Welcome to Wikipedia, ZarhanFastfire! Thank you for your contributions. I am MJ94 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type ((helpme)) at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MJ94 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish name Uisce Rua is seen in the series and was also seen in photos of the sets taken during filming. Just letting you know because you said "there's no way of knowing what it's 'original' or 'current' Irish name is". — anemoneprojectors 12:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Anemone. I saw no reference/note next to it and thought it might be OR, i.e. someone's own translation.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what the heck does "mooted" mean with respect to a TV series? I lived in the UK for 13 years and never heard the phrase. I thought it meant "moot" as in, nothing more to be said because the point is moot. I get the impression now that the sentence is rewritten it means "possible". ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the Irish name isn't referenced and was only seen in the programme and isn't all that relevant, I'm happy for it to be left out. "Mooted" means proposed, discussed, or debated. According to wiktionary, your definition (which I was also aware of) is used in the US and Canada. We could always use a different word. — anemoneprojectors 08:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching Lucifer episode one again, and after a little googling I realised that Lucifer calls it a "Fast Times rip-off" and compares Chloe to Phoebe Cates. Genre-mystery solved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming Lucifer refers to the film rather than the TV adaptation that followed it, but yeah, interesting, the writers don't just throw stuff at the screen and forget about it in this series... ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And we learned in the latest episode that Hot Tub Highschool had a sequel! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this rate I expect we'll be seeing a clip or a dream sequence. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We did get to see the DVD-cover... Does that hat look drawn on to you? [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mortarboard could well be making fun of the crude pasting techniques/skills typical of US comedy film posters. There's no good reason why she'd be wearing it at the hot tub party going on, but since it goes rather conveniently with the tagline (above the title), the idea might be that the tagline was thought of after principal photography and photo shoots had already taken place, so the mortarboard got stuck on afterwards. If you look at movie ads in North American newspapers regularly (I've only noticed this recently), one thing that's striking is that every year as Christmas nears, somehow various figures in the posters suddenly acquire Christmas-y headgear in the style of Santa Claus (Father Christmas) in his North American incarnation (post-Coca Cola ads). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"At this rate I expect we'll be seeing a clip or a dream sequence." Well speculated, indeed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't her film though. That was an actual porno being shot wasn't it? (Yes I did think of our conversation when they were on the set... ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, your geek-force is weak and you missed those 4 seconds. Lucifer watches HTHS on tv (and intends to self-love) at the start of the scene where Maze turns up, just before Amenadiel enters the room. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want that t-shirt: [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZarhanFastfire. Regarding the hatted content here: I think you may be a little unclear about how undoing edits works. On my browser, at least, there is no "revert button", just an "undo" link. You had made two edits. Maybe it would have been possible to undo them, one at a time—it's hard to say—but the one that required immediate undoing was the first of the two, and that was not possible to undo without undoing the other one as well. I did not revert "by hand"; I edited the version immediately prior to your edit. Except for rolling back vandalism, which obviously would have been inappropriate in this case, and copying and pasting, which would be quite laborious, this is the only way I know of to revert more than one edit at a time. No one has ever complained before, let alone told me I was being "sly". In any event, in many instances I would have left both your edits in place while discussion proceeded, but this is a Featured Article and you had introduced a serious factual error, so I felt obliged to correct it without delay. I hope you're cool with that. If it makes you feel any better, I would have done exact thing if I'd been reverting Jimbo Wales. I did notice that you're an established editor, so I assumed you knew how to watch articles you're interested in. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, User:Rivertorch. I accept everything you say as far as your intentions go, but you are, I'm sorry to say, quite wrong to suggest that anything I added was a "serious factual error". If you've read the discussion, you'll have seen from reading the comments on the talk page and various sources cited that: she is a Dutch diarist according to reliable sources, but also born in Germany according to equally reliable sources, as well as Jewish according to reliable sources. You were within your rights to revert and discuss, but for other reasons (featured article, discuss major changes to lead before editing--I get all that); you cannot seriously claim "a serious factual error" on my part. What I was trying to do was correct what was already a serious error of ommission which the lead commits by oversimplifying her identity as simply a "German-born diarist", which it remains the last I looked. As I said on the talk page, I have withdrawn from the discussion. If you all feel it's too difficult to weigh "conflicting" sources against each other to express her identity in a short sentence, then please remove "German-born" from "diarist", since this privileges one of them over all the others. There is nothing factually incorrect about saying a write of a diary in the Dutch language lving in the Netherlands is a "Dutch diarist", particularly when there plenty of reliable sources which say exactly that. ZarhanFastfire (talk)

