User talk:Iacowriter

Welcome!

Hi Iacowriter! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Stop editing the box office results on 2022 in film. Zvig47 (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but I was trying to be accurate. Here are the box office results right here:

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/world/?ref_=bo_nb_tt_tab Iacowriter (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbers is usually the site to go for when you’re looking for box office totals. They seem to get their totals in faster. If you edit with information from The Numbers from now on that would be great. I appreciate your want to edit for accurate numbers. Zvig47 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know Iacowriter (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of the same name

Please stop adding "of the same name" to articles about adaptations as you did here. It is emblematic of poor writing as explained at WP:OFTHESAMENAME. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry. I thought that’s how it worked Iacowriter (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing content

You removed Moon Man even though The Numbers cites its gross. BOM doesn't have data on the film but that doesn't mean you remove it. Also Dr. Strange still had an increase in gross this weekend so it's still playing. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, more people were using box office mojo, so I thought I had to use it as well Iacowriter (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people I've seen there use both sources. And they are listed there for a reason. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up that box office mojo is more accurate Iacowriter (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who says Box Office Mojo is more accurate? They even greatly change their grosses and don't publish accurate numbers often, but approximates and estimates which tend to be in 0s. Especially for international gross. See The Batman for example. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/cazog8/other_the_numbers_vs_boxoffice_mojo_on_avatar/ Iacowriter (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A forum isn't a way to check reliability of a film. But the post is just about one film (Avatar), that too according to comments because it was released again after its run ended. The Numbers doesn't count it. I don't know why you have omitted that part. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello, I'm Crossroads. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Male pregnancy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what should I write about? Iacowriter (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Morales

Hi. A belated WELCOME to Wikipedia. Thanks for adding the partial creator credit to the Miles Morales article with your recent edits. However, you also removed other content from the article without providing a rationale for this in an edit summary. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page.

Specifically, you deleted Miles' middle name, and mention that he is a fictional character from the lede section. Miles' middle name is established in sources cited elsewhere in the article, such as the Infobox, and describing fictional characters as such in their articles is a standard part of the explanatory opening of articles on them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting content from the article without providing a rationale for this in an edit summary, as you did with this edit to Miles Morales. As I stated above, it is a widespread practice on Wikipedia for articles on fictional characters to describe them as such in the opening sentence of the lede section, as seen in the examples Allen Walker, Baron Munchausen, Goodman Beaver, Kenneth Widmerpool, Mr. Dooley, all of which are featured articles. The Miles Morales article is itself a Good Article, and the opening sentence has described him as a fictional character for many years. If you disagree with this, then the proper approach is to discuss this with other editors on the article's talk page, and not engage in edit warring with other editors. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blanking content from the Miles Morales without providing a valid edit summary or discussing it with other editors, as you did a second time with this edit. If you continue to do this, you risk being blocked from editing. Please do not make that necessary. If you have a legitimate rationale for removing that information, then begin a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello, I'm P.greenlink. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Spider-Woman (Gwen Stacy) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. P.greenlink (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page The Last of Us (TV series), while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. CastJared (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm LancedSoul. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Lightyear (film) have been reverted because they did not appear constructive. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. LancedSoul (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at M3GAN, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wonka (film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please update the access dates when you make "updates" to the Box Office numbers. BBQboffin^{grill me} 21:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just adding to the box office from the numbers. Iacowriter (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers were correct based on the source accessed 1/24/2024. If you want to update the number on today's date using the same source, please also change the source access date from 1/24/2024 to today's date. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 21:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Five Nights at Freddy's (film)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Five Nights at Freddy's (film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hi Iacowriter! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Frankenstein's monster several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Frankenstein's monster, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. There's a thread discussing the question at Talk:Frankenstein's monster#Use of "erroneously" in lead.. Belbury (talk) 08:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein is the doctor. I’m trying to be accurate. Iacowriter (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's trying to be accurate. Belbury (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Can you update the box office counts for Inside Out 2? I kinda suck at editing lol Evyatar Olami (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. Thank you. Iacowriter (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gross

Please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and write a meaningful edit summary to explain your changes.

When updating the Box Office gross[1] please first update the article body, then also update the Infobox and Lead section to match. (The purpose of the infobox and lead section is to summarize the article body.) Leaving the article in an inconsistent state is not constructive, if you don't have time to update an article properly then leave it alone. -- 109.76.133.216 (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry I don’t know what you mean. I was trying to be accurate. Iacowriter (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand why you should write a meaningful edit summary and need further help an explanation with that you should read the Help:Edit_summary documentation after you have read the WP:SIMPLE rules about how to edit Wikipedia.

The WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize the key points of the article. The WP:LEAD is to supposed to "summarize not supplant" the key points of the article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, the article body is the most important part, the Infobox is an added extra. When editing Wikipedia film articles you are supposed to first edit the article body, in this case you should first update the "Box Office" section with the new gross figures, then after that also update the lead section and Infobox section so that the numbers in all three places are the same. Updating only the Infobox without also updating the other places with the box office gross leaves the article in an inconsistent state and is not helpful, it would be better if you did not edit the article at all. Again this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, being the most up-to-date is not as important thing, and making one part of the article more accurate without also updating the main article makes it less accurate overall.

The small changes in the box office gross figures are not even that important, what is more important is the overall comparison to the budget (and other costs) to see if the film is close to being profitable. (The article Box office explains that a distributor only gets to keep half the gross on average, so in general a film needs to gross double the budget before it becomes profitable.)

So again, if you are going to update the box office gross you should first update the gross in the article body, the lead section, and also the Infobox. -- 109.76.134.139 (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand how to round numbers in the normal way? MOS:LARGENUM

In the article Aliens in the Attic the Infobox Lead section and Box Office section all listed the gross as $58 million. (The precise gross was $57,881,056, which normally rounds up to $58 million. It could be rounded to $57.9 million if an editor wanted to be more precise, but it is unclear why there would be any good reason to be more precise, especially in an old article for a film from over a decade ago.)

You changed that article so that the Infobox said $57.8 million and the lead section said $57 million (and the article body still said $58 million).[2] Do you understand how there being 3 different figures claiming to be the box office gross in the same article is not an improvement? The accuracy you have been attempting to add makes the article less accurate and more confusing to normal readers.
Truncating $57,881,056 down to $57 million instead of rounding in the normal way is not accurate at all, the opposite of you stated intentions. Truncating numbers like this is inaccurate and misleading and just plain unnecessary. MOS:LARGENUM explains the rules of rounding numbers in the normal way. Even if a few editors have decide to set a bad example and ignore the very basic Mathematics to of rounding and to truncate numbers down instead the Wikipedia rule applies to film articles the same as any other article. (Looking at previously warnings I can see you have been editing for at least 2 years. I think it is time for you to stop following the bad examples and to start reading a bit more of the project documentation and learning more about best practice. Looking at "Featured Articles" and "Good articles" might also help.)

Please stop making Wikipedia articles less accurate and even more inconsistent. Do not truncate the gross follow MOS:LARGENUM and round numbers in the normal way. -- 109.76.134.139 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]