Evope

Hi. I saw that you added a budget to a film in this edit. The problem is that content in Wikipedia needs to be cited to reliable sources, and you didn't include your source. I checked Box Office Mojo, and they don't have a budget listed. If you're going by the IMDb, you should be aware that we can't cite user-generated content. We need sources written by professional journalists, film scholars, and critics. You can see an incomplete list of vetted sources at WP:FILM/R. Frequently, you can find budgets listed at BOM, The Numbers, Variety, TheWrap, and Deadline.com. If you have trouble citing sources or don't quite understand some aspect of Wikipedia's bureaucratic guidelines, feel free to request help at the tea house or WikiProject Film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly-sourced content to A Troll in Central Park. Open wikis like TV Tropes and fan-edited databases like the IMDb are not reliable sources. If you don't understand how to identify reliable sources, please ask for help in the forums I linked above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why would you change the budget for this film in the article and provide a source in your edit summary, but not in the text itself? How is this helpful? Additionally, we currently have two sources backing the existing figure. That you've located a third source with a figure at odds with the existing one should lead you to open a Talk page discussion, not simply assume your source trumps the existing ones, which you didn't even remove with your edit, consequently creating larger problems. I hope you will raise this matter at the article's Talk page, as the existence of two budget figures at variance with each other seems worth discussion. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC) I thought someone might look at "view history". Read this page: http://www.cartoonbrew.com/untold-tales/mouse-in-transition-cauldron-of-confusion-chapter-10-102743.html [User:Evope|Evope]] (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the link you provided. But you're still talking about replacing a figure provided by two sources with a figure provided by only one source, and not even updating the in-article citations in the process, so I hope my confusion is understandable. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

When you update a box office figure, you must update the dates associated with that figure. This includes the "as of" date and the source date. If the section said:

As of April 14, 2017, the film has grossed $3.2 million.<ref>box office mojo, "[[boxofficemojo.com/fakeurl The Movie]]". Accessed April 14, 2017</ref>

If you change only the dollar amount to what the source says today, as you have been doing, the sentance would now be incorrect, claiming that today's box office gross was reached back in April.

If you are having trouble, please ask for help here or on the articles' talk pages. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm KAP03. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Blade Runner 2049, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

After I left you this message at one particular talkpage;

Hi, @Evope: I saw that you just updated this page with new figures but you put your reference in edit summary not in the article. Note: the first figure $671 that you changed to $677 is still referenced to time.com, so anybody who clicked to verify will see the old figure 671 since you didn't provide new reference. For more on this read WP:INTEGRITY and then come and change the sources accordingly.

I noticed that you (mis)updated several pages in similar way, instead to follow you on all the talkpages I am now drawing your attention here. So please before you update any page again, review what I wrote as well as WP:CITE and WP:INTEGRITY and make sure you adhere to them. Because you know Verifiability is core policy of Wikipedia.  — Ammarpad (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

This film shall be on this list because of it's controversy which is why is never got a home video release in the USA. --Evope (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

What possible reason is there for you to remove the {{as of}} templates from articles that tag dated information. Good that you are updating the information but the systematic removal of that particular template without a good reason is disruptive. See also WP:As of for more on when and why this is required in articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

At this point you are definitely being disruptive as you are continuing to remove the template without any possible reason to do so. This now appears deliberate. Please stop doing this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at A Simple Favor (film), you may be blocked from editing. Removing required templated for no reason as explained before. This is shown to be deliberately disruptive Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

You stated on my talk page with heading "A Simple Favor reverting back"

Please do not threaten to block me. I was giving a good reason. I am keeping the as of. Besides, I was using box office mojo which has correct information. If it says it grossed the amount on a certain day, it should say as of that day. The access date shall be on the day it got received on box office mojo. Evan Opedal

The message above is a standard templated level 3 warning based on my 2 previous messages which you seemed to be ignoring. Normally I try not to template regular editors per WP:DTR. A blocking threat doesn't become serious until after a level 4 message with the stop sign icon is issued - I hoped to resolve this before it got to that point. Mostly I just wanted to talk about this. I have no problems with the data you are updating and appreciate that you are doing so, only issue is removing the template.