I've since had a look, and since discussion was going that way anyway, added my two cents. By the way, I agree that my thoughts about reverting have been a bit loopy. That being said, editors' practices and purposes are highly divergent to say the least, and I probably should have researched your background before reacting the way I did. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I would suggest that writing a diary in Dutch does not make someone a Dutch diarist. (If I moved to France and wrote something in French, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be considered a French writer.) Maybe the confusion here stems from words like "Dutch" and "French" being used to denote both language and nationality? The diary certainly was written in Dutch, but that doesn't mean its writer was herself Dutch. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 22:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, RT, yes, if you moved to France today and started writing novels in French you absolutely would be considered a French writer according to the rules of classification for literature in both Dewey and LC systems, which are near-universal in the English-speaking world. They don't care where you were born, or about your papers, just what language you wrote them in and where you were at the time of the first publication. If you also wrote novels in English while you were there you'd also be considered an English, American or Commonwealth writer living in France. If you were born there and wrote in English you'd be a French person who writes English novels. And so on. Both at the same time. It's not either-or. To your second point, if you look at my original edit, I specifically hyperlinked Dutch language, not Dutch nationality. I was using the one which referred to the language of the diary, reflecing the fact it is a piece of Dutch literature. Aware of concerns about citizenship as they had thus far been raised on the talk page, I thought the best solution at the time was to ellide them. I did so explicitly, the note in my edit summary was to that effect, precisely to avoid saying she was absolutely and exclusively Dutch in some narrow legal sense, which I have never said. I suppose you did not read the edit note (carefully, or at all, else we'd not be having this conversation) and assumed I was linking to Netherlands. That's hardly my fault. So I reiterate, you reverted me for the wrong reasons, I made no gross error, but rather attempted to find a grammatically sound and subtle solution to a problem of expressing an individual's identity, which even now you do not seem to want to acknowledge as being potentially complex (or at least problematic, and shifting with the passage of time). To avoid all this I should have taken my suggestions to the talk page. And while I maintain that she can be "stateless" but also both Dutch (in different senses) and German according to the reliable sources presented on the talk page, and RS are what we are supposed to be concerned about, not whether editors think growing up in a country and writing in its language makes them "Dutch" in any sense other than a legal one, that's a much, much longer conversation, one far beyond the scope of our concerns writing a tertiary information resource. We're not about to resolve that debate to anyone's satisfaction. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZarhanFastfire. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I ask you simply because your main language is English and because you are relatively "new" to the page Intelligence (personally, I read it too many times, and my brain cannot correctly perceive the pace that the page's text would take for a newcomer, anymore): reading from the start-"Intelligence has been..."- could you please check if this edit constitutes an improvement or not, namely, whether the pace, elegance, and clearness of the new text are better with respect to the old one, or not? I made that edit with the help of another user, an American, but I would like to have more points of view on that.
Also, continuing to read past your preferred version of the lead section, do you think that the comma after the word intellēctus in the section "History of the term" is needed, or not?
Feel free to suggest changes of any kind...
Thank you! Drow (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You're right. I'm sorry, I just wanted to be sure that your edit was really the best possible option. Thanks for your help and Good Wikiwork! :) Drow (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose someone comes to the article hoping to find out what "apertus" and "exitus" mean. Since they won't find the answer here, what kind of impression will that give the reader about the value of Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Baseball Bugs Hello, thanks for reaching out. Information has to be presented in the right way in the right place. At the moment, you are dumping a random sentence out of context, at the end of an episode plot summary with no regard for how it fits into the rest of the paragraph. A reader comes to the end and suddenly there is a sentence out of nowhere "explaining" something after the end of the story! Do you understand now? That's the main issue (there are minor problems with the sentence itself too but they can wait). I'm not saying don't provide that info, but an episode plot summary has to be very short and concise and deal with that story and avoid minor details not relevant to the plot. Now it seems to me you have at least two options. 