Talk:Joel Edgerton

Is this him?

Does anyone think that this is Joel Edgerton? Or is this dude just a lookalike--GrapedApe (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

No it's not him. Hack (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joel Edgerton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120703000026/http://australiansinfilm.org/australians-in-film-breakthrough-awards.html to http://australiansinfilm.org/australians-in-film-breakthrough-awards.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joel Edgerton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608212845/http://www.goldcirclefilms.com/movies/movie_whisper.html to http://www.goldcirclefilms.com/movies/movie_whisper.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614153332/http://www.sydneytheatre.com.au/2009/astreetcarnameddesire to http://www.sydneytheatre.com.au/2009/astreetcarnameddesire

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image

While I believe the recent reversions are a targeted attempt at edit warring and/or just plain disruption, apparently someone who isn't brave enough to log in thinks the new infobox photo isn't better than the previous infobox photo and is now edit warring over it. Of course, since I put the new infobox photo into the article I think the new one is superior over the other one. Both photos are side-by-side below. The old image (currently in the article due to the edit warring) is dark, has the distraction of the water bottle and microphone in the foreground, paints the subject in an unattractive manner. It would be fine to put in the body of the article, but is not optimal for an infobox photo. The new one has him slightly smiling, highlights his distinctive blue eyes, has no foreground foreign object distractions, and is more attractive all around. Perfect for an infobox image. Anyone want to comment?

Old, current image

New, more appealing image

Infobox images to choose from

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)