User talk:68.129.15.71

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (68.129.15.71) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 19:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Flappychappy. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Space Invasion of Lapland— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. Flappychappy (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that in this edit to Jack the Ripper (1959 film), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Giant from the Unknown page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Keri. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Angry Red Planet ‎, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Keri (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Keri. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Beyond the Time Barrier ‎, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Keri (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (68.129.15.71) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! FriyMan (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Not of This Earth (1957 film). Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

Can you explain your recent edits on Nightmare City and The Manster? From the Manster article, you attributed something that is not in the source (which I have on my desk next to me) and the Nightmare City article began adding biographical information about the director, Umberto Lenzi. This edits are unusual to me. Could you explain them? Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't want me contributing to wikipedia at all. It looks like you erased all of the work I did on the Umberto Lenzi filmography, which took me weeks to do in my spare time. I do not know how to add the footnotes/ sources, but that doesn't make my edits invalid. I have never put anything on wikipedia that was not 100% correct. I'm only trying to make the pages more complete, I should think we have that in common. If you want to erase something I added, I don't mind, but wiping out entire sections just for spite is too much for me to cope with. Many of the other people's wiki pages don't have any footnotes or sources on them at all, and you don't erase them. The facts I add to the entries are common knowledge in most cases, they can be verified anywhere, even on imdb. But if you're going to erase all my work and block me from editing, then I guess I might as well stop contributing. Apparently you have a vendetta against me for some reason, and I don't think you persecute the other contributors the way you do me. Isn't there some way you could let me contribute too? Maybe you could just tell me which sites to stay away from? ---frank Hi Frank, I'm glad you have a mutual interest on the topics that I do too. But several of your edits just break several rules on wikipedia. For example, I suggest familiarising yourself with how to use sources. I suggest reading through Help:Referencing for beginners. As for adding incorrect or whatnot material, we do not add material based on "truth" we add information based on Verifiability, which means we need proper sources (see WP:RS). I'm not sure what edits were breaking Common knowledge, but if you can point them out, I'll be happy to correct my ways.

I'd actually like to help you out as we seem to have similar interests, but I also want to enforce the rules of Wikipedia, especially those of WP:RS and MOS:FILM. To keep things short for film articles, We do not use IMDb as a source on Wikipedia because IMDb content is mostly user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation, rumor, and hoaxes. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged. Personally, if you would like to add content, I try to get it from home video bonus features, published books, and certain online film sites (AV Club, Variety) etc. for reviews, and try to avoid fan websites as they are self-published. Just imagine if you were writing an essay on the topic and you have to cite reliable sources.

If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to ask me on the talk page. I'll be happy to help! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For more film related sources, also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to El Retorno del Hombre Lobo— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Le avventure di Giacomo Casanova, you may be blocked from editing. WNYY98 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Nightmare City 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 the 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to A Quiet Place in the Country has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to La bambola di Satana— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Cross Current. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (68.129.15.71) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! MassiveYR 🌟 (TALK) 22:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been adding alternate release titles to film articles such as at here at Deep Red. While your efforts to add content to articles is appreciated may I refer you to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films)#Foreign-language_films. Including every title the film has ever been released under is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. To summarize the guideline:

• If the film was released under the same English title across the English-speaking world, use this as the title of the article, and refer to the film by that title throughout the article. However, the first time it is used, follow it immediately with the original title in brackets, bolded, and with a link to the appropriate native language article.
• If the film was released in the English-speaking world under its native title, use that throughout the article, but include an English translation in brackets after the first use.
• If the film has been released under different titles within the English speaking world – if for example, some English-speaking countries prefer to use the native title, or if different translations are used in different countries – use the most common title throughout, and explain the other titles in the first or second sentence, putting each of them in bold.

In short, only the original native title and the titles used in English-speaking countries should be included. Moreover, alternate titles should be provided in the lead and it is not necessary to create a separate section for them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for reverting your edits under the false pretense that the works were not related to the article, as well as not a suitable addition to the article. Kellymoat explained that the edits are fine to be included. She also explained as well as that the edits were edited by herself for capitalization, removed by a third party, and then restored by yourself with incorrect capitalization and grammar. I see that you've made further edits to the article in question, so I will not restore the previous revision with the list added. However, feel free to re-add the list, and please be sure to add correct grammar and punctuation. Again, I apologize for my error. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 22:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on wikipedia named "BettyLogan" has been stalking me for days, deleting everything I add to any of the entries. First they did it on the grounds that my additions had no reference sources, then when I fixed that, they erased them on the grounds that they were not interesting to them. But all of the people I know who collect European horror films like to keep track of th different titles the films are distributed under around the world, and it even helps collectors avoid buying the same video twice under 2 different names. It takes me time to research and type the edits, and she (or he) keeps deleting them at the end of each day LIKE CLOCKWORK. It makes people disgusted with wikipedia to have their stuff systematically vandalized and erased at the end of each day. I am one of the people who created the "giallo" page's filmography. When I first came on the page, there were like 25 titles on it. I added almost all of the other ones, and now I'm being prevented from contributing by a cyber stalker BettyLogan. I even receive threats every day that if I re-add the information, I'll be banned from wikipedia,etc. Look back over the past few days of logs and see how she (or he) has been vandalizing all of my additions. Thanks for your time and assistance! Any help you can provide is sincerely appreciated. -Frank

Your recent editing history at Deep Red shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Qzd. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Heroes of the West (1932 film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Qzd (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Giant Robo (tokusatsu), you may be blocked from editing. Jdcomix (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Nieves Navarro— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Scott is Nieves Navarro's name. What's wrong with adding her stage name?

