias y disculpa las molestias. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bruno Rene Vargas: A simple vista parece estar bastante bien. Lo único que veo es que a su cameo en The Last Airbender como un maestro fuego le falta una referencia, y me parece que sería adecuado agregar una columna para los ratings de CinemaScore en la sección de crítica, cambiando el nombre de la sección a "Critical and public response". Por ahora, eso es todo. Seguramente ya te irán marcando más cosas los que evalúen el artículo, ya que suelen hacer análisis bastante minuciosos. —El Millo (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Muchas gracias por tomarte el tiempo de leerlo y hacer un par de recomendaciones. Te mando un abrazo desde Paraguay. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for reverting my edit to Avengers: Age of Ultron on 2021 February 2‎ at 22:24. When I was reading it, the names of the twins wasn't clear, and I thought they were both Pietro...and Wanda was another character mentioned later. I think I'll head back there (now that I'm on a PC instead of a phone) and see if I can clarify that sentence to avoid confusing other folks.

Thanks again! WesT (talk) 01:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. —El Millo (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

ZSJL release edit

Hi there. Curious as to why you made this edit? Since it's now a worldwide relase on the same day, the United States is no longer the "first premiere", surely? -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 17:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jasca Ducato: I'm basing it off of how I see Release dates treated in other superhero film articles, and other films in general. What's important is when it's released in the United States, in this case, and wherever else it happened to have its first world premiere, which doesn't apply in this case being a digital release. Even if it is released worlwide at the same time as in the United States, the only thing that matters is that it's released in the US that day. Alternatively, we could just have the release date without any country in parentheses. —El Millo (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfit vs Dead

Hi. With regards to your edit of Iron Man 3. Are you aware that "usurped" (taken by a third party, for e.g. spam, advertising) and "unfit" (otherwise unsuitable) are valid statuses that may also be used as alternatives for "dead"? Do you agree "unfit" is more accurate, in this case? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the link was directed to the archive and that the absent one was the original one which is now incorrect. Reinstated. —El Millo (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sif (Marvel Cinematic Universe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Russo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. —El Millo (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Killmonger

Hi, one question, if I made an article about Killmonger in the MCU, what should it be called? The character has several names, e.g. Killmonger, N'Jadaka, Erik Stevens etc. Thank you. IronManCap (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@IronManCap: Judging by other MCU character articles, it should probably be N'Jadaka, since Killmonger is an alias (like "Black Widow") and Erik Stevens is a fake name (like "Natalie Rushman"). —El Millo (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, but the only possible issue is that the article for the comics version is called 'Erik Killmonger'. Thanks for the advice. IronManCap (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@IronManCap: Most comic book character articles are named for the most common name in comics, which is the superhero alias. See Captain America and Iron Man for example. That will be no issue. —El Millo (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Justice League

Sorry for the delay but I responded on the talk page. I agree that we should use a different quote. Thanks for your input. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

CJ Entertainment was officially involved with Distributing Iron Man 1 and 2

To the user Facu-el Millo

I don't know if you're aware but the South Korean Film company CJ Entertainment company was originally involved with Iron Man 2008 and Iron Man 2 2010 and this was before the Disney Marvel merger.

I put CJ Entertainment originally in the category section of 2 of those film pages. I got this information from a Korean website source called Naver at this link and take a look at the Iron man Poster and you'll see the CJ Entertainment Logo And also at the Iron Man 2 Poster and you'll also see the CJ Entertainment Logo But CJ Entertainment is not involved with Iron Man 3

Also Facu-el Millo I don't know if you're aware on IMDB page. But CJ Entertainment company name has been mislabeled in many of the Marvel Superhero films including Avengers: Endgame 2019, Thor: Ragnarok (2017), Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), Black Panther (2018), Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017), Doctor Strange (2016), Thor: The Dark World (2013), Iron Man 3 (2013) and the Shimajiro films. Please go to the IMDB link and look at CJ Entertainment and you'll see CJ Entertainment has been incorrectly mislabeled. If you have an imdb account please talk to the IMDB staff and ask them to remove CJ Entertainment from those Marvel Films that Disney company distributed.