1. Try to introduce it in a much shorter way earlier in the plot summary, or else (2) try doing it in the premise section. I think it makes more sense to do it in the premise, personally, as it's relevant to the entire series. Now that the whole (first) season has run, there's no reason we can't expand that a bit. In doing so, you could perhaps look in the Wiktionary and see if the Latin words apertus and exitus exist there, and blue-link these uncommon words to the Wiktionary. You could also blue-link the word mandela. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly gave a reason in my edit summary for the removal [3]. It was a fairly simple case, so I did not see the need to open a talk page discussion. I have reverted you because I'm unclear whether you actually disagree with my reasoning, or you've simple missed it. If you did see my reason, but disagree with my reasoning, fine, revert if you feel the need and we can discuss it in the talk page. But please do not claim I gave no reason when I clearly did. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZarhanFastfire. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to remind you that both "critical consensus" and "critics consensus" are accepted. Yours sincerely, Sebastian James (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm Barkeep49 and I am working to re-establish the Children's literature WikiProejct as an active project. It seems like you might be interested in (re)joining. If so I would encourage you to add your name back to the active members list. If you ha=ve any questions feel free to leave me a talk page message or ping me here. Otherwise I hope to see you around the project. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ZarhanFastfire, I am sorry, that was my mistake, and you are indeed correct about the Rotten Tomatoes. Good work on The Mountie article by the way. Merry Christmas and cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have been off work for medical reasons for several weeks and it's been a real opportunity for learning to do more on Wiki. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your're welcome! I wish you well. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Boredom (film).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Very nice series of articles on Canadian film - excellent job!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Britishfinance)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Britishfinance (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. It sounds like what you want to know is how to use an image if it isn't under a free copyright license, such as public domain or Creative Commons or GFDL — in which case the answer is that the image would have to contain a credible fair use rationale as to why its use in a particular article was needed. That's why we can get away with uploading non-free film posters or album covers, for example: fair use is justified because visual identification of the subject is important, but any "free" alternative to the real poster or album cover would inherently misrepresent it by virtue of not being accurate. But we can't do the same thing for portraits of people or places, because there's rarely a credible reason why it would be critically important to use non-free Photo X over free alternative Photo Y. If that doesn't answer your question, then can you provide a bit more detail on what specific parts of the rules you're having trouble with? Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by the way, when you start a new article about a film, can you also take a moment to double-check whether it's already listed in the appropriate "List of Canadian films of [Year]" list, and add it if it isn't? The lists are still really deeply incomplete, with many Canadian films that do have articles not actually appearing in the lists at all yet — but getting the lists updated is a massive job I've been able to tackle only a small piece at a time, so it would help if you take a moment to ensure that any new film you create an article for gets added to the appropriate list if it isn't already there. (Also, for Roche papier ciseaux there were actually already preexisting redlinks waiting for it at the form of the title without the commas, so if I hadn't seen it on your userpage when I came to answer your question, those links never would have gotten connected to your article at all — but if you'd taken the step of going to add it to List of Canadian films of 2013, you'd have seen that it was already listed there and thus been able to fix the disconnect somehow.) Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, those conditions only apply to off-wiki use. If it's on Commons, it's fair game for use in EN no matter what. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating The Argument (with annotations).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The article is well written overall, but the second sentence of the lead is incredibly difficult to parse.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Rosguill)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One Night (2009 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Night (2009 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Viztor (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating The Last Prosecco.