Please do not add or change content 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm L3X1. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Beautiful but Dangerous have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 23:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop changing the year of film to match the copyright dates as you had done recently on I Vampiri. Per MOS:FILM, the year of the film is dictated by when it first premiered, not what year it was made in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But in some cases, the film is released YEARS after it was made. If you don't list the year it was made, you'll never be able to put the films in chronological order

Yeah, that happens. But let the prose explain that as part of the production. When you add information to infobox where it says a film was released and add (made in 1957), you are not using the infobox properly. For example, on the I Vampiri article, you've last changed the year to 1956 (with no explanation it was made or released, or even giving a source). The film was made in 1956 (which is already stated in the production section) and the release date is also given in the article. If you have a source stating when the films were made, add it to the prose in a production section, don't alter release dates.Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edit here, please not on wikipedia we do not consider a IMDb as a reliable source. Please read WP:RS/IMDb. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected a vandalized page, someone wrote Ayla Halls name on every line on the info box. Ayla Hall is not a real person! Now you reverted my edits back to the vandalized version!!

Then stop adding information without a source and explain your edits. If my information is wrong, correct it with a reliable source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not put the films literal translations in Italics. It implies that the translation is a film title. Unless the film has been released under this title, and you can prove it with a source, do not place them in italics. Thank you! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing this as you continue to do so on the article Double Face. If you continue to do this, you'll be blocked for disruption. You should raise this issue on the article's talkpage before making another edit to it. Please reply here to state you understand. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop doing what? I just added the translation of the German title. I put it in regular font as was requested, but you deleted it anyway. Maybe the readers are interested in reading about these movies in English? Not everyone speaks German. -Frank

Okay, you've also already stated that your source for these title translations is Google Translate, so this fails WP:RS and WP:OR. Please, read WP:RS and WP:OR before adding further content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Zombi 3. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

If you want add items to his filmography, add sources. Accurate or not, you are going to have to find sources for these items. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why can't you just leave it up until you find the sources? It will take years to find references on all those Mattei titles. I collect the films, and I can vouch for the info because I actually have the dvd's and videos, so I know the list was accurate. - Frank