Looking over your edits and recent edit comments it looks like your phone is deleting the "as of" templates and you are not doing it deliberately. In some recent edits I note you did just update the day in the template. In another the template still got deleted and I restored it. All I can suggest is to be more careful about this and be aware something is going on with whatever method you are using to edit on your phone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

re this. You are still removing the template. It is trivial to just edit in the new day as you did with this edit. This is annoying to have to follow behind you fixing this. Please watch what you are doing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Good work on the updating of movie financial statistics. I see you're updating the accessdate and everything too from what I saw, so be sure to keep doing that. But all these articles need to use the {{as of}} template and they need to not have "lc=" in them. You keep re-adding that even to the same article I've already reverted and warned you on. You need to stop what you're doing right now and go back and delete that from the beginnings of sentences, and you need to preview your work. And add the "as of" template if there isn't one. You can't just be an obsessive wikignome. I see that you are a habitual and unrepentant offender who doesn't even reply to warnings, so I'll just let you know again that this all constitutes disruptive or WP:TENDENTIOUS editing for which users can be blocked. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 06:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Smuckola just came here to say the same thing on the Talk page about lowercase edits and three weeks later the problem is still persisting (as recently as seven hours ago). Thought I’d make note of it to you. Thanks! TropicAces (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)TropicAcesReply

Hey man, when you edit the film articles, don’t change the “As of” template to lowercase. Sentences obviously start with uppercase letters so to make it lowercase is awkward-looking and grammatically incorrect. Also don’t bury the gross/budgets in the middle of the infoboxes by moving the “based on” and Producers credits to the bottom. And thirdly, not sure if it’s an accident or not but on half your edits you’ll wipe half the BOM link away, fragmenting it, so keep an eye on that. Alright, thanks! Cheers. TropicAces (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Holmes & Watson. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Despite three messages on talk page (over course of several months), user continues to edit “as of” date templates to lowercase and/or add add inaccurate box office information, which is in violation of WP:TEND TropicAces (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you are trying to do but you are made a series of edits to Infoboxes where you have changed the box office gross figures to numbers that do not match the sources.

If you have another source of box office figures then you must add a reference to that source when updating the figures. -- 109.76.138.75 (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

You need to be more careful, you caused an error when you replaced Box Office Mojo in the Infobox. The same reference is also needed in the article body. I fixed your mistake this time, next time I might revert it instead. -- 109.76.138.75 (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Box office mojo and the numbers don't show the same box office results for every film so I am putting in the website that says that made more money than the other. --Evope (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Evan Kalani OpedalReply

You need to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and properly explain your edits with an edit summary. I had a fair idea that was what you were trying to do but I should not need to guess, and you should provide clear edit summaries. Also a whole lot of your edits have been reverted by other people because you failed to properly explain what you were doing.

I agree The Numbers often has better information earlier than Box Office Mojo. In the past I have tried to improve articles to use The Numbers but then later Box Office Mojo has the higher numbers and some people then delete any references to The Numbers. And some editors will delete sources without even checking the figures. So best of luck but it will be difficult. -- 109.77.244.106 (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would welcome your input on the Bumblebee article talk page. Talk:Bumblebee_(film)#Prequel. Expressing any preference at all would be helpful. -- 109.77.213.47 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

All budget figures are approximate. It is unnecessary to add "over" to figures that are already rounded, please stop. -- 109.79.91.196 (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Correction, all box office gross figures are rounded to the nearest million and are approximate, so there's no need to say the "film earned over $XY.Z million", just include the figure and don't add that extra qualifying word "over" because if precision was necessary the numbers wouldn't be rounded in the first place. -- 109.78.227.196 (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean? --Evope (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Evan Kalani OpedalReply

I've noticed you've made a lot of edits to the Wikipedia page After, most only the box office statistics.

It's true that box office stats should be rounded to the nearest million, but some of these are not the nearest million, they are the nearest hundred thousand. I don't know if there's precedent for this; past a certain point it can look like you're inflating the stats for some reason.