Can you please accept CJ Entertainment Category for Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 2 because they were involved with 2 of those Paramount Marvel films before the Disney Marvel merger. CrosswalkX (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

All those three sources are unreliable for inclusion in Wikipedia. As far as I've found in reliable source, CJ Entertainment was not involved in the production but just distributed the film in Korea. In any case, it doesn't seem notable for inclusion in the articles. —El Millo (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Thanks

Hi Facu. Thanks for the explanation, it was an honest question. I won't repeat the same mistake again, thanks to you. --Franar8 (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Franar8: you're welcome, we all make mistakes and it isn't crazy to assume that an encyclopedia would be pretty conservative with the use of pronouns. —El Millo (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sudipto Surjo - template disruption, unilateral page moves and disregard for collaboration. Thank you. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 08:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Loki's Timeline

Hello Facu, regarding Loki TV series timeline, I do not understand why it is set after Endgame. This Loki is from Avengers 1 timeline (2012) and he hasn't gone through the redemption in Dark World and Ragnarok. The main Loki got killed in Infinity War. And this version is a variant as confirmed in the trailer.

The Ancient One clearly said "the Infinity Stones creates the flow of time. Remove one stone and that flow splits". The Space Stone was removed from 2012 timeline creating a new reality where Loki is free with the Space Stone (only to be captured by TVA agents). Moreover, Banner said "Changing the past doesn't affect the future. If you travel to the past, that past will become your future and your former present will become the past which can't now be changed by your new future" Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mighty Asgardian616: I'll answer on El Millo's behalf, hoping he doesn't mind. The article states that it takes place 'after the events of Avengers: Endgame'. 'After the events' doesn't necessarily mean after it in the timeline. The event it is referring to, where Loki stole the Tesseract, happened in 2012. Therefore, the Loki series takes place after this event, even though the rest of Endgame was in 2023. Hope that helps. IronManCap (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It happens in after events in 2012, but not after events that occurred in The Avengers, but in Endgame's 2012. Without the events of Endgame, the events of this series wouldn't occur. —El Millo (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay so Loki is set after Endgame but within the alternate reality (2012) like 2012 within 2023 Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Eternals reversion

Hey. It looks terrible and inconsistent. The difference in length isn't sufficient to justify it. Someone needs to make a decision that's better than this one. You seem vested in the page. Maybe you can do it? Thmazing (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a common practice among these MCU articles that, when it comes to cast lists, the break space is used when the character description is more than one line. —El Millo (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Avenger members roster

There are also multiple editors who want the complete rooster not until Avengers: Age of Ultron in the table. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Start the discussion at the talk page then, see what everyone thinks. —El Millo (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

One World, One People VS The Dark World Tomatometer Scores

Yeah, I thought about providing a link to The Dark World's page on Rotten Tomatoes featuring its 66% tomato meter score for reference, but I didn't know how to do that and even if I did, I don't know if that would be enough to prove the point that I was trying to make. ‎ (User talk:73.9.43.42) (talk) 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that highlights that "One World, One People" has a lower Rotten Tomatoes score than Thor: The Dark World. If the fact is relevant, then a reliable source will have commented on it. If not, then it's not notable for us to include it. —El Millo (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Honest Question

So El Millo, At first, I thought your name is Milo. This is just a question, but can I say "Milo" to whenever I mention you? Happy Friday. ChannelSpider (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Haha, you can, but I think it may be confusing. Perhaps just use to l's, say "Millo", and it will be clearer to everybody. —El Millo (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe) category

Hi, regarding my category addition on the Loki (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article, I should clarify that Loki is literally a Frost Giant. As stated in the article, we learned in the first Thor movie that he was born a Frost Giant and abandoned as an infant by his biological father Laufey, only to be found and raised by Odin. Because of this, I would argue that Category:Marvel Comics giants is absolutely defining, because it describes what the character literally is. Similarly, the category is also used on the article for Loki (comics), so I think it would make sense for it to also be on the page for his MCU counterpart.The Editor 155 (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@The Editor 155: looking at the characters included in that category, it seems they all are literally giants, as in "very big size", or at least have been at one point. Reading Loki (comics), it seems he has been gigantic at one point or another in the comics, but the MCU version hasn't, and his denomination as a giant isn't relevant enough for him to be categorized in it. But I'm not sure now, I guess you can go ahead and add it and see if someone else reverts you. —El Millo (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll add it back in.The Editor 155 (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy interlinks