Do the DVD and other information have the dates these films premiered in? If so, you could potentially add some if they can confirm these details. Outside this, the page has been tagged for years for being unsourced. No effort was made to find them, so I tried to clean it up best I could with the information available. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But in the meantime, most of the filmography info is no longer available on the page at all.Most of his films weren't well known enough to even be mentioned in a reference source on Mattei, even if you found one.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure information could be found. The book "Italian horror film Directors" by Louis Paul goes through large bits of his filmography. Not to mention in the past month I've found several other bits and pieces of his film credits both online and in published books. If it can't be found, we shouldn't add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The info can be found on imdb. Why can't you just leave the imdb related titles on the page until other more reliable sources turn up to disprove their data? 99.9 % of their info is accurate.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as mentioned above, we don't do this because we do not use IMDb as a source. (Please read WP:RS/IMDb), which states "IMDb content is mostly user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation, rumor, and hoaxes. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia as a sole reference is usually considered unacceptable and is discouraged. It should also be noted that its romanization of Chinese titles does not follow the standard. Reliable sourcing from established publications cannot be stressed enough. Anonymous or pseudonymous sources from online fansites are generally unacceptable. So, while itself discouraged as a source, IMDB might provide information leading editors to the preferable reliable sites.". This argument is going beyond of what you want included on this page. If you want to use IMDb as a source, bring it up on the talk page of WP:FILM. Otherwise, I feel like you may not be getting it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Warriors of the Year 2072. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of your recent edits seem to conflict with other sources. I'm doing my best (as are you) to find the release dates and other information. However, trivial information such as multiple titles are not really useful to our readers without context. Just as you had found that Rats, Night of Terror release date, I've found about two other ones that say different dates. Which is correct? How do you know for sure? We need to find better sources. Lets discuss these items on the respective films talk pages before jumping to Rotten Tomatoes or any other first page google source on what we have found. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fear the only way to source Mattei is to buy that new Italian biography/filmography on him that just came out a year or so ago. It's all in Italian unfortunately, but it's supposed to be the best official reference work done on his work. The release dates, cast members and alternate titles should be easily understandable however in any language. It seems futile however if any material I get from it is maliciously deleted.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's only removed because you a) keep adding original research and b) add sources without checking if they pass the rules on WP:RS, and WP:OR. Have you read those pages? Have you verified if anything you are sourcing follows those rules? Because from what I've seen, you have continuously added items, sourced them, and when I check the sources it does not even state what they claim, let alone follow the rules I previously mentioned. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You listed S.S. EXTERMINATION LOVE CAMP on the Mattei filmography and it doesn't have a wikipedia page attached to it. This film is available on DVD under the title WOMEN'S CAMP 119. Unless you list that either as the primary title, or as an aka, on the filmography, no one will know what the dvd release title is. It's only known as WOMEN'S CAMP 119 now.68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Films with this many titles is tricky. We try to use the most commonly used name for these types of films, but as stated previously, this is not always easy with Mattei's films. However, we can not just list every alternative title of these films as it will become an unruly mess. If you can suggest that one title is more common than the other, we can move the page around. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean....If you had a separate wikipage on this film, you could write there that the dvd title is Women's Camp 119. But there's no wikipage in this case, so there's nowhere to include that info. The film is marketed only as Women's Camp 119. So I would either put it on as an aka, or else make that the main title.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should cram every alternative English title though, because the page will become a an unruly mess. If you think that the Women's Camp 119 is the more common title, even amongst fan reviews. we can probably change the title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the dvd for sale under the title Women's Camp 119....https://www.amazon.com/Womans-Camp-119-Staccioli/dp/B007BOCCFO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498429186&sr=8-1&keywords=women%27s+camp+119. That has become the main title for this movie. (also, why not put the alternate titles under the "Notes" column?68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See thats where it gets tricky. For other Italian films like I Vampiri which I worked on, it had been released under other titles in the United Kingdom and USA with different running times. Currently, most research on it calls it I Vampiri, but with your current DVD, the film has not reached a significant exposure under that title. I'm not saying the alternative title is wrong, nor am I suggesting one is more common than the other, but I definitely do not think we should just be listing every alternative title under the sun. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even tried to include things like Hungarian, Pakistani or Argentinian release titles, but I do think that most of the people reading the English language version of wiki would probably be interested in what titles the films were released in the UK and USA at the very least, and since most of the Eurofilms are co-productions, probably Germnany & France as well. But to list only the Italian title (as in the case of The Psychic and One on Top of the Other, etc.) seems strange, especially since these films were dubbed in English and were very definitely distributed under English titles. Interested fans can't even order The Psychic or One on Top on dvd under the Italian names, so I think the English titles should at least be mentioned, in case someone would like to try to get these films on dvd.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, great if you have them, but I'd include them in a section called "Release", opposed to the lead. Again, try to find them based on WP:RS and WP:OR rules. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use WikiWand as a source, its just mirroring wikipedia. So it fails WP:RS and WP:OR. Ditto for the majority of sites hosted by blogspot, which are blogs and self-published sources. You need to find better ones. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the book I have by Roberto Curti states that all the films are released by the initial release date in Italy for things like Madness. Does the Mattei book you have go by specific dates or state anything like that? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The text reviews all the films in the order in which they were made, and it refers (several times) to MADNESS" (1994). It shows it coming out the year after "DANGEROUS ATTRACTION" (1993). I have a copy of the film on dvd-r, I can check the copyright date on the credits. (I hate to bring up imdb, but they have it listed as 1994 as well.)68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey. I've replied on the Madness page. I know this is an annoying situation but the copyright date does not always attribute to when the film was released. The Franju Eyes Without a Face for example has a copyright notice for 1959, but was not shown publicly until 1960. I've expanded the discussion on the Madness talk page. We should probably stick to it there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THat's exactly my point. The Franju film has a copyright date 1959 because that's when it was made, and it was first shown in 1960. The same is true with the Mattei film MADNESS; it has a copyright date on the dvd of 1993 because that's when it was made, but it was first shown in 1994 (according to every source but one). So why do you keep listing MADNESS as 1992? That's like as if you listed the Franju film as 1958!!! It makes no sense. I'm sorry to be annoying on this, but we have the oppportunity of fixing Curti's error here and you're not taking advantage of it.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So if we are adding information like "last time working with ____" and "first time working with _____" for his work with Claudio and the producer, you have to find reasons why that's important. He's worked with several people through his career continiously. It would be good to find information related to that and adding it to the prose, not adding it to his filmography. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are really only 2 collaborators that meant anything to Mattei's career....Claudio Fragasso, who wrote most of his films from 1980--1990 (and happened to co-direct a few too) but his main contribution was that they were a team throughout that decade and all Mattei's best films were made then! The other collaborator Giovanni Paolucci came along at the very end of Mattei's career and he became his producer for the last ten films or so that he made. So those aren't just collaborators, they are the two people who kept him going in all likelihood. A lot of fans would be interested to know the exact span of films on which they collaborated.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that, but you have to back up the important of these collaborations to a general reader who is not familiar with Mattei. Otherwise it will come off as fancruft or trivia, which is information we try to avoid on Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, do not use other wiki's as sources for content (as you did using the Italian wiki on Bruno Mattei's page). Do not add every single alternative title in the world as that is fancruft. If you have enough content to satisy MOS:FILM, use it there. Otherwise, stick with the most common title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't just change dates of titles like Madness in his filmography and leave the original source which states a different date. Discuss it on a talk page. If you aren't going to discuss items, your edits will be considered vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every source shows MADNESS was only directed in late 1993 and released in 1994. The Curti source is the only one that mentions 1992, which is plainly incorrect. If you want to leave it 1992, then do so, but it is incorrect. The Italiuan biography lists 1994, and the copyright on the dvd print's end titles state 1993.68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Italian book you mention. Does it, or does it specifically say it was released in 1994. Is it just listed as "Madness (1994)", or do you actually have statements of when/where/date it was released? The Curti book does. In fact, it mentions it twice in the book. And your other sources contradict each other and do not give finer details. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Bruno Mattei. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's this in reference to? What did I write?? 68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically adding alternative titles such as German-language titles. The filmography is not an endless list of titles. I think the Italian one is ok, but do not start addding production info (i.e: "First time working with ____) etc. It's a simple chart. You wouldn't have a multiplication table that points out extra trivial detail outside the math. So keep it simple as possible. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are getting it. Having a book or source that just says "Madness (1993)" or "Madness (1992)" is not a source stating that the film was released or premiered on that date. Per WP:NOTGETTINGIT, this is approaching vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Battle of the Commandos, 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book available. Right above on it page on the previous page is the film DiaboliX which states the year 1992. (pg. 194 and 195 respectively). Curti also brings up the film on page 37 of the book where he states ""Meanwhile, history was cyclically repeating itself , with a heated controversy regarding hyper-violent horror comics that exploded at the turn of the decade. Filmmakers did little to exploit it though. Traces can be found in Bruno Mattei's low-budget giallo Madness, aka Eyes Without a Face (1992)". Curti also states on page 9 of the Diabolika book that "The entries are arranged in chronological order-based on the release dates in Italy-and under their English language title." he also states on page 9 "The information bits provided throughout the text are the result of a thorough research from a variety of sources such as academic texts and essays and other assorted material-interviews with filmmakers and actors, newspaper reviews, etc.-which are listed in the bibliography." If there are no further questions, I'll remove the "verify statement" on the Mattie filmography. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Curti claims he researched his material carefully doesn't mean he couldn't make an error somewhere in the book. The book on Mattei clearly states that "Madness" was the 2nd film he made with that particular producer, which clearly places the filming in the latter part of 1993. So the film didn't even exist in '92, it's clearly an error. Every other source on the internet lists it as 1994 except for the Curti book. It's obviously an error, the copyright on the dvd's end titles says 1993, because it was trademarked in '93, and released theatrically in '94. But if you want to remove the verify statement, it's up to you. You are clearly putting erroneous data on the page though.68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"which clearly places the filming in the latter part of 1993". Stop making assumptions on things you have yet or provide a source for. So far my source is the only one that states a release year specifically. I've clarified my sources, I've asked you several times to state whether or not your sources are actually stating release dates, and you are remaining vague. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I don't doubt that it could be an error. But so far its the only one confident to give an Italian release date. I've asked you a dozen times, does your book state where/when/at all if your films were released in the year they were in? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add things were "critically praised" as you did on the Lamberto Bava page. Without a source, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When adding translated titles of foreign language films, do not place them in italics, as that suggests the film was released under that title in English. Thanks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Images in a Convent, 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic rules[edit]