User:Doomsdayer520 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for your informative new article on "The Last Prosecco".

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Doomsdayer520)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZarhanFastfire,

Thanks for creating Decapoda Shock! I edit here too, under the username FULBERT and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

Well-sourced article, but there seems to be some aspects that are too closely linked to previous online works. Please revise to avoid the close paraphrasing.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|FULBERT)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

FULBERT (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, so I suggest you review Wikipedia:Notability_(films). It seems you are pretty focused in the film industry. So as an act of good gesture I think this would be vital if you want to write article that lasts. Viztor (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor Bit premature, this: your intentions may well be good, but your lack of experience with English sources shows. You've had at least three articles deleted since you became an English-language wiki editor, so why should anyone take advice from you on this subject? I've created 44 articles in the last six or seven months (most of them C-class), which I only started to do after six or seven years of editing experience, and I am working on three more when I find time. So far, not one of my articles has been deleted, or even been nominated other than the one in question, thank you. Onel took your side, I believe, to teach me a lesson about canvassing, certainly not because they checked the sources, as Bearcat has done. I'm sorry, but I am telling you like it is: you should follow your own advice and re-read that Notability article. I looked at one of your articles that was moved from mainspace: paragraph after paragraph of unsourced information... I told you before that notability is about coverage by reliable (secondary) sources, not your pet peeves and blindspots. I could go on: there was the complaint about copyright, which you had to be told about twice before you got it. Why? because you have a tendency to assume that most other people are wrong and that their "arguments" are invalid (actually, they are quoting policies more often than not, or seeing what you refuse to see). Good luck with your future work here. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given how much depth and substance you seem to be able to add to a lot of the film articles you start, I gather that you have access to much better sources than I do — I try to the best of my ability, but with the fairly limited database access I've got I often struggle to find more than two or three viable footnotes to support much more than a short stub for a lot of films, and I'm having an even harder time finding even that much when it comes to short films in lists such as Canadian Screen Award for Best Live Action Short Drama or Canadian Screen Award for Best Animated Short or Genie Award for Best Theatrical Short Film or Canada's Top Ten (where every film on the feature side already has an article now that I got the last remaining redlink blued in yesterday, but less than 50 per cent of the shorts do). Now obviously, these are important enough distinctions that their winners and nominees should be notable enough for articles — but sometimes my limited range of databases even fails to produce an actual citation for the Genie/CSA nomination, since the newspapers don't always run the complete list of all nominees in all categories anymore. (Conversely, for the Canada's Top Ten I've been able to find sources for every year's list itself, but often still fail to find a single viable source for what any given short film is actually about — yet, of course, I don't want to start the article until I can say more than just "It's a film that exists and got named to Canada's Top Ten, the end".) So since you seem to have access to a wider range of resources, I just wanted to ask if you'd be willing to throw some of the short films from those lists into your potential article topics list. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really only using Google: but I may be somewhat better than most at doing Google searches (and re-doing them with different terms etc. over time) because of an extensive background in research and library cataloguing. When I was doing it a lot I had a lot of spare time to, due to being away from work for medical reasons - that probably tipped the scales a lot. I was practically researching and writing as a form of therapy. I've slowed down a lot in recent weeks/months as I've had other things going on. I kind of halted altogether seeing the AfD, wanting to see what the outcome would be, wondering if it might start a chain reaction of deletions of my articles. I'm a little-less Canuck-centric now too, but sure, maybe when we re-enter the cold months I'll feel a lot more like it. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I either didn't see a ping at all or missed it in the process of dealing with other stuff and forgot to go back to it. At any rate, the article looks okay to me in terms of the tags that had been added to the article; there are no longer significant copyright issues, and you've clearly neutralized the language and improved the sourcing, so I've removed those tags. Unfortunately I'm not highly knowledgeable about architecture topics, so probably some input from the architecture project would still be of value just in case they have any project-specific conventions that I don't know about. The people in Category:WikiProject Architecture participants whose names I'm most familiar with are probably Ipigott and Sionk, and they're both active members (both have edited Wikipedia within the past 24 hours), so maybe approach one or both of them to ask if they have anything to offer. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bearcat, I've asked Sionk.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been involved in class-rating articles at all, so I'm not familiar what the standards are for whether or when an article has or hasn't jumped a class. If you think they're ready, you can always submit them for review through the class-rating process, but I unfortunately don't have much advice on that. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can check a page's view statistics by entering the page title at this link. You can use the options column on the left if you want to adjust the range of dates that it shows you in the graph. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit and proofreading the article Akane Yamaguchi. Thanks you very much. 123.31.43.63 (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should try someone who edits sport articles? Or Japanese topics?ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, when it comes to redirects there doesn't have to be any discussion — something like that would be subject to the WP:BRD cycle, where anybody who feels it's warranted can just do it and then take it to a discussion afterward if they get challenged on it, rather than requiring a discussion before they can do it.