Please give guidance as to whether this is supported by Wikipedia Style Manuals or not? Thanks. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm curious as to why you added another reference to something, when the first reference says the exact same thing? I noticed another editor previously deleted it. Is there something it's adding I'm a unaware of? Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC) What do you mean by that? Evan Kalani OpedalReply

I'm talking about the excessive reference about the box office figures. The same editor deleted it again and now you've added it a third time, so I deleted it. It doesn't add anything. It stated the exact same thing as the reference that is already there. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Box Office Mojo and the numbers aren't always the same. Sometimes, they show different grosses for movies. Evan Kalani Opedal

But so far for this film they're showing the same exact numbers which is why it's excessive in this case. If they change and it's more appropriate to show a range I can understand why you'd put them both but for now one is fine. Putting both just seems unnecessary and excessive. Multiple editors have removed it now. I'm happy to discuss it on the talk page but for now it seems as though you're the only one who wants to add it and again, in this case it doesn't add anything. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Rambo: Last Blood, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to this section of MOS:FILM about the issues with the format of 2019 in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, just a short message concerning your updates for box office figures, especially Joker. Please be sure that when you update the access-dates, you check to see which source needs updating. I've noticed you update both BOM as well as NUM with the same date, where usually only BOM has been updated. Also, at the box office section of the article, please take care to ensure yourself that when, for example on November 23rd, you change the "As of"-date, to note the 22nd. The figures announced on the 23rd are regarding the totals of the 22nd. Thank you. SassyCollins (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

BOM has not yet updated today (Nov 26th). Please stop updating the access-dates incorrectly. Thank you. SassyCollins (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

What are not understanding? If you are unclear about the above, please ask. It would be cool if you stopped making false edits though. SassyCollins (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

What are you saying about editing according to box office mojo and the numbers? I wait until box office mojo is updated withe the gross from the previous day Just because usually only BOM gets updated doesn't means it's always the case. NUM sometimes gets updated with the gross from the previous day before BOM does. Evope (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)EvopeReply

You are changing the date on NUM when only BOM has been updated. When BOM is updated, BOM's date should change. When NUM is updated, only NUM's date should change. When BOTH are updated, BOTH dates should change. You are constantly changing NUM's date when BOM's figures are updated. Stop doing that unless NUM has updated their figures as well. Thank you. SassyCollins (talk) 09:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have seen , That in many Films above .5 was considered approxly the second no , then why did you changed it , I want to know then for Star Wars which also was edited accordingly and was rounded to the following , why not these ? Subham Don (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have decided to nominate the page, Parasite (2019 film), as a Good Article nominee. As I am not a frequent editor on its page, I have been told to talk to the editors who have worked the most on it. According to the statistics, you have added and/or edited 20.7% of the page. I wanted to leave this here when the nomination went up so you could join the discussion as soon as possible. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge on the Run. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop changing access-date if you are not updating the data itself. This is entirely unnecessary/disruptive. You've already been warned on something similar above. Magitroopa (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edit to Tanner scale adding the Jarret reference. Please note that when you re-use the same reference in several places in the article, there's no need to copy the whole reference into each location; you can simply use Named references. In the first place you use the reference, include the full citation (as you did), and give the reference a name (typically, LAST-YYYY) like this: <ref name="Jarret-2020">{{cite web ...}}</ref>, and after that, when you need to cite Jarret again, just use the named reference (like this: <ref name="Jarret-2020" />). See this edit for example. When reused like this, they end up consolidated in the references section; see reference #9 at Tanner scale#References. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once for details. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you want to talk about it? See the discussion I started on the talk page.[1]. GBFEE (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

We don't update accessdate if there is no update in the source's information. And as of yet, Numbers' box office grosses haven't updated. Please don't update the accessdate unless they do. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your edit on the Thor Love and Thunder page because the box office figure you are quoting are incorrect. It is a typo on the BOM page. The correct figure is listed on the article on BOM https://www.boxofficemojo.com/article/ed3094414340/?ref_=bo_hm_hp and lots of other media sites. Navjot Singh (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Please stop moving Kilmer's name on that list, you are being disruptive. It's correct, stop your slow editwarring. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 04:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

That wasn't me who did it. I don't recall doing it. Honest. Evope (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

When citing BOM for the gross make sure to insert the number from the last part of the link that begins with "tt", not anything else. That is the link from the "All Releases" section, not "Original Release" section. Otherwise the citation doesn't work.

For example on the film Plane, use the number from "tt5884796" in https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt5884796/. Not from "gr3733869061" in https://www.boxofficemojo.com/releasegroup/gr3733869061/.