If you want to improve articles, I'd suggest reading the following: WP:BAREURLS, WP:PROVEIT, and such. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Joe D'Amato, 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. Your sources you added state a year. Its not clear whether this year is the actual release date or a copyright date. Your sources do not state that. Find ones that are more specific. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am only listing information that have sources stating a specific year of origin next to the title. If you can find a more specific (precise) release date, that would be good, but in most cases, that information is not available at all. Some of the release dates you have listed are later release dates outside of Italy, not the actual date of release in Italy. Emanuelle's Revenge is listed everywhere online as a 1975 film, even in Italian reference books. 68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If its not available, do not add it. I don't care if you have a date but your sources are not actually stating the film was released in that year. If some of the things I'm adding are not correct, then by all means find a source that corrects one, but your addition of content stating "Eva nera (1975)" or whatever, is not an indication that the film was released then. I'm glad you care about these filmmakers, but you are deliberately interpreting sources. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." Do you understand? If so, find the sources that specifically state release dates, as I we should not be accepting things like Night of the Living Dead' (1968) as release year. Sound good @68.129.15.71:?Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the films' precise release dates are no longer available, or have been lost in the haze of time. All that remains on many of these films is the year of release, not the date and the time it was released. In the absence of more precise info, you have to use the next most precise source, which in most cases is the title of the film and the year of release in parentheses. If you can find a precise release date, in many cases, it's not the first release date of the film anyway. It could be a later release date in some other country like the UK or the US. In most cases, the films were released many years later in those other countries. Most of the release date info in reference books is all incorrect anyway.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In the absence of more precise info, you have to use the next most precise source,". No no, and no. You are over the top with original research here dude. If you don't have the content, do not add it. That is against the rules of WP:STICKTOSOURCE. If you do not have that content, do not add it. You've accused me of being a vandal before, but you are trying to fill information you just do not have. Not obeying the (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) rule, is vandalism. If you do it again, you will be reverted. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I'm not about to waste my time contributing to this page, when everything I add is erased or deleted. I'm sure you wouldn't either, if you were in my place. Determining the date of origin of a film is hard enough, without obsessing over the exact day of the week or what month it was released, when these films had many different release dates in many different countries. It's not the same as researching the release dates of Hollywood films, which are easily available. You've turned this into a horribly annoying experience, and I wish you well in your attempts to track down all of the precise release dates you're looking for. Half of them are going to be incorrect anyway. Maybe the page will be readable in a few years (as it was a week ago).68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have mixed lines here. You do not need an exact date, but you do need to have a source with states what you are saying. If it says "Released in 1975", that is good enough for the charts. Obviously a more specific date is preferred, but if you have a year and you are not interpreting a source to say what it states. Then please do add it. If you do not, then lets not go down that path. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{ Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Amanda Abbington. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constant harassment deters users as well. 68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To back up to separate comments, your "Most of the release date info in reference books is all incorrect anyway.", where are the correct ones you are comparing it too? This is a pretty grand statement with little to back up. As for constant harassment, you add content without sources or references, they will be removed. Not sure what more there is to add in that area. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Invisible Avenger. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited some notes you've left on the The Manster. For one, the AllMovie source says nothing of when it was filmed. Second, the AllMovie source contradicts other sources. We need to clarify on the talk page instead of just tossing in bare URL references. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss before making bold edits to the release date and other information on The Manster. Your edits made the article contradict itself (i.e: you added a release date in the infobox when its not clarified here yet, you stated Stars and Stripes (which has no source) claimed a certain release date (even from the images above, it has a date discussing the films content, but has no statement relating to a release)) Before trying to solve the problem, try to bring new sources or content to the table. I've reverted these for that specific reason. If there any edits I made in error, let me know.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who brought in the Star and Stripes magazine from 1959, which stated the film was released in 1959. At the very least, that proves the film existed in 1959. Perhaps the release date was delayed a bit, but the fact that the 1959 article is discussing the Manster as a finished film in 1959 proves that it was made in 1959 and not 1961. AllMovie also states a specific release date in 1959 (the actual date!) which can't get any more precise than that. Everything that comes up on the internet regarding the Manster lists it as being released in Japan in 1959. The only source that contradicts it is the Galbraith book, which is loaded with innacuracies throughout, since it was written about 25 years ago when there was very little info available on these films (pre-internet). But the key piece of evidence is the S&S magazine reviewing it in a 1959 issue, that is irrefutable! Why not just list it as a 1959 film and put the references in for now, and if something turns up to contradict it, then change it later? (But nothing will come up, because the film was released in 1959!)68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AllMovie claims it was released in the United States in 1959, which no other source states. Your "everything that comes up on the internet" argument does not hold up well as you'll have to provide better sources than that. I'm not going to link you to the rules for that (see several relies above where I have already). Not sure what you mean by the Sight & Sound article as I have not seen any reference to it. Did you Mean Monthly Film Bulletin? Because that's from 1961. So in short, no, we don't list things "for now", no source, no go. Its not even me arguing, its the rules on Wikipedia, which I've reminded you quite a few times before. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

I meant Stars and Stripes magazine, not Sight and Sound68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue any further discussion on The Manster and its release date and other content on the articles talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Your previous edit was removed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which states ". A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." and "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In other words, just because you found something, does not mean it merits it. I.e: sure, some one was in the ape suit. Add it to the cast section. What makes it worth specific merit? Does the source explain why this is relevant? For the specific source you cited, I know it does not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I removed the sources linking to Allcinema.net, as on their disclaimer (here) that they can not promise the content on the site is accurate. So y'know, we should not use it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want your edits to be continuously removed, and since you do not want to read the rules page (or just ignore it), please consider the following.