When it comes to fictional characters, however, notability questions can be tricky. There's a difference, for example, between sources which just mention the character in the process of being fundamentally about the work(s) the character was in, and sources that are actually about the character in the sense that would make a difference. For instance, lots of characters in TV shows and movies and books can technically be referenced to sources that verify that the character exists — film reviews, book reviews, television episode recaps, and on and so forth, can virtually always be provided as sourcing for at least the protagonist(s) of more or less every fiction work that exists at all. But that wouldn't necessarily amount to a compelling reason why we would need a standalone article about every protagonist in every creative work — in most cases, rather, the article about the work itself (and/or a spinoff character list) is all we really need, and a character biography should only be created if we can source some contextual analysis about the character themselves.

I haven't really looked at the article in depth yet to see whether I agree with Onel's assessment or not — but as a general rule, that's usually where differing opinions on the standalone notability of a fictional character stem from: are the sources fundamentally about the work and just mention the character as a part of that, or are they directly analyzing the cultural significance of the character as a character? Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not impossible to access a redirect. Have you never learned how to do that? There are two ways, and they're both pretty easy.

(1) Search for it the same way you'd search for an article, either by typing "Zhong Fong" in the search bar or by clicking on it in an article that's already linking to it. That will redirect you to the target page at first, but because you used the redirect to get there you'll see a small "(Redirected from Zhong Fong)" just under the page header. If you click on it again there, then instead of redirecting you back to the same page you were already on, the link will actually take you directly to the redirect itself, which you can then edit or view just like a normal page.

(2) If for some reason you lose that "redirected from Zhong Fong" link (e.g. by reloading the target page after you're already on it), then you can also find it in the target article's "What links here" list — and if you click on it in there, you'll also get taken directly to the redirect itself instead of being recursively redirected back to where you already were. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZarhanFastfire, I noticed you left a message on my talk page regarding my edit to the film The Man in the Shadows. There are two reasons for the rewrite section tag, the first is the section is over quoting the reviews. What I mean is there are to many reviews in this section that are in quote format and those that are tend to state the same thing. I suggest that all the reviews with common criticisms be mentioned in the first paragraph of this section. I will do some rewrites later on to give it a bit more clarity and better flow. The article itself is going along reasonably well. Just add a bit more to the filming section and add the poster for the film. Like the article so far. Keep up the good work.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paleface Jack, I don't know that there is anything to add in filming -- I am usually pretty thorough these days before I create an article. However I could use a bit of a tutorial on how to add images to Commons or whatever it is we do for movie posters. That would be very handy as most of the articles I write are film articles.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as John Cullen Nugent, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/icons-in-exile-how-reginas-riel-statue-and-other-monuments-disappeared-from-view, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:John Cullen Nugent and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, John Cullen Nugent, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:John Cullen Nugent. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:John Cullen Nugent with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:John Cullen Nugent saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZarhanFastfire,

Thank you for creating Smith Carter.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Eliminate many of the quotes here and instead explain the meaning they are trying to communicate. Quotes alone rarely provide meaning, as they require context to explain their importance.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|FULBERT)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

FULBERT (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow WP: BRD

Take your comments to Talk.

Do not revert again.

