User talk:MatthewHoobin

Lead too long?

MatthewHoobin, if your only concern about List of giant-monster films is that the lead is too long, there is a specific template for that: Template:Lead too long. But I'm not sure why you think it is too long. It has the standard four paragraphs; and although the list is rather short, that is the result of a fight over sources in which editors kept removing and restoring the entire list. As a compromise, I started with a greatly reduced list and made sure the sources were strong. However, if you look at one of the old versions, you'll see that the list is potentially much longer. In the meantime, I think it would be more productive to add to the list than to shorten the lead. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I was writing a lengthy reply to this in my defense, but upon further review I agree that I made an incorrect choice. I felt that that the lead section shouldn't detail the history of the list's content, but then I took a look at articles like List of James Bond films and List of Doctor Who serials (because these are two examples that appear when typing "List of" in the search box) and I realised that you're right. I'm sorry. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 18:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite alright! Can you remove it, then? RockMagnetist(talk) 23:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done! -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 00:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Rocky genre

I have reverted the article to the WP:STATUSQUO and started a discussion at a Talk:Rocky#Genre. You are encourage to follow WP:BRD and participate in the discussion and to obtain a consensus for your alterations before restoring them again. If you continue edit-warring I may have to seek disciplinary action against you,but I would rather settle this amicably. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Naturally. Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

James Nguyen has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, MatthewHoobin. James Nguyen, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:The Revenant (2015 film)/GA2

I noticed you pinged me in your comments about how this isn't GA-worthy right now, but couldn't exactly tell if you were keeping the review on hold or just simply failing it. See WP:Good article nominations/Instructions#Reviewing if you aren't sure what to do. In either case, it helps article participants to leave a notice as to whether you plan on placing an article on hold following a review or plan to fail it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that an article could be placed on hold. In that case, I'll make changes accordingly and add an "on hold" tag when I can. –Matthew - (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Drop in comment from Talk page reader. I'm not sure that putting the article on a long term hold was what Snuggums was trying to point out here. If the article is ready for update assessment in a week or two then the assessment can go forward. However, in this case, the postponement appears to be for months and months (and indefinite) for The Revenant since it is the reigning Oscar winner. It could be in theaters until the end of the year in December when the new 2017 Oscar contenders take over at the theaters. If the current postponement is indefinite and long term then the nom should be removed at this time as suggested by Snuggums, and possibly renominated early next year as needed. Snuggums might clarify if this was what was meant or otherwise. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not see how there could be any justification for delaying the review any further, much less into next year. The comments by Snuggums were made on an earlier GA review back in April when the movie hadn't been in full world-wide release. This no longer applies—in the unlikely event that it does, Snuggums is welcome to make a case for why on the review page. MatthewHoobin, it's time to resume the review. If you're no longer interested—and I hope you are—please let me know and I'll put it back in the nominations pool for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi MatthewHoobin. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Hi Matthew,

I see that after I reverted your cut-and-paste move at MovieStop, you did it again, and added an infobox.

After the article gets properly moved, you'll need the following text back:

{{Infobox company
| name     = GameStop
| logo     = MovieStop logo.png
| type     = [[Public company|Public]]
| foundation       = 2004
| locations        = 44 <small>(2014)</small><ref name=draw />
| industry         = [[Retail]]
| parent           = [[GameStop]]
}}

Cheers, --Slashme (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for James Nguyen

On 27 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Nguyen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that James Nguyen directed Birdemic: Shock and Terror, considered one of the worst films of all time, and financed its $10,000 budget with his own money? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Nguyen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, James Nguyen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 01:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename media requests

{{Rename media}} templates to request a file be renamed go on the file page itself (per Template:Rename media usage section), as opposed to the talk page of the file, where you have been placing them. Best Regards,—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll make changes accordingly. –Matthew - (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for using my Ninja Sex Party column for the article on the NSP song "Unicorn Wizard." PokeHomsar (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

An administrator removed the citations because they were unneeded

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_natural_horror_films&diff=prev&oldid=722075371 --67.81.107.101 (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone's able to find a policy that excludes lists from having citations, then that list should have citations. Other lists on Wikipedia have citations, and thus, consistency should win over someone simply saying "not needed". –Matthew - (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The administrators agreed to remove it, though. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=722077551#Is_IMDB_a_reliable_source.3F --67.81.107.101 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

That's just because the citations were from IMDb, which is generally never considered a reliable source (there's even an essay about it). The page still needs references, just not from IMDb, because IMDB isn't a reliable source. I'm going to transfer this conversation to the article's talk page. –Matthew - (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Philip Reed Redirect

Hello, I saw that you created a Michael Phillip Reed page which redirects to the Steam Powered Giraffe page, but he actually spells his middle name with only one "L" so I created a Michael Philip Reed page which also redirects to the SPG page. I didn't want to delete your page without asking, but I do believe that it should be removed because it gives an incorrect spelling of his name. Let me know what you think. Thanks for your cooperation, Warkgnall (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, nice eye. I've tagged the redirect I created for speedy deletion. –Matthew - (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ian Carter

Do you intend to create a disambiguation page and fix all the broken links? GiantSnowman 16:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

While I did move the page for the pre-existing Ian Carter article to Ian Carter (footballer), it seems you've already made a disambiguation page just as well as I could have. But yes, I will fix links as best I can. –Matthew - (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Matthew Santoro

Why did you revert my change on Matthew Santoro without explanation?