1. Check the reliability of your source. Does it have an author credited, does the site contain a section stating how they contain their information? This should clarify the difference between a fan site and reliable source.
2. Do not add trivial information. Things have to have context. Was the film shot in widescreen? Maybe, but what's the importance? (i.e: was it the first film of its kind to do this? did the director or production crew or staff state why it was filmed this way? Otherwise, this information will be trivial and should not be included. It's been brought up before on WP:FILMS. Feel free to bring it up there if you think it should still be included.
3. Do make an effort to stick to what sources are saying. If the source does not mention two people being the same person as being anything important or relevant, do not add it.
4. Please read over MOS:FILM so you know what content belongs in film articles. Ask a question there if you think things should change.

That's all. I admire your dedication to films I am equally interested in, but I wish you were as dedicated as finding strong sources for what you want to state as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of the Japanese films are very important to collectors.

Per WP:RAWDATA, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. [...] merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." In other words, information that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing. I have explained these elements to you several times and you break the rules or get fed up because you can't back up your sources. I'll be ignoring your statements stating that "its says this all over the internet!" or "fans find it interesting!" are never going to have your content stick. Back up your reasons, like if the director wanted to have the film in a certain format then you can discuss it. If you or I personally find it interesting, then it's not enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more time here, you can't just combine your research and assume information. We do not post original research on wikipedia. So just because things seem likely (with a few exceptions) we can't predict. This is especially true of low budget films. How many Italian films use fake names, fake authors, alternative names for directing credits? I know you know that as well as I do. This is why its so important to get good sources for these and not leave the articles in a crappy cruddy mess. More high quality sources, the better. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've often stated in your arguments that the films year should be the copyright date. I would highly suggest bringing it up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Film's talk page if you feel strongly about it. Going back and forth with me about what should/shouldn't be the rules is not going to change them, because I don't make the rules. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Manster, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Goke, Body Snatcher from Hell, 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Manster. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your additions are taking what the source say out of context. (US release dates, notable or non-notable colour release, etc.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Why has all of my contributions been reverted without explanation? Every one of my additions have a reference source as requested. You invited people to edit the page, then you delete all oif their work? How is this not vandalism?) (undo)". To explain it on your Daiei list page, refer to WP:CITEKILL, where it states its better to have a one great source and not over-do it. Keep the list simple. It's a list of Daiei productions, we don't need too much extra information other than when the film was released and major titles (i.e: most common English title, and perhaps the Japanese title). As for your Manster edit, you are not actually applying what is said in the source and are taking it out of context, which goes against WP:STICKTOSOURCE. This has been explained to you dozens of times. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to write exactly what the source says (about the film being made in B&W), but you told me I had to add a reason why that made it different from most of the other films of that period. When I add the explanation, you delete it because you said i'm adding to the reference source. As for Daiei, you left the Japanese titles on the grid, I just added the English translation of the Japanese title if it was different from the English title, and even then I only did it on the important titles like Warning From Space, etc. that fans might like to know how the Japanese title translates. If you consider the Japanese title worthy of inclusion, you should'nt mind my putting in the translation of the Japanese title if it's different from the english title68.129.15.71 (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't add information, you need to find a source that says that information. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, you can't just add information that is not the source. For example, you stated "unlike many other genre films of the era" (or something like this). That is not in your source at all. The source just says the film is black and white. So unless the source also has context, do not add your own because this is original research which is not allowed. Regardless, this information is also incorrect as a) it's not a Japanese production and b) several early Japanese science fiction films were in black and white, such as Gamera, Godzilla, Godzilla Raids Again and so forth. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know the drill. Per Wikipedia:Inaccuracy, "There are few situations in life in which we have total knowledge, or in which we have language that is not subject to re-interpretation. From a practical viewpoint, there will always be a level of uncertainty in concluding that material is inaccurate." In other words, we have yet to find specific information regarding this information as being wrong. Read the rules there please before removing information. There's also Wikipedia:Verifiability. Could you tell me if you read these or not? A simple yes or no would do. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lets make it quick.