Hi, please see Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(soundtrack). I would appreciate a discussion. — Safety Cap (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Old Man & the Gun. 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. Thank you. - wolf 15:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: did you honestly just gave me a {{Uw-disruptive2}} template for trying to improve a footnote with an outdated format, fixing it with a downside, then fixing it properly after your reversion and clarification? —El Millo (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I honestly did. Do you honestly believe that continuous edits with next-to-useless summaries are a better form of collegial editing and article improvement over simply using a talk page for discussion? If your first B was actually worthwhile, then when it was R, you should've gone to the talk page to then D. Instead, you decide to edit that content again (essentially the first step in an edit war), but this time making different changes to the same content, (essentially confirming your first edit as needless and/or incorrect), with yet another meaningless summary and still no engagement. Hence the {{Uw-disruptive2}} notification. It contains plenty of information that I believe you would find useful and instructive. Have a nice day - wolf 16:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You said in your edit summary to fix it according to the "very long footnote" part of the documentation of the template, and that's what I did. That was the only problem you had with my edit, and I fixed it. It was clear from your edit summary to me that your problem with my edit had nothing to do with the intent of what I did, but just with the fact that it cluttered the lead section instead of having the footnote be list-based. Using the talk would be a waste of time for both of us when your concerns with my previous edit were clear and easily fixed. This warning template was completely unnecessary. I didn't simply reinstate my edit as it was, I fixed specifically according to your correct clarification. Just so you know, I didn't put it in a list-based format the first time because I thought it would cause problems if the footnote included two references, as I've seen it happen before. —El Millo (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

"You said in your edit summary to fix it according to..." - No, I didn't. What I wrote was: "See "very long footnote" example in template doc", to support my revert.

"Using the talk would be a waste of time" - using article talk pages to discuss issues instead of edit warring is not a "waste a time", it's a universally expected practice.

Your second edit was as needless as the first one. The note was working fine as is, the page was not experiencing any "problems". You claim the notice here was "unnecessary", yet you seemed to have learned nothing from it. This is a waste of time. In the future, I would suggest not fixing things that aren't broken, engaging before revert-warring and not deliberately misrepresenting other editors comments/summaries. I think we're done here. - wolf 18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

As a closing statement, as this is a waste of time: the page, although technically "not broken", used an outdated system of references. All I did was update it. Thewolfchild reverted me, citing the "very long footnote" example at {{ref}}'s documentation. I took it as a clarification of what was wrong with my edit and needed to be fixed. And so I did. I didn't deliberately misrepresent the comment, I interpreted they weren't in disagreement with updating the outdated format, but merely with having the content of the ref be inline instead of list-based, which cluttered up the lead. I didn't say that using the talk page is a waste of time per se, I said that, as I got from the edit summary, there seemed to be no need for further discussion when the user's problem with my edit was clear to me. Lastly, things don't need to have problems, or not work, in order to be improved. Things can be updated not because they don't work, but because something else works better, or because the community at large has agreed it should be changed, as it is with {{ref}} which, according to the notice placed there, is a deprecated method of footnoting. There's no need for Thewolfchild to respond here, in order not to waste more time and put this behind, hence the absence of a ping. —El Millo (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Reversiones Thor: Ragnarok

Hola Facu, por qué reviertes mi edición en Thor: Ragnarok? Puse algo que es cierto: En Captain America: Civil War (2016), Tony Stark menciona que los eventos de Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) tuvieron lugar el verano pasado, en cambio en Thor mencionan que fue 2 años después, créeme mirate las dos películas o si no anda a estos enlaces dónde dice "Where does the MCU take place", es un sitio confiable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeXEDMEQMH0 (El de Civil War) y el otro de Thor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32s0rXkVJVc. --Lil Pablo 2007 (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

El sitio no es confiable si no está verificado en YouTube, y el formato de la referencia estaba mal. Busca una fuente confiable que mencione esto, preferiblemente que no sea un video y que esté escrito. —El Millo (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikiwand

Hi, I saw your very valid revert on Quiddich, but wanted to note that WikiWand is a third-party interface for Wikipedia, so it wasn’t a copyright violation. POLITANVM ^talk 02:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized as soon as I published it I shouldn't have said it because I wasn't sure. There were many other reasons to revert that. —El Millo (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ant-Man (film)

Hi Facu-el Millo! By reverting my edit to Ant-Man (film), you reintroduced duplicate parameter errors to references #40, #215, #216, as well as reintroduced an invalid parameter to reference #31. Since you did not like the way I attempted to fix them, could you please fix them? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure! I'd not realized that. —El Millo (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe Good Article Reassessment

Marvel Cinematic Universe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Change of Password

Hello Millo, Can you please help me change the password My pass is weak and I need a stronger password Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mighty Asgardian616: you can try using a random password generator —El Millo (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.