Wikipeida policy on biographies of living persons is quite clear about this.

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that .. is unsourced or poorly sourced".

The section I removed is sourced to Reddit (an online forum), YouTube (user generated content by an anonymous person) and some guy's personal website. These are not reliable sources suitable for the source of these allegations.

Do not restore this content without much better sourcing. Thanks.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Despite my personal convictions, you make an understandable point. –Matthew - (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The description is perfect

That addition was unnecesarry. We already know that the killer animals are the main antagonists or at least play a major role. You were also taking it too literally in saying movies like Jaws don't count. "Normally harmless animals turned into killers" was just an example. --67.81.107.101 (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Jaws is certainly a natural horror film, but the description in the lead does not coincide with Jaws, and that's one of a few problems. Please see the incident's listing on the administrator's noticeboard. –Matthew - (talk) 01:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of George Miller (entertainer) [result: page placed on AfD]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello. A tag has been placed on George Miller (entertainer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of George Miller (entertainer) for deletion [result: page deleted]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article George Miller (entertainer) 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/George Miller (entertainer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ian Carter (entertainer) for deletion [result: page deleted]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ian Carter (entertainer) 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/Ian Carter (entertainer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. bonadea contributions talk 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

File mover granted

Hello MatthewHoobin. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Widr (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Magic Cat Academy [result: page kept]

Hello MatthewHoobin,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Magic Cat Academy for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ^en:User:Rtrust _(talk) 03:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Despite the defeat faced at the hands of the now-deleted articles "Ian Carter (entertainer)" and "George Miller (entertainer)", salvaging "Magic Cat Academy" from the abyss of terminated pages is a victory on my part. The contested deletion prevails! Cheers. –Matthew - (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

AFDs - Regular Show

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unicorns Have Got to Go, if you look at List of Regular Show episodes, there are approximately 10 episodes that have individual articles. I think few or none are notable either, but I haven't taken the time to confirm my suspicion and do AFD nominations. Not sure if you want to deal with this. MB 05:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, MatthewHoobin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Italicizing IGN on the Sun & Moon article

It's a long read, but consensus is now to italicize gaming publications such as IGN and Polygon. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Sorry about the misunderstanding. –Matthew - (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Mimikyu

Matthew, I obviously saw the sources as I merged them appropriately into the list article. I'd rather not drag this through an AfD. WP has a very long history of creating unwarranted articles for individual Pokémon, inevitably merged back to their parent lists. All Pokémon have some sort of routine coverage—the Internet thinks they're cute/fat/scary/whatever—and those passing mentions do not count towards the general notability guideline. Please revert your edit as an AfD would be a waste of time in this case. czar 22:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I did take the numerous unwarranted articles into consideration when creating articles for Rowlet, Litten, Popplio, and yes, indeed Mimikyu. Hence, I only created those, as those appear to have the highest amount of coverage on the Internet. Going by the notability guideline, the article for Mimikyu has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Granted, this of course only makes it presumed worthy of its own page. However, I find that Mimikyu is one of the four Pokémon (along with Rowlet, Litten, and Popplio) noteworthy enough to have its own article, judging by online coverage. I understand your perspective, but I nonetheless disagree that Mimikyu's article should become a redirect. –Matthew - (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a waste of time, but as you please. Noting your prior article deletions noted on this talk page, I would think that it would be worth revisiting your understanding of "significant coverage" before creating any more articles. In particular, as I already said, mind that listicles riffing on how individual Pokemon are scary/stupid/etc. is not even coverage at all—the question is whether there is depth sufficient to warrant a summary style split from the existing main article, which is the list. All four articles, based on their current sourcing, are bound to become redirects.  czar 22:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mimikyu for deletion [result: page kept]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mimikyu 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/Mimikyu until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. czar 22:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chris Stuckmann (January 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chris Stuckmann and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dušan Cekiḱ

Before you bait me into calling you a name of some sort, please could you seek a consensus on the above' talk page per the ArbCom decision to do so. In addition to that, you may find it beneficial to get to grips with WP:BRD. When you've digested and understood that you'll see that the adding editor was bold by adding it, I reverted, and they now need to discuss. It really isn't that difficult. Cassianto^Talk 11:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the page history, it seems you were the bold user by removing the infobox. –Matthew - (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the Chicken or the egg scenario, so please try to grow up. The boldness came with the first edit as it included an infobox; the revert was just that, the revert, and you and the other "editor" are the ones who have been disruptive and who have chosen to edit war and POV push. FYI, an article doesn't necessarily start life with an infobox, therefore the boldness comes with the addition of one, whether it be a new article or not. Listen, the article's shit and I'm certainly not going to waste my time defending it, so I'm not, but please, in future, try to engage your brain before hitting save; you have had a tendency of late to make yourself look really rather silly. Cassianto^Talk 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)