• Per WP:BURDEN, if you want to create a page, its up to you to create it.
• Per consensus on the talk page, we won't be adding translations as I have added text to address your concerns which was not responded to. Consensus was assumed.
• Do not use sites that just mirror wikipedia or sites which are wikis as sources. They are fail WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SPS. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Invisible Avenger. KylieTastic (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have this film listed under the wrong title. It was called "Tomei Ningen" in Japan, and it never had an English language title. The title translates as "Invisible Man", but the film was never released under that title. It was never dubbed in English nor was it subtitled. So how in the world did this film end up being called "Invisible Avenger"???? "Invisible Avenger" was actually a 1958 American crime drama that featured the Shadow and starred Richard Derr. Why don't you correct this?68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Japan (and other Asian countries) films often have a secondary English-language title. This is the case with The Invisible Avenger, per Galbraith's book The Toho Filmography. And for someone as versed in film as you, its more than possible for two films to two films to have the same title. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A film can have 5 or 6 different titles, but they are usually titles that the film was distributed under. In the case of Tomei Ningen, Toho planned to release the film in English but obviously they never did it. "Invisible Avenger" was just a planned title, but the film was never dubbed in English, hence how can prints exist that are titled "Invisible Avenger"? It's not possible! Therefore the title of the wiki page should be "Tomei Ningen". That Galbraith book is just wrong. You don't believe a book can have an error in it?68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can even see the book here. Its explained in earlier pages of the book how the formatting of bold titles work. It is not very complicated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring this conversation per WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I've explained it to you a dozen times. Is English your first language? I'm not trying to ask an insulting question, just not sure if you are reading the rules or not. You seem to disagree with them but taking them up with me individually is not going to get you anywhere. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Umberto Lenzi. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEMOCRACY, Wikipedia's "primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting ". In short, trying to vote back your unsourced Lenzi filmography is not going to go over about as well as a the good year blimp. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming it would'nt be a real vote anyway, just a sham of some sort.68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC) I'm assuming you see now how what you've done to the Lenzi page is seen as vandalism to the Lenzi fans who are going there for helpful info, not an empty table with a bunch of titles and footnotes in it. The bullet list was perfectly adequate.68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding souces is not vandalism and from conversations on the page, the discussion tends to be leading towards wanting sources. I'd suggest keeping the discussion on that page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to The Invisible Avenger. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Umberto Lenzi. Please make sure your sources actually state what you are claiming and consider context for the reader. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Umberto Lenzi. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me and stalking me online. You give wikipedia a bad name. I don't know why anyone would even bother to contribute to wiki when they are harassed continuously. My online history will show wikipedia hundreds of instances of harassment from you if they look at my past record of contributions. You are more of a stalker than an editor. I have done nothing but contribute to wikipedia for over ten years, and all my edits are in good faith and have been verified.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping a track of your edits because you are continuously adding unsourced information to articles, or state sources that do not claim what they say. I have suggested time and time again that you read up on WP:RS, WP:OR and familiarize yourself with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These are the rules for contributing. If you do not follow them, your edits will be removed. I want you to keep editing, but I also note that you should be following the rules and guidelines I've stated above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming my sources are the best in the world, but you erase perfectly legitimate sources on a whim, it's just your personal opinion how good a source it is in your opinion. In the absence of other better sources, any source should be acceptable, and if a better source turns up later, the article can always be edited. I see hundreds of other wiki pages that have no footnotes or sources at all, why aren't you deleting them? I've seen dozens of people linking their articles to imdb, but you don't remove their pages. You seem to stalk me on wiki and spitefully try to delete everything I add to an article. Why don't you do this to other wiki editors? I would think you'd have so much to do trying to fix the Lenzi page that you wouldnt have time to follow me online and harass me. I don't mind if I put erroneous info on a page and you delete it, that's fine. But if I list a source and you don't have a better one to contribute, then why can't you just leave my info on the page until you find a better source? It's not like i'm not listing a source. Sources on these 50 year old films are very hard to find. Very few of them meet your approval. Too few, in my opinion.68.129.15.71 (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a blog or personal webiste. We do not use poor sources if good sources are not available. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