Do not give me orders and sign your posts.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you omitted the RFC tag on the Talk pageTomintoul (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)?[reply]

Actually, it's the firt time I've ever made an RFC, so, probably yes! ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Smith Carter and 360 Main (Winnipeg) have been removed in whole or in part, as it appears you 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Smith Carter, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from multiple online sources, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Smith Carter and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Smith Carter, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Smith Carter. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Smith Carter with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Smith Carter saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa (talk) Hi Diannaa, I'll try to address the problems when I have a moment. Busy making plans to keep myself and loved ones from being infected at the moment. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your third copyright violation you've added that we've found so far. As such, consider the above to be your final warning. MER-C 19:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C, I didn't realize there was a time limit nor that the entire page would be deleted. I have been rather distracted the last week or two, I'm sure you understand. is it still possible for me to fix the problems? A little 'mercy'? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the problem requires a from scratch rewrite. That's why I deleted the article. MER-C 08:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's an obvious right answer to this one. It's not entirely clear that a 26-minute conspiracy video distributed primarily on social media needs to be treated as a documentary film — it certainly could be, but I don't have any strongly-held belief that it would be absolutely mandatory. It's kind of an unusual edge case: this one was obviously a special case because its subject matter got it news coverage in light of the historical moment that we're in, but in normal times a video like that probably wouldn't have been notable at all, because the media would just have ignored it entirely so it would have flunked NFILM and GNG — so WikiProject Film doesn't have any hard and fast rules about whether short conspiracy videos have to be infoboxed like traditional films or not, because the question just doesn't come up very often.

So unfortunately, about all I can suggest is that if you feel strongly about it, you could initiate a request for comments on the talk page to ask for outside opinions on whether it should have ((infobox film)) on it or not — but I don't personally have strong enough opinions about it to walk in waving an administrative bat, so I'm not going to impose anything arbitrarily if there isn't consensus for it. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Collaborators (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Queen's University, George Robertson and Peter Carter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ZarhanFastfire,

Thank you for creating Stupid Coalescing Becomers.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The Hoolboom source is great as it discusses the film at length - the other sources only briefly mention the film. I'd like to see at least one more source added where the film is specifically discussed with more than a single sentence. Thanks for writing the article!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Paradoxsociety)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Paradoxsociety 08:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

((Re|Paradoxsociety)) Hi, thanks for the note. I've plumbed the depths of one of the sources and re-done the URL so it points to sections were the film is discussed and added considerably to the article. Hoolboom actually says stuff in both refs that are not the same even though there is overlap, and the book has a lot more by Cockburn himself, which I'd overlooked for this article. It might be C now. Could you have a look and see if you agree please? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ZarhanFastfire - I just took a quick look again and I think the same issue still exists. Take a look at WP:SIGCOV - the guideline I use for assessing articles at WP:NPP generally asks for 2 independent sources with significant coverage. Hoolboom is a great source but personally I wouldn't count those as two separate sources since it's the same author. And anything by Cockburn wouldn't meet the "independent of the subject" guideline. This is somewhat of a borderline case of notability because it definitely appears that Cockburn is notable but this particular work needs a little more evidence. If you can find something significant that's not by Hoolboom or Cockburn I think that would satisfy my original concern. Paradoxsociety 07:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

