PepGuardi

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ricardo

Please read WP:ETHNICITY for why your edit was reverted. DuncanHill (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Temptation of Saint Anthony in visual arts into Hieronymus Bosch. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey Diannaa thank you for the information, I’ll do that for sure. I am quite new on Wikipedia, so still learning some details and occasionally some mistakes as well… many thanks and apologies for my mistake :) PepGuardi (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

(I still had this page watchlisted, pardon my interruption: In case Awater01 still wonders why they were blocked and you weren't, one of the main reasons is evidently your open, learning approach to conflicts, difficult situations and mistakes. I had a feeling for this difference at the edit-warring noticeboard and find myself confirmed by your commendable response to the notification above. Please keep up your good work and remain active on Wikipedia; it benefits from this.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wow!!! Thank You so much @ToBeFree!!! I am really happy to read this!!! 🥹it is so good to see that Wikipedia have people like you, it helps to make it such an especially place (sometimes a bit distressful though hahaha) many thanks :) PepGuardi (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

IMAX Laser venues in Thailand

Dear PepGuardi, on Aug. 8th, you made an incorrect edit on the List of IMAX venues wiki section regarding IMAX Laser venues in Thailand. I'm leaving this "talk" on your page to notify you of two things.

One, the official theater listing on IMAX.com of Thailand isn't up-to-date and on more than one occasion have "confused" editors and readers.

Two, the edits I've made represent the latest info from official local sources.

Should you have further inquiries/discussions about IMAX venues in Thailand and where to find accurate info about them, feel free to talk to me whenever you'd like to.

Sincerely yours, Johtaroh1 (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Napoleon

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Napoleon (2023 film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. The sources have been properly cited in the release section. Stop deleting. IAmNMFlores (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. IAmNMFlores (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

There’s an ongoing dispute on Napoleon Film Talk Page, not on my talk page. You have a record of being blocked for doing things like this. What happened with the block information on your talk page? You are being advised for a long time now, by me and by Wikipedia moderators, and you keep same kind of misbehavior. I will once again put things straight and if you want dispute anything go to the ONGOING discussion on the page talk page. Please, stop taking this kind of action and stop putting yourself edit warring, this doesn’t help Wikipedia. PepGuardi (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I was blocked because I didn't put my sources. I am actually putting sources, which you are ignorning. You can't even get the reasons for why I was blocked correctly. I'm telling YOU to go to the talk page to dispute, you haven't responsed in about 2 MONTHS, and you have the idea to think it's ongoing? You also don'teven edit the distributors on the infobox or release section, so you're making the article look inconsistent. IAmNMFlores (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that I didn’t answer you doesn’t mean I agree with you. To change a stable information it’s needed agreement. Apple TV+ is a streaming service, it is not a theatrical distributor. This is a simple fact. Infobox informs THEATRICAL distribution through Sony Pictures Releasing, and STREAMING distribution through Apple TV+. What you’re doing is insisting that Apple TV+ is making the Theatrical distribution along with Sony, this is simply wrong because Apple TV+ is simply a streaming service, and will delivery through streaming a different film version. Sony is distributing Napoleon with 2h40min (through theaters) and Apple TV+ will STREAM a version with 4 hours. PepGuardi (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's discuss more at Talk:Napoleon (2023 film)#Distributors. IAmNMFlores (talk) 03:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Sony's Spider-Man Universe, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please follow WP:BRD and find a WP:CONSENSUS. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Spinoza

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Go to the talk page if you want to resolve this matter. And please stop talking about "a stable version"; there is per definition no such thing on Wikipedia. Nico Gombert (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

World of Reel

Hello, I just wanted to reach out to clarify a few things regarding the use of this site as a source on Wikipedia. World of Reel is a blog site and as such, is a self-published source. The site's about page shows no sign of editorial coverage other than the creator Jordan Ruimy himself, and while it lists he has written for other sites, without an adequate track record, this site does not meet much of the qualifications to be seen as a definitively reliable source. New sources show up all the time and, as such, not every source will be listed in our RS list. If you think this one may qualify, you are free to bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a more thorough analysis of its potential reliability. As for its inclusion at Captain America: Brave New World,