I've seen dozens of wiki pages that don't have any sources at all, and tons that use imdb, and nobody harasses them.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Betty said. Just because other articles are using IMDb or other sites that we have deemed not recommended to use, I do not suggest to think its ok. I obviously have not found every article on this site, but eventually these will be removed too. Just because content is difficult to find, does not mean we start posting original research. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the rules only facts that might be challenged should have impeccable sources. "For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC) Any facts that I put on the Lenzi page, if someone objects to it, can be easily edited if the person has found a better reference source than the one I used. In the event of a factual error, it can be easily corrected in seconds. And in the meantime, the readers can have an informative wikipage they can read, instead of a blank page waiting to be filled hopefully some day if we happen to find an impeccable reference source.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paris being the capital of France is general knowledge. Any fact that is not part of general knowledge is a questionable fact, and open to challenge. This applies especially to filmographies of obscure filmmakers. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what Betty said. The only thing that would go without saying on the Lenzi page is that he was a filmmaker. He is not really known for anything else. The details about his films and what he has made or when they were made are not obvious. Giving users information without providing a source is the opposite of what wikipedia is used for. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Your recent editing history at Umberto Lenzi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well why aren't you blocked every day then? Because you spend more time deleting other people's work than adding constructive pages of your own to wikipedia. Can you be blocked for online stalking? 68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I often have to play clean-up for your edits because you are not following the guidelines and rules. That's why I check your edit history. Some are okay, most are not. If you genuinely feel I am harassing you, I suggest you take it to the appropriate administrator page. I promise you I wish we did not have to deal with it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Umberto Lenzi. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm being stalked online and harassed by this "editor"/ stalker. He obviously has a personal vendetta against me as you can see if you look back over my editing history. No one else would've continued trying to improve the wikipedia pages in the face of such harassment. Even when I listed references and footnotes, my material was still deleted. It was almost impossible for me to get even one edit through onto a page, but I persisted because I want so badly to improve the wikipages. I'd venture to say this harassing editor has scared off hundreds of potential contributors. Anyway I'll gladly accept any help you can offer me.68.129.15.71 (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. The other problem is your addition of unsourced information to articles. This was explained in a complaint at ANI. You were notified of the ANI discussion but did not choose to respond, so it's logical for me to assume the statements about you are true. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mahveotm. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Planet Prince— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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. Mahveotm (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (68.129.15.71) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! Mahveotm (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Daiei Films, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a heads up, you seem to be replacing published sources with online databases. I wouldn't do that unless there is some grave error. But swapping a published book with a letterboxed website source suggest you have not changed much since your previous edit. I want you to edit, but you have to find better sources, do not fill in the blanks with weak ones.Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked again from editing for 6 months. I was trying to follow the rules, I added what I thought were perfectly good reference sources. If I made an error, you could've just deleted my edits. Why did you have me blocked again? Do you think that's fair? Please help me get unblocked and I assure you I won't edit war with you any more. You know any errors that I made this week were not vandalism or disruptive editing. You know I'm a big fan of these topics and I was only trying to contribute what I could to make the page better. Can you help me get unblocked?68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think you are trying to edit better, but you still keep adding any google search you can find to add content. I've said it before, you have to follow WP:RS and WP:OR. The rules are stated there. If you had questions about the notability of some sources, I'd be happy to help you, but if unsure about rules, there are several editors at WP:FILM who would be happy to explain them to you as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing with the long-term pattern of adding unsourced information to articles. See Special:Diff/807424079 where a number of admins declined to lift your last block. If you change your mind and decide to start following our policies, let us know and this block can be reconsidered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, I listed a reference source for everything I added to the articles this week. Please tell me what disruptive editing I did? I was only trying to improve the pages, and most of my edits were correcting grammatical errors and trying to fix up sentence structure, etc. Please tell me what disruptive editing I did? I was very careful this time to add reference sources to all my edits. If I made an error, please tell me what I did wrong? I assure you I was trying to follow the rules.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if its the edit I corrected, but looking at your edit history, you casually added in dates to the list of Daiei films here, you used japanese film database as a source here, which I've shown you before are not reliable sources as early as October here, and you replaced published sources with online film database sources without explaining your edits at all here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing....I thought the published source I replaced was a source I had put on the page earlier, so I thought when I found the Japanese source (which seemed authentic to me), I could replace the other source because I had put it on the page earlier myself if I found a better one. I wasn't trying to delete a source that you or someone else put on the page. I was just trying to fix up something I had put on the page earlier. (Actually I wanted to leave both sources on, but I must have deleted my earlier one when I did it by error.) But how can you call that disruptive editing? I wasn't trying to disrupt the page maliciously.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly did not recall your saying that Japanese database source was not valid, or I wouldn't have used it. Do you think I'm trying to get blocked from editing? I know edit warring is futile, and I was honestly trying to improve the page by adding the release dates. How about this? If you get me unblocked, I'll check with you first on a source before I change the articles. That way I wouldn't use an invalid source accidentally. But blocking me from editing when I was only trying to improve the articles and accusing me of "disruptive editing" is very unfair, since you know I'm not purposely trying to get myself blocked. Any mistakes I made was just errors.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would basically suggest in your official unblocking proposal that you will avoid the articles for a while that have caused you issues in the past. When returning from an unblock, its best to play it as safe as you can. As you were blocked from using weak sources before after me trying to persuade you otherwise, I'd suggest thinking up a guide plan that will prevent you from doing this again. I.e: add content only sourced from published books or notable film websites. Very few online databases are usually good to go for wikipedia, as a peer reviewed source is better, but stick with things like BFI, AFI and Filmportal.de etc. Make sure your source is explicitly stating what you say too. But yeah, I don't think the editor above you is going to unblock you unless you make your official statement with a set plan. For more information, read through Wikipedia:Appealing a block. As for me, I can not unblock or request it for you, as I do not have the powers to do that with my user status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your other post. To help clarify your edits, try to always write what you are doing in the edit summary section. That way, people will know what you were trying to do with an edit. We all make mistakes or maybe do a few edits in a row that make up one big change, but its good practice to place what you are doing in the edit summary. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an error on the Shintoho filmography that you might want to fix. At the bottom of the filmography, one of the titles is listed twice..."Ghost Cat of Otamange-Ike" is also listed as "The Ghost of Otoma Pond" right below it. Otoma Pond is the right listing, the other one is the duplicated one. Also, Ghost Story of a Woman Diver (1960) aka Kaidan ama yurei is a sequel to "The Girl Diver of Spook Mansion" (1959). There were actually 2 separate films made about the "Girl Diver". The 2 films had different casts even! You might want to fix that? I obviously can't. thanks68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll double check my sources at home later. By the way, I can not make edits on behalf of editors who are currently blocked as that would get me blocked as well. I would suggest officially appealing your block if you want to continue editing wikipedia.Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I just thought you might want to fix those 2 errors on the Shintoho page because the info got messed up when you deleted my edits on that page. I tried to make the page better but it resulted in getting messed up instead. i'm sure they wouldn't mind you deleting the duplicated title, as it's obviously an error. Regarding the girl diver, I was shocked to learn there were 2 films made about her, as not even Galbraith knew about the sequel in 1960.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andrzejbanas. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Shintoho, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. And welcome back by the way.Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I corrected the source address. It says Shintoho on the right side of the screen and the film's actual release date 7/8/6068.129.15.71 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the site states here that their database can't not be confirmed for accuracy as its user-generated. We don't use user generated sites on Wikipeda (see WP:SPS and WP:RS). Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==Formatting book source==

Quick suggestion. When adding book sources, try to match the current way the article cites books. I.e: on the Gappa: The Triphibian Monster page and the List of Daiei films pages, we use a different format. You should also include the ISBN number when citing books. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks, I have included the ISBN. Regarding Walt Lee reference book, the date he lists is the year of theatrical release, which in most cases was the date the film was also completed, since he deals only with pre-1972 movies. If the film was released a different year than it was made, then he lists the both dates, like so....1961 (1962). That means it was made in 1961, but only released in 1962. He is very specific in listing the original theatrical release date of each film.68.129.15.71 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me an example? I'd be curious in buying this book if it had such details. But I'd like to see it. Would you be able to upload a snapshot of a page with states these things? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I photographed the page. How do I send it, as an attachment to an email?68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways to do it through Wikipedia, but i'm not exactly sure how its done (I haven't had to do it!). I would recommend uploading it to Flickr. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on as a picture on one of my friend's ebay auctions. go to https://www.ebay.com/itm/123166427938. It's on there as one of the scans. Let me know after you copy it and i'll have him delete it. lol68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. From the page information, it seems that the years in his source are not specifically related to release dates. He says they usually are but can't confirm these as release dates. I'm not sure if we should use him as a source for a year of release. Alternative titles and such should be fine when used appropriately, but I don't think its appropriate for a year of release. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It says "for films not released in the US, the date in parentheses indicates a delayed release in the country of origin". In other words, the first date is the release date in the country of origin, and the date in parentheses is the US release date ONLY if it's different. If the film had a delayed release date in its country of origin, he says it's reflected in the date in the parentheses. So it's very clear, I think. He doesn't have the month/day, but it's clear that the release dates he has listed reflect the films' earliest theatrical release. You must remember that most pre-1972 movies were always released a month or two after they were completed, especially the Japanese movies which were shown very soon after they were completed.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the page said that the films are usually released in the year they said. Its not specific. And pre 1972 films? Thats not the case. I've created articles for several Italian films that were held off. Or even Bava's Rabid Dogs. So if we don't have specifics, we shouldn't use it per WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're interpreting what he wrote backwards (like the glass being 1/2 empty or 1/2 full.) He's not saying the films are usually released in the year he notes. He's saying "the date given IS the first theatrical release date, but it can also be INFERRED that the film was completed that same year." In other words, if he lists 1961 as the date, he means "the film was first released in 1961, and it can be inferred that the film was probably completed that same year in 1961." You're interpreting it backwards. He's giving the first theatrical release dates in those entries, and he's saying "in most cases, that's also the date the film was completed." Also it's true Italian films in the 60's were held up by distributors, but we're doing Japanese films here, not Italian films. When Toho or Daiei made a film, that film was distributed to theatres in Japan very soon after the film was made (maybe even a couple of months later). The Japanese distribution was very different from the Italian film industry, don't you agree? They had their own distribution networks in Japan, so the film was guaranteed to be theatrically shown as soon as it was finished.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were different, and he says most, and not all, and does not (or can not) specify which ones were released when. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He also writes "For films not released in the US,the date in parentheses indicates a delayed release in the country of origin." So if the film just states a date 1961, that means it was first released in its country of origin in 1961. But if it says 1961 (1962), that means the film was made in 1961 but only released in its country of origin in 1962. So in a case like that, we're supposed to go by the date in parentheses as the release date. Most of the Japanese films that I'm dealing with here were never distributed to the US, and were never dubbed in English.68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary part is only if he has access to a US one. The original release date he says is assumed base on the date. Its not concrete information and the author admits it. Again stick to source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The underline date given is the completion date of the film, which is usually the same as the first public release. If the film was released in the United States at a later date than the production date, that release date is given in parenthesis following the underlined date. For films not released in the U.S., the date in parentheses indicates a delayed relase in the country of origin. A second date in the parentehses indicates a major re-release. (In many reference works, the date given for a film is the release date.)