As to the other point, Showbiz411 is not an RS, per Wikipedia:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUB. --2603:7000:2143:8500:41B0:CED1:8E78:6810 (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK vs WP:DUPLINK

Hi El Millo, hope you're doing well. I noticed you did this revert as a WP:OVERLINK. Sorry for being pedantic, but just clarifying OVERLINK is meant to refer to things that shouldn't really be linked even once because people understand them (e.g. United States, New York City). The policy for repeated links is WP:DUPLINK. It's just I think we should point these editors to DUPLINK in case they go to WP:OVERLINK and don't understand why they were wrong. Thanks. IronManCap (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't realized that. Thanks. —El Millo (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Captain America 4

I deleted the captain America 4 section in the mcu wiki because it’s not true y’all rely on those sources even malcom spellman said if you didn’t hear from Kevin Feige then it’s not true so you guys need the hear the official announcement and not rely on sources like entertainment weekly or the Hollywood reporter and The Marvel Show What if isn’t coming in august because you haven’t heard from Disney if it’s coming in august, so don’t go to entertainment weekly and rely on them as telling the truth. Now do you understand? Redsuperman819 (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That's not how sourcing works on Wikipedia. WP:VNT. The info comes from THR, which is one of the premier reliable sources for MCU information. Marvel is going to announce things when they want, that doesn't mean if the trades pick up on it and report on it, it isn't true. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Core film articles supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force

A tag has been placed on Category:Core film articles supported by the Marvel Cinematic Universe task force indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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 "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe articles needing an image

A tag has been placed on Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe articles needing an image indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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 "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Another 3D-film vandal

Hi there, it recently came to my attention that this editor, 98.154.67.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been making numerous unsourced additions regarding 3D films across various articles. Looking at the user's contributions log, it looks extremely similar to this case which you reported to ANI about a month ago. While I can't confirm that these two users are the same person, and I haven't seen any edit warring yet this time, should we file a similar report to ANI? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I will also note the significance of this being about a month after the original incident, as the WP:QUACKING IP address Shahaneh used was blocked for a month. IronManCap (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, InfiniteNexus, this is clearly the same person. —El Millo (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

In that case, let's see if the editor continues their behavior after their first warning before taking the next step. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

El Millo and InfiniteNexus, User:A13x.tan.99 is also doing extremely similar edits. There seems to be a WP:SOCKFARM going on. IronManCap (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. This editor hasn't made any edits regarding 3D films though, so I'm a little skeptical on that idea. By the way, the initial IP which I brought up (98.154.67.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) appears to have stopped editing, so I don't think we need to take any action for now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the same user for me, at least for now. —El Millo (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Hey there Facu-el Milo, I'm sorry about editing The Marvels the wrong way. It was just a thought. 81.110.120.177 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@81.110.120.177: No problem, we all make mistakes. Remember Wikipedia isn't a place to put your own thoughts and opinions though. —El Millo (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Dark knight

I was just stating the obvious about the film it is one of greatest superhero films of all time JRobinson99 (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@JRobinson99: I don't understand why you thanked my edit if you were going to revert it yet again, you must've misclicked it. You do realize that "best" and "greatest" have the same meaning, right? One just sounds more important than the other, which is exactly what MOS:PUFFERY advices against. I'm not going to revert you because it would be breaching WP:3RR and it isn't worth it, but you are edit warring, which is considered disruptive editing and could end up leading to sanctions. You're also not following WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO by reinstating an edit once you were reverted instead of starting a discussion. —El Millo (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I did again sorry about that it was an accident JRobinson99 (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

@JRobinson99: What are you referring to exactly? If you're referring to reinstating your edit then self-revert. If it's not about that, consider not edit warring nor adding extra flattering words in articles for subjects you like, as you've recently done at DC Extended Universe, Zack Snyder's Justice League, and Mike Tyson. —El Millo (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Wanda Maximoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Sorry, edit conflict. Yeah, I agree about MoM. I just didn't see your edit so I assumed I removed it by mistake. IronManCap (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem. —El Millo (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

MCULinks

So you reverted an edit to Ms Marvel in favor of a link to Kamala Khan (Marvel Cinematic Universe) the problem is that page doesn't exist, i understand editing in favor of an MCU specific article if it exists but you're essentially linking to a redirect. I think it should go directly to the Ms Marvel article as its the only one. Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Sephiroth storm: See WP:MCULINKS for an explanation of this. IronManCap (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

We try to link to the MCU-specific version, whether it's an article on its own, a section in Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, or a section in the comic book version's article. This way we can just change the target of the redirection when it's appropriate instead of changing every link in every page. —El Millo (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

About Film and TV posters

Hello El Millo May I ask why for Films official posters are used but for TV shows it is only logos. Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Seaweed Brain1993: I don't know for sure, but most likely it has something to do with TV series often having multiple seasons, therefore having multiple posters that do not represent the series as a whole, only each specific season. It is also less common for TV shows to get posters (not all TV shows do), while all films have posters. —El Millo (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok understood