I am skeptical of how they would know what the full budget would be (even as a range) when the reshoots and post-production process have net even been completed (and it still could change during that time). I've seen this before with the likes of Forbes reporting on earlier budgets for pre-production on films such as The Marvels and those being taken as a complete budget when it was not. I'm not going to say what Ruimy reported is somehow inaccurate or wrong (I even read his site frequently for my own self-published newsletter, which is also not a reliable source on here for similar reasons), and I do think the budget is entirely plausible (especially given the main Hollywod trades sugarcoat budgets with approximate figures around $200 million), though we ought to have a more introspective look into the source and its history of credibility before saying if it is definitively reliable or not. I hope this helps! Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Trailblazer101 thank you for your kind message. I get what you mean, although World of Reel is a pretty reputable source. The 350 million is insane, but so is Disney recently with their budgets… ‘Brave New Word’ was scheduled to release earlier this year so the movie itself was already in post production and then had to get back to production. All Disney’s Marvel movies in the past 2 years has cost at least 250 million. So the 350 million balloon comes from 100 million spent in reshoots, which was added over a movie which was already done and in post production. As you know, this came after the atomic disaster called The Marvels, which cost 270 million and barely made 200 million in theaters. They somewhat tried to restart the universe taking more care of MCU movies. Anyways, I understand you’re trying to tell me that we should wait for more sources, perhaps bigger outlets to confirm this 350+ million information, right? Specially because it’s for information box, so yeah I agree it’s reasonable to wait bigger outlets to confirm this before putting the information in the info box.

Would you mind if I added this info in the production section (body text) instead of putting it the info box? PepGuardi (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend discussing on the BNW talk page first before readding this information to see what other editors may think about it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to It Ends with Us while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Οἶδα (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest with Sony Pictures

Hello, PepGuardi. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Virtually all of the edits you have made since October 2023 have been in some way connected to Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group. This gives the impression of a single-purpose account. If you have a conflict of interest, you are expected to disclose it on your userpage and to follow the steps outlined at WP:COIEDIT. Please see WP:DISCLOSE for further details. If you do not have any connection to this company, please feel free to ignore this message. Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Οἶδα (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ll be honest with you, I feel disrespected and persecuted by you due to the ongoing discussion on It end With US talk page. It makes feel like we’ll have a dead discussion there since you’re doing these kind of accusations on my talk page I feel like you’ll never accept anything I say, it doesn’t matter how reasonable it is. Please don’t do it again against someone you’re discussing. Not saying this was your intention I’m just telling you how you make me feel. PepGuardi (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I apologize that you were offended. That was never my intention. I believe I have been respectful to you through this entire process. I opened the discussion on the talk page so that you and the other editor could resolve the dispute and avoid an edit war, which typically results in being blocked. I did not want either of you to face a block. I waited for both of you to flesh out your thoughts before I provided any oversight commentary.

Now, I noticed you made several edits while logged out. I provided the alert above because editing while logged out has a poor perception on Wikipedia and is usually considered inappropriate. I am not accusing you of anything there. If I had performed such edits I would expect to be notified myself. Now, my intention with this second alert is similarly to help you. When I first noticed the logged out edits, I quickly noticed that nearly all of your edits were of pages of films I had just seen in a list of 2023-2024 Sony films I had just looked at. As I already mentioned above, this gives the impression of a single-purpose account. It is very rare for a contributor to exclusively and consistently edit articles connected to specific company and not have a conflict-of-interest (COI). A standard COI user warning is pefectly normal and accepted as a friendly suggestion to editors who may have a COI to disclose it so that they are not blocked. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. Users with a COI can contribute all the same but must disclose it and should take special precautions. While it is rare, it is entirely possible that you do not have a conflict of interest. That is why I said to otherwise feel free to ignore this message. You have however responded to the message and attributed it to malice which was not my intention. However, I must recognise that you have not responded to the inquiry. Do you have a conflict of interest with Sony Pictures or not?

Also, I posted this issue to your talk page because that is where it is relevant and appropriate. It does not pertain to the discussion we are having Talk:It Ends with Us (film). It is relevant to your contributions overall. It is not going to result in a "dead discussion". I am not going to "never accept anything [you] say", [no matter] how reasonable it is." But I reject your suggestion that I "Please don’t do it again against someone you’re discussing." There is no guideline that says you should refrain making warnings and notices to users with whom you are engaged in discussion. In fact, ongoing engagement is precisely the point at which conflicts of interest are normally discovered and disclosed. Οἶδα (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. GSK (talk • edits) 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Film Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Madame Web (film). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)