. This is what the source says. It does not indicate that year is the release date, it just says it generally is. There is no confirmation. What part am I being confused about? Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It says "It does not indicate that year is the release date, it just says it generally is." Yes, it generally is the same, unless there is a date in parentheses next to it, in which case he's saying the release date was delayed and that delayed release date would be the number in the parentheses! 68.129.15.71 (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really convinced. He doesn't state what you are saying, so we'll have to find stronger sources for these films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bruno Mattei, 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.. You added two sources saying films were shot back to back and that one was shot for compesnation for another works. I have the sources handy, they do not say this at all! You are repeating the mistakes you said you would not. C'mon. I don't know what I have to say to make it that you can't just build upon sources like this. That is Original research, (see that link, read it, apply it!) Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was reading the book Spaghetti Nightmares while I was doing this, and I forgot to list that book too as the source for that "back-to-back" comment. That must've been in the Spaghetti Nightmares book I was reading. 68.129.15.71 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Violence in a Women's Prison. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . Again, you added sources (the Rotten Tomatoes source, etc.) that had content that was unsourced (here). Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the literal translation of the German title, "Face in the Dark", which is entirely different from the English title "Double Face". It was already in the article, I just moved it up to a higher paragraph. How is that adding unsourced information?68.129.15.71 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it was for moving information without moving its source on other content and adding the cameo content. I would suggest trying to find information about articles instead of adding trivial content. Also per WP:SLASH, don't use a slash to give alternative titles/translations in. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at House of Terror (film). Why do you keep adding unsourced material man. which you just did here. We've been through this.Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"La Casa del Terror" was never dubbed in English. Only the few sequences Jerry Warren used for his "Face of the Screaming Werewolf" was ever dubbed in English. I thought listing this could prevents readers from wasting their time searching for an English-dubbed print of the entire Tin Tan movie. I thought the article inferred these facts, I just clarified it more. Can't you just delete the offending sentences if you feel what I write is unsubstantiated? If you delete a particular thing that I write, I won't add it on again, I don't want to be involved in an editing war. But by adding all these Stop Hands warnings to my talk page, it seems like you're setting me up to be blocked from editing wikipedia again. Do you want me gone? I know my ignorance of wikipedia rules is probably annoying to you, but I'm not trying to cause problems. Can't we be friends and work toward a common goal? We both share so many interests. Please try to be patient? I'm just so eager to contribute, but I'm trying to follow the rules. I keep making the mistake that things that are common knowledge to me must still be verified. Sorry68.129.15.71 (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove unsourced things, but after endless trials of me explaining to rules, showing you where you can read them. Have you read them? I never get a solid yes or no. What don't you understand about them? I want to help, but its frustrating that after I make suggetions, you keep just adding information without sources. That would be my first big one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to get used to the idea that no fact can be considered "common knowledge". Like for example, if an entry mentioned a film was made in Rome, and I added the word "Italy" after it, that I would need to refer to a source showing that Rome is in Italy. Thats the kind of thing i'm talking about. I will just have to keep rmembering that there is no such thing as common knowledge. It's difficult, because there are certain things you take for granted, just from my years of life experience. And I assume other people take these facts for granted, i.e. they just assume they are true. But I'm not arguing with you, I definitely get it that just because I believe something's a given, doesn't absolve me of the burden of having to find a source to prove it. It's just that this strict adherence to the reliable source rule could be paralyzing to wannabe editors. But I'll try to do it right from now on.68.129.15.71 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at House of Terror (film). Your sources you added mention the year 1959, but they do not state the film was released then. Neither of the sources do. One mentions a year without clear meaning (copyright? release? Not known from the page given). The Lon Chaney book only mentions that Chaney went to Mexico in 1959 to film the project. You have to stick to the source. If your source is not explicitly stating what you claim, do not add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about a premiere date. I was just quoting the two sources I listed verbatim. They both refer to Casa del Terror as "a 1959 film". Every internet source I see calls it a 1959 film. The source said specifically Chaney went to Mexico to make the film in 1959. You are twisting my intentions. I just wrote EXACTLY what the sources stated. I didn't say anything about a premiere date. You just keep posting notices on me like I'm vandalizing wikipedia, while I'm actually spending all my time trying to improve the pages. It looks like you just don't want me editing wikipedia.68.129.15.71 (