Also that apply to TV shows with only 1 season (like WandaVision) Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There are miniseries that use the poster, see The Queen's Gambit as an example. It's just that it's more common to simply use the title card or the logo. In the case of The Queen's Gambit, it is a good decision since the title card was just plain blue text on top of plain dark background, it wasn't recognizable at all. With WandaVision , the logo is very recognizable and distinguishable from other logos. —El Millo (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you El Millo You have helped me understand Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Revert

If you are going to revert me, have the decency to notify me. Jerk move to not do so. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aussie Article Writer: I have never heard of anyone being notified before being reverted, nor have I ever been notified before being reverted. You made an inappropriate comment asking other editors if they were suprised by a plot point, and you were reverted per WP:NOTFORUM accordingly. Being regularly reverted is part of being a Wikipedia editor. —El Millo (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No sense of decency. I see how it is. Good luck to you. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever been notified before being reverted by anyone else? Reversions are automatically notified to you through the alerts, after being done of course. I've never since I started editing seen anyone either notified or be notified of a reversion beforehand. If you want to assume bad faith and make borderline personal attacks, go ahead. —El Millo (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

When I reverted in the past something like this, then yes actually, I did. If you want to cause bad feeling, you are going about it the right way. Anyway, I have nothing more to say to you about this. I’ve told you how I feel, if you feel you want to ignore it I can’t stop you. You didn’t assume good faith either, as you answered the query in the edit history. I’ve been here since 2005, btw, so don’t try to tell me about what has and hasn’t been done on the site. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is the first time I hear of it. I revert multiple edits multiple times a day and I'm reverted often as well. No notification ever. Reverting someone isn't and shouldn't be considered offensive, you have to get used to reverting and being reverted regularly in Wikipedia. My reverts had nothing to do with bad faith, your comments didn't appear to be related to improving the article, which happens often in articles about popular films. —El Millo (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the discussion, again, on the same grounds of WP:NOTFORUM. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Favre. —El Millo (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What If...?

Hello there El millo Since at the end of Loki Episode 6 The timeline has split into several alternate timelines which split into their own branches.

I can't help but wonder whether What If...? Is going to focus on those new branches Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 08:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

We can't know either way until a reliable source comments on it, but it is likely they'll be considered "canon" in that sense, even if their events don't cross over or influence the live-action media. —El Millo (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your brilliant and comprehensive response at Special:Diff/1037036598. IronManCap (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you very much. —El Millo (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries, you deserve it. That was a genuinely impressive response. --IronManCap (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Running time in the Infobox

Hi. Thanks for partcipating so quickly after I started the discussion. Just so you know, I realized after you posted that I neglected to include the second part of my question on that point. I've added it just now. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to The Suicide Squad (film). Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. See this edit. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I didn't abuse the warning template, as far as I understand it. His last edit made it clear that he was edit-warring, so I put an edit-warring warning on his talk page. He was warned multiple times through edit summaries which he clearly read and then continued adding it anyway, making it unambiguous that he was edit-warring. Hence the warning template. —El Millo (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Tenet

The reason I added the word "Rotas" to the plot summary was because it's an essential element of the Sator square referred to in the Sator square summary below. The caption should not be the first reference to that element. Please consider reverting your reversion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Selinker: Re-added it without the "the", so as to not exceed the word limit. Seems it's still grammatically correct to me. Keep in mind though, this isn't relevant to understanding of the plot. Out of all the words in the square, the only ones essential enough for the summary are Tenet and Sator, and Opera is naturally named when the place is mentioned as a common noun. Both Arepo and Rotas we could do without explicitly naming, but as we are within the word limit, we can have the "luxury" of including them. —El Millo (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I was unaware there was a word limit on summaries. Where is that information?--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mike Selinker: MOS:FILMPLOT sets an upper limit of 700 words. IronManCap (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga)

Thanks for the rv here, I got quite confused, thanks for correcting the error. Justiyaya 17:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem, it's a complex set of lists and tables located in different articles so it is understandable for it to be confusing. —El Millo (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Venom (2018)

Hi Facu-el Millo, I'm trying to retrieve the "EWComicCon" and "LATimesAug2018" references from the Venom article for this but I can't find them. Can you help? – ChannelSpider (talk) 11:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@ChannelSpider: Here they are: EWComicCon, LATimesAug2018. To find them, you just need to edit the whole page at once (i.e. not just one particular section) and use the search function in your search engine. In my case that's either F3 or Ctrl+G. —El Millo (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Thanks. – ChannelSpider (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