((Re|Paradoxsociety)) I've added Cameron Bailey's comment from Now. Along with Norman Wilner, a long established critic, that's two statements in major Canadian publications apart from the two works of published criticism by Mike Hoolboom --the book is interviews is also analysis, the article in POV is separate but sometimes overlapping analyses, I'm not sure it's fair to consider them "one" source just because Hoolboom is the author of both. I'm not sure when or why "notability" is in question (am I misreading that?): besides Cockburn being an internationally recognized artist since 2002, it's quite impressive that a 2 1/2 minute video gets any mention in significant publications at all, never mind more than one paragraph. But fair enough. I've found other cites showing where and how the short has been shown in unusually diverse settings to establish a bit more on that end, and it's interesting anyway. It's strange that I haven't been able to find the actual Canadian premiere (Bailey must have seen it in advance of formal release, as he's writing in December 2003, but TIFF 2004 is a lot later, so hard to tell what's going on). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! re: The Argument (with annotations), I removed the sentence The Argument (with annotations) is intended as a "riff" on the genres of the essay-film and the more recent video essay form, according to the abstract from Daniel Cockburn's thesis.[5], as it's pretty much a copy of The Argument is intended as a riff on the genres of the essay-film and the more recent video essay form, as shown in Earwig. I'm not sure what your method is here, but perhaps try to be a little more careful when pasting text into articles, as this is obviously copy-pasted. You have the source but you cannot copy someone else's writing without quotes, and in this case it is not appropriate as it is the first sentence. Thanks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for WEAKEND, where I removed your your text that reads until the acting agent within the frame makes a Promethean gesture towards self-actualization. The source for that reads until the acting agent within the frame makes a Promethean gesture towards self-actualization. And it is from a press release, no less. Here is the Earwig comparison. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And also in You Are In a Maze of Twisty Little Passages, All Different, where I removed gradually reveals a solitary singer struggling to be heard over distortion and echos., which is a direct copy from the source gradually reveals a solitary singer, struggling to be heard over distortion. Earwig also shows that secret pieces of the universe that obstinately refuse to follow time's forward flow is uncited copyvio, so also removed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the lede of God's Nightmares, you have the unquoted text film clips, creating a visual collage that imagines the thoughts that plague God at night, which is a direct copy of the original Canadian Art source film clips, creating a visual collage that imagines the thoughts that plague God at night. Yeah, it's 15 or twenty words, but they are not yours. Earwig report for that one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ThatMontrealIP, for taking the time. I can see that I have somtimes been over-hasty with my edits. I'm fairly sure most of those are from quite a while back, when I was doing a lot of editing at night (I went off work mostly 18 months ago and found doing this was therapeutic. As you can see above I got called out on it before and in one instance an article was removed altogether--I'll re do it eventually properly.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that your style of composing the articles might not be right. Earwig showed very high "likelihood of copyvio" numbers for all the articles I checked, because so many quotes are used. The danger in pasting material from the web into articles is that you may end up accidentally adding copyvio material.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to fix copyvio? Here is a more recent one that you can fix. The article Heating and Cooling Plant (University of Regina) also has large swaths of copied text, see Earwig.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed Heating and Cooling Plant (University of Regina), and the copyvio material has been revison-deleted by an admin. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this one, John_Nugent_Studio, contains significant copyvio according to Earwig. For example, in the phrase partially sunken into the earth with dry-laid fieldstones covering the lower portion of the interior, the base featuring a concrete ring beam that appears to "float" on a complex and delicate structure of reinforcing bars where it meets the ground, allowing a continuous ring of glass to encircle the foundry space., all but "base featuring" are someone else's.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John_Nugent_Studio is now listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. MER-C 18:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is now clear that you will need to provide assurance that you understand the copyright policy before being allowed to edit further. Therefore:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).  MER-C 18:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order to provide the assurance, please follow the unblock process. You will be unblocked if/when you provide a satisfactory explanation to the reviewing admin regarding (1) what is copyright? (2) when can external content be copied into Wikipedia, (3) when it can't, why this harms Wikipedia and (4) how you will edit differently.

This will be referred to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ZarhanFastfire (which will be populated once I'm off mobile data). MER-C 18:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again MER-C. Sorry to "meet" again under these circumstances, and sorry for being the source of problems for you again. I had to take some time before looking at all this and it will be more time still before I can go through the reading. I have a hard time dealing with mistakes, emotionally, for the same reasons that led me here in the first place, some 18 months ago. After your last warning, I had taken some time off from actually creating articles until recently and then got into it in earnest, much too fast. I think that's the been the source of my problems--at least the most recent stuff. I apologize. In the real world I have a lot of things to deal with at the moment. When I am able, I will review the material and do the work necessary. I like to think that despite my mistakes I have been making good contributions to WP and obviously enjoy doing it and hope to resume doing so in the future. Point of clarification, am I blocked from creating only, editing articles or all forms of other editing? For example, am I able to seek advice on editors' talk pages? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Night and the Doctor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night and the Doctor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hektor (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]