Please be careful. Thank you. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The website hasn't updated grosses for many films since January 18. Please do not update the accessdate for it when there's no change in the gross. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Do not update the accessdate of a source if the total worldwide box office of a film has not been updated like you did on Emily (2022 film) [2]. I will be reverting you straight away if you do that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "As of" dates should always be of the day preceding the current one except on Sundays, given that the gross is for the collections of the previous day and not the current day. The Sunday gross is the estimate till Sunday, all other days are grosses for the previous day. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello Evope!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 10:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why do you regularly use broken BoxOfficeMojo ids for gross data in film infoboxes (as you did here)? If you fail at reaching the id, just provide the url link.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Because I was following examples of box office mojo references for other movies. Evope (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand why you made an edit presenting box office gross figures in an inconsistent and inaccurate way.[3] Template:Infobox film points to MOS:LARGENUM and the normal way of rounding numbers it to round up at .5 or higher but you truncated $104.6 million down to $104 million for no apparent reason, which is misleading and inaccurate. It would be simple to use the same figure in all three cases and I cannot understand why anyone would not do so. If there is good reason to round down to less decimal places the mathematically accurate rounding $104.6 million to $105 million could easily be use in all three places, but there there is no apparent reason to list the number differently in the lead section from the Infobox or the box office section. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE makes it clear that the infobox is suppose to summarize the article body. WP:LEAD also clearly states that the lead section is suppose to summarize the article body. Inconsistency makes no sense. Truncating $104.6 million to $104 million is inaccurate and misleading. Please do not add inaccurate and misleading information to this encyclopedia. -- 109.77.196.25 (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

That wasn't me who did that. Evope (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

This diff with your name on it (that I linked above already) shows the numbers being changed to $104.6 in the Infobox and $104 in the lead section and $104.6 in the article body. It seemed to be you making an edit, not reverting or restoring changes by someone else. $104.6 does not normally round to $104 and it seems very strange to me that any editor would do this. It takes less effort to use the same number three times. -- 109.76.199.170 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seriously? (diff) -- 109.76.131.146 (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You aren't the only one doing this. I still don't understand why editors are choosing to write the same number in different ways when it would be easier to repeat the same number three times. I have asked about this inconsistency at Wikipedia Project film, perhaps you might care to comment on the discussion. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Normal_rounding_of_numbers_and_inconsistency. -- 109.76.201.77 (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be harmful and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated harm may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Firstly please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain your changes with a meaningful edit summary.

Why would you do this? (diff) The box office gross of $23.6 million rounds up to $24 million, it does not round down to $23 million. MOS:LARGENUM

Secondly why would you inaccurately truncate a number when it would be easier to simply put the same number in all three places? Why are you deliberately choosing to put inaccurate information in this encyclopedia? -- 109.76.202.105 (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That edit was even worse than I realised(diff)

You added the gross as $23.6 million but The Numbers.com lists the gross as

$22,223,320 [4]

Information must be reliably sourced WP:BURDEN. If you have another source of the box office gross you must add another reference before you can add those different figures. Facts are supposed to be verifiable in this encyclopedia. -- 109.76.202.105 (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Origin (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) 00:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Godzilla Minus One, you may be blocked from editing. [5] You have been warned a zillion times for so many years to stop doing this. I even congratulated you years ago for doing it correctly, so I know you know better. This constitutes WP:OR and users can be blocked for that. Absolutely stop tweaking numbers without updating a source or its access-date. Period, ever. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 01:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You keep changing additional gross as you did here. This is incorrect, US gross is the "domestic" one, but it is a Japanese film. Please stop doing this. Thank you. ภץאคгöร 20:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

• A 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) 05:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi dkld 2409:40D2:101B:59BA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fioepd 2409:40D2:101B:59BA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Evope, I've just noticed that you already made at least 3 revisions to the article, in which you persistently attempt to smuggle in exaggerated figures for the film's revenue into the article's text. 👎️

On both Box Office Mojo and The Numbers (website) the figures are basically the same:

Domestic (57.8%) $19,069,924
International (42.2%) $13,900,000
Worldwide $32,969,924

Yet you repeatedly make edits purporting to give the film a worldwide total of $52 million - why? 😠

Szagory (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, mate - I've checked and in your last revision a short time ago you have used the correct figures (unlike your previous two edits).👍️

I take my accusation back and wish you a good night.

Szagory (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yet again you have failed to round numbers in the normal way (MOS:LARGENUM) and inconsistently put one number in the Infobox but another different number in the lead section.(diff)

You clearly understand that $245,598,467 normally rounds to $245.6 million because you put that number in the Infobox, but in the lead section you truncated this number down to $245 million for no apparent reason.

• Please explain it to me why you keep doing this?
• Surely it would be easier to put the same number in all three places?