References

A suggestion

Proof is in the pudding. I'd recommend that those of you who are pushing for lowering case in political offices in infoboxes of bios, open up 5 discussions (even 5 RFCs) at highly visible world leaders articles. Scott Morrison, Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Angela Merkel & Jacinda Arden (for examples). Best way to find out? is locally. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm "pushing" for the guidelines to be followed. If you want to make a change to the guidelines, then go ahead and explain why it should be changed. However many editors that usually edit these kinds of articles like or don't like the change is irrelevant if they don't have arguments to back up why they don't like it. I said in the original RfC that I don't personally care for the end result of it, I care for logical arguments based on policies and guidelines, and not for editors to just say "I don't like it" and sometimes even refuse to come up with an actual argument, as it happened in that RfC. —El Millo (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been on this project for over 15 years & I do know, you can't force editors to accept what you (and others) think is right. IF need be, I'll open up discussion on those bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You keep treating all this as if it was some kind of war. I won't force anything on anyone. You know these discussions are broad enough for outsiders to the area, like myself, to weigh in. I think that the current guideline has to be followed, and I think most will agree with me. In any discussion, "I don't like it" !votes will be properly discarded at the moment of the close, as they were in the original RfC. So those that think the guideline should either shouldn't be followed or it should be changed will have to use arguments for it. Those arguments will be judged valid or invalid by other participants and eventually a closer. But you know and have been told repeatedly that numbers isn't what counts, it's the reasons. So again, it doesn't matter how many editors don't like it, they'll still have to come up with actual arguments just as the other side. —El Millo (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has to be kept centralized, so it doesn't seem that opening individual RfCs would be a good idea. Whatever argument applies for one of these applies for all of them, so centralizing it is the best option. —El Millo (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I left 'neutral' notices at seven high profile bios. Informing them of the WP:AN discussion. Those editors should be aware of what might happen to the bio articles they frequent, whether they agree with lower-casing or not. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

How much does it cost?

Hello, I'm a new user. I just wanted to ask you something. Does it cost money to create a Wikipedia page? If so, I won't worry about it. KnowledgeMastermind (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Everything is free here. —El Millo (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Weird Editing

I really need your help! An anonymous user called 2600:1700:47a0:c670:49e1:77f5:f016:3c27 is constantly editing the Tree Fu Tom page apparently claiming the series will have a sixth season and will continue until series 30, when I don't think this is true, besides, all of this is unsourced and unnecessary. Can you please help me? KnowledgeMastermind (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the page and the IP reinstated it. I've reverted once more, reported them to AIV (unlikely to action since the IP has been properly warned yet) and I've requested semi-protection of the article, which is likely to work. —El Millo (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@KnowledgeMastermind: the IP has been temporarily range-blocked. Problem solved. —El Millo (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, you're the best! KnowledgeMastermind (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for WandaVision

On 8 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article WandaVision, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Marvel Cinematic Universe television series WandaVision was structured to follow the five stages of grief by starting with denial and ending with acceptance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/WandaVision. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, WandaVision), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Sphynxdragon

Can you please report Sphynxdragon for edit warring? He ignored both of our warnings and won't stop reverting. I'm on mobile, so I can't really report him myself. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@JDDJS: where should I do it? WP:ANI, WP:AIV, or WP:ANEW? —El Millo (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANEW seems most appropriate. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Summarizing the plot of Tenet

@Facu-el Millo:

Hello. I recently revised and added a bit to the plot summary of the film Tenet, which you reverted, saying that the current plot summary was good enough. I respectfully disagree, because I have seen the film around ten times at this point (I'm a huge fan) and the current plot summary contains multiple inaccuracies which I tried to fix through my edit. In addition, Tenet is a film which is driven entirely by its plot, a plot which can seem arbitrary and overcomplicated when key details are left out. In my revised summary I tried to add those details and clarify things viewers might have found confusing (as most people do when they first see it, same as I did). Being a 2 1/2 hour movie consisting entirely of plot, and which explores such a complex idea, I feel a longer and more in-depth summary than other films is necessary; and I feel that my revision struck a good balance between leaving unnecessary elements out, while inserting details which are key to understanding it (in addition to fixing the inaccuracies mentioned before).

I won't revert the article back to my version, if you want to do that or leave it as-is, then go ahead; you're a much more senior editor and know the customs of Wikipedia far better than I do. But in the specific case of this complicated, spaghetti-plot movie, I think a bending of the rules is warranted.

OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@OlliverWithDoubleL: Your additions are in many cases too-detailed accounts of scenes, describing specific actions instead of the scenes overall, in one specific instance even including a line of dialogue. Per MOS:FILMPLOT: The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail. If there are inaccuracies, i.e. things that are plainly wrong, then please fix them, but do not add any more level of detail. Remember, reading this summary should in no way replace watching the film or providing a similar experience, so non-essential details should be avoided. For example:

• ...in an attempt to make him reveal the location of his teammates and having been rescued by an associate in the CIA: the reason why they torture him and who rescues him aren't relevant to the basic understanding plot, just that they torture him, that he takes the pill, and that he learns it was a test.
• ...which was obtained by Ukrainian security forces during the opera siege in Kyiv and is being transported via convoy to Tallinn isn't essential information, the fact that it is plutonium-241 is what matters.
• an overturned car driven by an unknown person un-crashes alongside the two This isn't relevant to the plot as a whole and the reveal is rather soon after the question is presented.
• See the difference between your The Protagonist secretly removes the 241 and tosses it into the un-crashed car, and tosses the empty case to Sator vs the alternative The Protagonist gives an empty case to Sator. See how the relevant bit is that the case is empty, not the specifics of the Protagonist's strategy?
• resolving to un-invert at the Oslo freeport during their previous infiltration Them deciding to do this becomes redundant if they actually do it later, which is when it's better to explain it.
• The now-inverted Protagonist places a bug into the case prior to the ambush, during which he overhears the inverted Sator tell his men to "get the other sections of the Algorithm to the hypocenter". The Protagonist drives a nearby car to the site of the case transfer, where it is revealed that his car is the one which his earlier self tossed the 241 into; the inverted Sator realizes this and causes the Protagonist's car to overturn. The Protagonist is rescued by Neil and Tenet operatives, and Sator gets his men to retrieve the 241 from the Protagonist's car at some point in the future (though this is not shown in the film) This is a whole bunch of text describing almost bit by bit is ultimately failed plan. Compare this to the much more succint The now-inverted Protagonist travels back in time to the ambush site, where he unsuccessfully attempts to retrieve the artifact, Sator has got hold of it. The Protagonist's car is overturned and set on fire by Sator, but Neil saves him., which also conveys his goal, his failure, and the outcome, without the unnecessary line of dialogue and the steps of the plan.
• Clarifications in brackets such as (though this is not shown in the film) are not encyclopedic; if something isn't explicit from the film, we don't add it, unless it is crucial to the understanding of the plot and we have a secondary reliable source to back it up.
• The final action scene is also over-explained.
• Phrases such as ...and bids the Protagonist farewell also do not add relevant info for the plot.

I'll clarify I'm also a fan of the film and have seen it around five times. I get why you might want to add all these details than make the film richer, but this summary is not for readers to enjoy or to have an experience, it's simply to understand. With complex films such as this one, what's best is to limit ourselves to the most essential bits of the plot, because otherwise it can get muddled, confusing, and excessively detailed. The 700-word limit forces us to look at what's essential and helps us remove all details that aren't ultimately necessary, such as the scene-by-scene breakdowns or the logic behind all the inversions and back-and-forths. I'm only pointing these out in detail so that you properly understand why it's being kept as it is and so you keep this in mind if you want to contribute to other plot summaries in the future. Know you can propose any further changes taking into account what was said here, but I think it's better to suggest it first in the article talk page before implementing it. —El Millo (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo:

Thank you for taking the time to break down everything for me; the effort and dedication to clarity is much appreciated. Thank you also for directing me to the MOS article on film plot sections; I'll study it in depth.

I’d still like to alter a few general things about the summary, mainly to fix some of the grammar, sentence flow and word choices, but I won't be adding any additional detail. Thanks for your time. OlliverWithDoubleL (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Series Finale

On 7 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Series Finale, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elizabeth Olsen consulted on the Scarlet Witch costume that debuted in the WandaVision episode "The Series Finale" so it would be less revealing than her past Marvel Cinematic Universe costumes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Series Finale. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Series Finale), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Previously On

On 8 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Previously On, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wanda Maximoff was referred to as the "Scarlet Witch" for the first time in the Marvel Cinematic Universe in the WandaVision episode "Previously On"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Previously On. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Previously On), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Breaking the Fourth Wall (WandaVision)

On 11 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Breaking the Fourth Wall (WandaVision), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Benedict Cumberbatch was originally expected to have a cameo appearance as Dr. Strange in the WandaVision episode "Breaking the Fourth Wall"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Breaking the Fourth Wall (WandaVision). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Breaking the Fourth Wall (WandaVision)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay

I'll take the source and save it in my sandbox for more experimenting before i publish it again. Also, i haven't seen a Wikipedia Help Page on that threshold, could u link it to me possibly?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontuseurrealname (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NFF, WP:FFILM, and WP:FUTFILMS. I'm afraid your efforts may be better spent elsewhere in Wikipedia, as there won't be enough substantial coverage for this planned and cancelled film to have its own standalone article. There are few exceptions, but generally if a film never started filming, meaning production never actually started, it shouldn't have its own article. The info that was there was mainly speculative, and there were separate sections for a third film, a Sinister Six film, and a Venom spin-off, which shouldn't all be grouped together in an article called "The Amazing Spider-Man 3". Spider-Man in film#Cancelled films seems to have all the information that's available, and there most likely won't be new developments in that project, so that's probably all the info there will ever going to be. Regardless, the production of this cancelled third film isn't relevant on his own, which would be necessary in order for an article on a non-existent film to exist. —El Millo (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll try to put that somewhere else. There was some creditability to the sinister six, but i do admit that there was little info on it and the little info there was could very easily be incorporated into an already existing article.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontuseurrealname (talk • contribs) 21:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

• Overall winner
  • 1st - $500
  • 2nd - $200
  • 3rd - $100
• Diversity winner - $100
• Gender-gap filler - $100
• Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Help

Hello, El millo

Can I ask for your help regarding the category, i.e., how do i add the category to a wikipedia page. I wanted to add the category Category:films about vampires to Morbius though i do not know where to add it. Can you please help me? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Within whichever is the last section of an article, you'll see every category listed one below the other at the bottom. Just add [[Category:Films about vampires]] there. —El Millo (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok thank you Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 07:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Taskmaster

You reported Taskmaster as a vandalism account, saying it had edited beyond four warnings.[1] That account edited once, in 2006, and has never been warned. Can you please explain why you reported it? -- The Anome (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Anome: I think Facu-el Millo made an error on his report in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Notice Board that it said "Taskmaster" instead of Taskamaster Chip3004 (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That explains it! Thanks, Facu-el Millo, for reporting this; we got to the bottom of this eventually. -- The Anome (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

A Newcastle for you!

Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Spider-Man: No Way Home Edits

I see you reverted the Spider-Man: No Way Home article including re-adding a list of proisional names to the cast list of the film ( though these names do not appear on public view yet. Andrew Gafield and Kirsten Dunst are in no different a position to Tibey Maguire or Emma Stone with all actors denying they are in film despite media suggesting Garfield and Dunst had signed . In light of this do not re-add the non-public priviional list as it could be misleading . Garfield and Dunst have said they are not involved . Do not make a list even privionally with them named.--MKL123 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You are acting against consensus and if you continue this you will be edit warring. We have reliable sources stating they are in the film, which is why we include them hidden, given the actors themselves have denied it. The edit will be reverted again and you, the proposer of this new WP:BOLD edit, are the one that has to discuss it in a talk page and leave the WP:STATUSQUO until that is resolved. —El Millo (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I dispute the reliability of sources . In my opinion the only reliable sources are the studios involved in production . Any other source I believe to not accurate and pure media speculation . I would argue your editing is disruptive --MKL123 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion is wrong and not in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Secondary reliable sources are preferrable, which means we look at secondary sources over official sources and those involved in production. —El Millo (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@MKL123: you need to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. —El Millo (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Who do I contact to request an ammendment to the policy?--MKL123 (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Try the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as a start. —El Millo (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

May Parker dies in the movie and should be listed as deceased Goku MUI1997 (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss on the article's talk page. —El Millo (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Xmas!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Clint-mas, Facu-el Millo! Here's to a 2022 full of madness! InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 16:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Clint-mas and happy new year! Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2021

Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

2409 (Spiderverse vandal)

I’m letting you know that the anonymous 2409 account moved from Spiderverse 2 to Sonic 2 for their vandalism. I think fifth time shows blatant disregard and disinterest in productive contribution--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I've reverted them a couple times there already. I've already issued the report at AIV and the IP should be blocked in a little while. —El Millo (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Aunt may dies in spider-man So therefore in in family Ben Parker and Aunt may should be listed as Deceased Goku MUI1997 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Goku MUI1997, this has been explained to you in every edit summary. Per WP:INUNIVERSE, we do not list fictional characters as if they were real. Therefore, we do not list them as "deceased" and we do not list affiliations as "formerly", since films and fiction in general exist in a sort of "perpetual present", not in the real world where people actually die. —El Millo (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I have also already responded to you on my talk page, Goku MUI1997. Since then, not only have you neglected to respond to my message (or El Millo's), but you have reinstated your edit on the Tom Holland page 5 times, plus twice on the Tobey Maguire page. It seems like you're being WP:DISRUPTIVE here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)