You must have some reason, I want to understand why you keep doing this. -- 109.79.169.171 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seriously (diff) why do you keep doing this? -- 109.76.194.168 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not the only one doing that. Evope (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That was never the question, why do you keep doing it? It would be easier to just write the same number but you seem to be making an active choice not to do it so you must have a good reason, so what is the reason? Dyscalculia?

Unlike some other editors who seem to edit based on their own whims and personal preferences with no regard to the guidelines or basic mathematics you seem to generally know what you are doing and mostly follow the rules so I am asking you. What is your reason for not rounding numbers in the normal way? -- 109.76.198.63 (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was doing it the normal way. Evope (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I provided a specific diff of you truncating a number down instead of rounding it up, or simply writing it at the same level of decimal places as you wrote it in the Infobox, that was not normal. Writing the same box office gross figures at different levels of decimal precision is at best inconsistent. Truncating the number down is frequently mathematically inaccurate and misleading and fails to "round numbers in the normal way" according to MOS:LARGENUM. There is nothing to suggest that MOS:LARGENUM does not apply to Wikipedia film articles just the same as any other article. Please follow the guidelines and stop inaccurately truncating numbers. By all means use whatever level of decimal precision you think it appropriate but please use it consistently in all three places, the article body, the lead section and the Infobox. -- 109.77.195.4 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You keep failing to round numbers in the normal way,(diff) you are ignoring the basic mathematics specified by MOS:LARGENUM. $347.6 million rounds up to $348 million. You got it right in the Infobox but wrong in the lead section. It is incorrect to truncate it down to $347 million in the lead section. Your edits show you do know and understand how to round numbers properly but you keep choosing to ignore the rules and needlessly and inaccurately truncate the numbers in the lead section. There is no policy or guideline to support this inaccurate truncating of numbers, please just stop it already. -- 109.76.134.12 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whiplash grossed $50,310,657 million. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt2582802/?ref_=bo_rl_ti
You changed the Infobox to claim it grossed $49 million (diff) and again failed to update the article body to match the figures in the Infobox. (If you'd at least been consistent, but you were both wrong and inconsistent, and needlessly updating the gross of a film from a decade ago.)
Please take a closer look at Box Office Mojo until you figure out and understand what you did wrong.
Please be more careful in future. -- 109.76.134.139 (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

From your edit(diff) it seems you did not understand my previous comment. Please click on the link provided and read the information contained there https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt2582802/?ref_=bo_tt_ti As of September 30, 2024 Whiplash has grossed $50,310,657 million. I have reverted your incorrect changes again. -- 109.76.134.12 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was at least checking to make sure I update gross in every section of the article. Evope (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

An improvement but still incorrect. You didn't write an edit summary to indicate what your intentions were, and you still aren't clearly explaining yourself. If your intention was to list the original theatrical release gross (excluding the Anniversary rerelease) then it did not make sense for the Box office section in the article body to say as of September 2024.

You've being doing this long enough to know better. Please get back to basics and follow the WP:SIMPLE rules of providing meaningful edit summaries. Please follow the basic rules of mathematics and rounding numbers in the normal way as outlined in the MOS:LARGENUM guidelines. I don't care who started it, or who else is doing it, I'm asking you to please stop the bad habit of inaccurately truncating numbers in the lead sections of film articles. It is not supported by any guidelines or policies and no one should be doing it, and I hope you can see the sense of that. -- 109.76.134.12 (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Atlantis: Milo's Return. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  It's not necessary to update box office gross figures every day. I think life would be simpler for you if you did it less frequently. Wikipedia is not for breaking news. See also WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

how/where the heck you entered $264 Mill. in gross sales/receipts man?? [6]what kind of editing do you do? Grandia01 (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by that? I don't remember that. Evope (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

MOS:LARGENUM makes it clear that qualifiers such as "under" or "over" or "about" are not needed when numbers are rounded in the normal way.

When you use those kinds of qualifiers you are setting up yourself and other editors up for failure(diff) you are setting other editors up for failure when they update the box office gross. Shortly after your change there is yet another example of an editor falling into this easily preventable mistake: (diff) $82.1 million is UNDER $82,081,895

This should be an _easy win_, stop putting up unnecessary hurdles that you yourself and other editors will inevitably trip over! Just follow the reasonable guidelines of MOS:LARGENUM and stop using unnecessary qualifiers when numbers have been rounded in the normal way. Do less work and get better results. -- 109.77.199.250 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply