Welcome!

THIS IS MY USER TALK. IF YOU VANDALIZE IT, I WILL REVERT THE VANDALISM. AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES. HITTING MY TALK WITH 'CEASE AND DESIST' VANDALISM WARNINGS FOR UNDOING YOUR BAD INFO, OR YOUR OWN VANDALISM, WILL ALSO BE REVERTED.

NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM.

Hello, ThuranX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page

• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Archives

User talk:ThuranX/Archive 1 User talk:ThuranX/Archive 2 User talk:ThuranX/Special archive 1

I've revamped the article with all the background information I could find using the Internet. The background information could be compressed, but I wanted to share all the relevant information available. Let me know what you think, and make the article more cohesive if you want. --Erik 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, dude, I really appreciate you contacting me. Thanks. I'll see what I can do about finding some sources. I would like to say that you have nothing to fear in the way of other expected comic movie articles being deleted. Even Transformers—yes, I know it's not strictly a comic book film.—is in good shape. The majority of delete voters are doing so with some reservation. That's a good sign. This isn't about deleting an article because it's future comic book movie. It was brought up for deletion simply because it was citeless. Rest easy. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?

Thought we discussed that it was acceptable to be looser with dates if something only happens once in a while. It's not accurate to post the date of the article posting as the time that the event took place. So why the revert? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian_Pitchford and Zero0000 are on with their vandalisying sourced material again, this time on Palestine. Amoruso 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two users have repeatedly abused wikipedia and blanked out whatever they don't like, this time blanking out a primary source and verified sources - no less than 5 differnet ones... I don't know how I can proceed with dealing them or banning this kind of behavior. Amoruso 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, X. I almost forget to tell you. It looks like "cite your edits" is seeing use after all. Methylenedioxymethamphetamine—insane title length, right?—and Miguel Pro—not a great artickem though, I'll admit—are the first two of hopefully many more. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I contacted the editor who applied it to Methylblahblah a few days back, and he wasn't sure where he'd found it, but I'm glad it's getting out there. ThuranX 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by deliberate admitted continuation of uncivil behaviour having been clearly warned. You are blocked for 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead. The specific incident is here. Tyrenius 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated for deletion the article about the film that never entered production. Since you've edited Batman-related articles, I thought I'd give you a heads up about that particular article. You can express your opinion either way; I don't care. --Erik 03:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reasoning for your decision. I just don't think that this project qualifies for its own article. I asked the first person who said "Keep" for a link to the category of cancelled/unfinished films to compare this article to the others under that category (no response yet). With all the rumors tossed aside, the article would pretty much be a paragraph just like the one at Batman & Robin. --Erik 03:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, should I withdraw the nomination for AfD and instead request a merge? --Erik 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about merging now. Since the paragraph already exists on the B&R page, the information in that paragraph seems substantial enough (though the rumors could be cut out, and citation provided). I'm not looking at Batman Triumphant like I did with The Punisher 2 (for which I may have supported deletion if there were no rumblings in 2006). While I am fairly liberal with upcoming film articles, having worked to improve a number of them, I don't see Batman Triumphant as falling in that category. I don't see future policy being dictated here for nominating this article for deletion. If something like Wolverine never panned out, then I would nominate it for AfD/merging, depending on the movie information available on Wolverine's character page. I suppose it's a judgment call. If the article I created, The Speed of Thought (probably my most liberal exercise), gets an AfD nomination, I wouldn't fight to keep it. I just cite as best as possible, and I haven't been around long enough to witness the demise of upcoming film articles due to not panning out. Before this gets too long, I'm thinking basically, just keep the nomination and improve the section at B&R (and still keep it to a paragraph). A rough merge, I suppose. Thoughts? --Erik 10:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a colloquialism I'm not aware of, or is it an insult? ThuranX, I don't know who you are, but since I've come here, you've treated me with nothing but contempt. I don't know if I've done something to offend you or if you just view me as a straight out nuisance. If any of the above, I apologize. Earlier today you edited out the paragraph based around some speculation on Ivy's sexuality. I tried to change it, but it still wasn't acceptable as it was still speculation. I respected your decision and left it they way you had it. But then later you edited my section on the Sexuality of Poison Ivy again without identifying the issue that you had with it. Then when I placed the article back to the way it was, you changed it again, this time your excuse being "entire statement of weasel words". Why the hostility?

And said statement of weasel words which you terminated did have a source to back it up. Have you ever read Harley & Ivy, ThuranX? Anyway, I won't try to change the article back to how I put it, because I don't want to have conflict with you. But could you stand to be a little more respectful in the future?

--Carnyfoke 05:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)carnyfoke[reply]

Thanks for the reply. And you'd assume wrong. I registered because I saw some inaccuracies in the Poison Ivy entry. And registering is also the only way to upload files. I just wanted to know the reason behind the hostility I thought you showed towards me. But it seems that you do have a low tolerance for anyone that doesn't do something exactly as you see fit. I'm a relatively new editor, and I didn't know that you wanted all of your new comments at the bottom of your user page, yet you put at the top in all capital letters a paragraph about vandalism. I get the point that you want it reiterated, but, still, a little harsh?

Anyway, thank you for your response and I will be more careful on my input for this site in the future.

--Carnyfoke 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Carnyfoke[reply]

Template:Infobox DCAU character

What was wrong with the infobox. Tell me and I'll fix it.--The Judge 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I copypaste one here so that you can help me modify it. I speack English as second langiuaje. So spelling mistakes are my speciality haha.--The Judge 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you want to fix spelling yourself, the page is this: Template:Infobox DCAU character--The Judge 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get what you meant by "some of the categories automatically put up their tag text, including the 'appearEnces' tags, and so on"... since there can't be an infobox if the character have no appearances.--The Judge 06:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been sure about the header that now says "differences". Maybe it should be "differences from the Comics version" or "Significant differences" or something like that.--The Judge 06:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment regarding the addition of stones in the gorilla article. In response to your assertion that the English language version is teh American version and that stones are obsolete, may I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement. In particular; Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world. Try to make articles simple to read and translate. Conversions should generally be included and not be removed. (This unsigned comment was aadded by Yaf201 at 11:01, 11 September 2006)

Nothing in that policy says we ned to use thoroughly pointless obsolete systems of measurement, like stones. The EU doesn't recognize them as the standard unit, and England's in the EU. The US never used them at all. There's absolutely NO easy conversion, since you all ROUND in stones, and since a stone is 22 pounds, it's imprecise. A housecat and the mouse it eats? Both one stone. A malnourished 4 year old and an obese 4 year old? Same weight in stones. Not precise, not useful, not appropriate. ThuranX 11:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 stone is 14 lb - exactly. Which you would have realised had you looked up its wikipdedia entry. It's precise enough for measuring human beings and gorillas and if extra precision is needed it can be broken down into pounds - it is normal for a brit to state their weight as 12 st 4 lb for example. It's no more a pointless and obsolete than the pound. In fact it's more precise - a stone is 14lb avoirdupois, by definition. A pound is not precise until stated whether it's avoirdupois or Troy.

For your information, what the EU recognises as "standard" is not relevant. What is relevant is what makes things easy to understand for the reader. Also, Englans is not in the UK. Since 1707, England has not been able to sign treaties. The UK is a signature to the Treaty of Rome and its successors. It is the UK that is an EU member.

I apologise for not signing my previous post - it was an oversight.

--Yaf201 13:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that may be, and I admit being wrong about the particulars of the 'Stone'. However, that doesn't negate the ultimate fact that unless you intent to add the stone to each and every weight measure on Wikipedia, it's pointless to add it to a select few, as it's not uniform. If there was a standard unit of measure for the geographic regions various species have come from, that might be of some relevant information as well, but again, it's got to be uniform. I don't think you're goin to win enough people, eiki-wide, over to this idea, sorry. ThuranX 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi (group) your opinion needed. Note that the page is infringing on many wikipedia policies, and the recent one is extreme WP:POV of opinions stated as facts and in the intro page ! many other issues were addresed by me but are being reverted by a few members. Please take note of this ! very annoying no doubt. Amoruso 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Lehi are you referring to? ThuranX 20:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi (group), jewish national liberation army in 1930's-1940's in Israel. Ian Pitchford has written lies and made it seem like a nazi organization. he has written things that are not opted in an introduction. It's totally unbelievable, I'll revert to my version of 16:28, but I can't now because of 3RR. Amoruso 20:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThuranX: I would like to bring the following to your attention and to request WP:UNDEL. During the summer (here in the northern hemisphere) many people were away, and I have only now noticed that you nominated two important categories for renaming:

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 7#Category:Jewish Islam topics to Category:Judeo-Islamic topics

and

• Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 20#Category:Jewish Christian topics to Category:Judeo-Christian topics

While I respect your rights and reasons, you did however skip a number of steps that relate to Jewish topics, which I want to outline for you below:

1. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion: "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users)." And see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Special notes: "When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{cfd-article}} for this."
2. The categories you nominated do have a connection with Judaism and therefore please note that if you think of doing any changes to articles or categories relating to Jews and Judaism that are obviously very important you should try to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism which has close to one hundred members and always has some editors that can give their views and also post such nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism a helpful forum that notifies other users interested in Jews and Judaism that articles are about to be deleted or renamed.
3. Since I was the initial creator and developed the two categories you nominated for deletion (and you did not contact me at any time) I was unable to share with you my reasoning for the names. The categories are essentially repositories for articles that fit neither into Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, nor into Judaism and Islam on the other.
4. They were also meant to hold articles that do not deal only with Judaism as a religion, but also with Jewish subjects meaning about the Jews as a people but not dealing with the Jewish religion as such. Thus "Jewish Christian topics" is more of a catch-all broader name whereas your choice of Category:Judeo-Christian topics links the religions more closely which is what the term Judeo-Christian means - it's about the religions exclusively and not the people. Likewise with Category:Judeo-Islamic topics.
5. A major problem that you have now created is that because the term Judeo-Christian has a definite well-know academic definition it can now serve to turn the original Category:Jewish Christian topics category on its head because instead of it being a category for all topics that do not fit into either Judaism or Christianity, it can now become the master category for both Category:Judaism and Category:Christianity which would be perfectly logical and academically acceptable, which is not what I had ever intended and I sincerely hope that it is not what you intended.

Therefore I kindly ask of you that you request that this vote be re-opened and that in order to have Wikipedia:Consensus a broader spectrum of editors who are familiar with this susbject are able to give it the focus and analysis that such a momentous move deserved first time around. Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy in this regard. I thank you for your attention and I hope to hear from you soon. IZAK 14:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK asked me to comment here. I don't really have an opinion yet on what these categories should be named, but, yes, a heads-up to the original creator of the topic and to the relevant WikiProjects would have been a good idea. (One could perhaps reasonably expect the creator of the category to be watching it, but the WikiProject is another matter.) - Jmabel | Talk 16:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with IZAK's comments as well. Not only should he have been notified, but the names themselves cover different topic areas. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. I did what was required under CfR (Category for renaming). That you wanted additional steps beyond taken is your prerogative, but there was no statement of intent for the categories, and the names 'jewish christian topics' and 'jewish islam topics' were nonsensical, contradictory, and non-encyclopedic. thre was good conversation at the first renaming, and complete agreement at the second. I'm sorry you didn't get to comment on them during the nomination period, but I complied with the rules. If you feel the topics would be better the other way, you can nominate them back, but I'll be an 'oppose' vote. Jewish Christian topics sounds at best like a blatant advertisement for the Jews 4 Jesus and the Marrano, and Jewish Islam topics MIGHT, at best, cover Dhimmis. There are no Jewish Muslims, and despite the rhetoric of the J4J's, there are no Jewish Christians. I suggest, instead that you consider finding a new category for those things you think are about jewish christians, and jewish muslims. Good luck with that. ThuranX 20:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some notes. I see that you've informed half a dozen people to come yell at me. Highly uncivil. I stand by the consensus developed on the nomination page. If you don't like it, go argue at CfD as to why the deceptive names are needed. I suspect, instead, that you can recategorize many of the articles in the renamed categories to far more accurate things, such as 'mulsim converts' and 'jewish apostates' for Sabbatai Zevi, for example. Also, why not just add a valid and clear category description, such as 'Judeo-Islamic Topics covers those articles which span the breach between the two religions.' This would eliminate your fears of confusion. Finally, if the articles you've chosen are so hard to pin down in other ways, then they probably shouldn't be categorized in those regards at all. ThuranX 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThuranX: Thanks for a good response. Just a few points. The editors I contacted are probabaly the most active in a lot of Jewish topics. Anyone is free to contact other editors to call their attention to issues that concern them. Anyone who looks at your nominations and the votes can see that there were almost no discussions and no input from editors familiar with these subjects. Why you keep harping about the original names being "advertisements" for J4J I cannot fathom and seems way off the mark. I have more to say, and I hope to see if we can up with a clear non-conflictual name for these categories. Thanks. IZAK 14:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil with the user. If the user is editing tendentiously or otherwise in a problematic fashion file an RfC (if the user is being sufficiently disruptive let an admin know and we will consider blocking him). JoshuaZ 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume this editor is referring to Markovich92, and the problems with obstructionist behaviors on the page Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. I left that page a few days ago, due to markovich's on-going bad faith and fight-baiting. He regularly suggests that othe editors aren't reading, aren't listening, and forces full repeats of entire sections of debate. If he asks for sources, he gets sources, and then dismisses them all. Then he says no one has sources, we provide more sources, he dismisses them. Then he asks for sources, gets sources, and says that all the other editors aren't listening to him. He acts in bad faith, and has now started an incident report regarding anyone who opposes his POV views about the page. I have to say further that I find that people are coming here to chastize me for my supposed incivility, while yet again, markovich plays the victim and gets away with it. My faith in the skill of administrators is falling here on wikipedia. ThuranX 11:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is currently in mediation at Mediation Cabal. Just letting you know.

Hemhem20X6 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bignole covered that part while I was reporting him. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't like either image. I agree with you about why the half-face shouldn't be used; it's not representative of the two sides of the man. However, I also agree with CS's concerns about the two halves not comin together well, and too much black being above the image. Any way that another Two-Face image could be found, if an image even needs to be used at all? --Erik 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Displayed image size on Image use policy. Tyrenius 02:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They will be more likely to click if they can't see the details, as they will then need the bigger image to see them. Those users whose preference is set at the biggest size will then find you've forced them to see a smaller size than they want, while those who have minimised the size in preferences (perhaps to economise on downloads) will find they are forced to see a bigger one. Default is 180px and you set at 200px, so for the sake of 20px you are over-riding users' own wishes, and that's no point. Tyrenius 03:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on revising this particular film... any chance you can see what you can contribute to it? I know I asked you about Transformers a while ago, but I still can't find the urge to get my hands dirty in that particular fan-rampant article. At Worlds End doesn't seem too bustling, and I want to whip it into shape for when the summer comes. --Erik 21:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Amoruso 01:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Ironically, there is a warning for the removal of warnings—{{wrx}}, where x is a number from 1 to 4, like in the other vandalism warnings.--digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 22:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fleshed out my user page and basically wrote about how I go about editing these articles about upcoming films. Maybe you can find a few pointers there. :) --Erik 18:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you might have misunderstood my comments. Present tense is correct, but that section needs also to be rewritten with respect to publication history; as it currently stands, it doesn't let the reader know which issues make reference to which characters. But that's not a reason to keep it in past tense. If you add in the issue numbers and relevant publication history, then I think the section would be clearer. I've given an example of what I mean on Talk:Gotham City. — TKD::Talk 18:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the publication history needs to be emphasized a bit more. What issues focused on what, and when were they published? — TKD::Talk

That section looks good now. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm pleased with how comic book film articles like The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 3 have come along. I hope that these articles will eventually reach featured article status, and I don't doubt that they could qualify based on the persistent guardianship and contributions of editors that watch them closely. These films' preceding articles, Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2, are disappointing in comparison to what you, the others, and I have I done so far with the successive films' articles. I'm not sure if I could go back and clean these up... there's obviously a need to have a checklist for what would be relevant in a comic book film's article. Thus, the standard formats that you mentioned on The Dark Knight talk page. I'm all for something like that; there's probably going to be an explosion of comic book films, especially on Marvel Studios' end, in the next few years.

I don't know much about policy implementation, but if it's possible, we could build a guideline that could both encompass previous comic book films (like those I've mentioned) and future films (Ghost Rider, Wonder Woman). Since these films are largely fan-based, we can educate editors about what's relevant to include in these articles based on Wikipedia's existing policies. Basically, create a "new breed" of folks like you and me, since life's circumstances won't always keep us close to Wikipedia's watchlist. Let me know what ideas you have. I think you have a potentially good project in mind. --Erik 20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to cover everything. A few suggestions to make. Let's not have an "Unconfirmed" section under the "Cast" section, since that would be rumor mill-ish if the film wasn't a sequel with a returning cast. I'm fine with the Production subsections as well, though, I feel that some subsections could break out into their own sections given enough information, such as History (such as Watchmen), Score, and Effects. Of course, that depends on the film, but this template should suit most production information.

How do you suggest implementing this? It's not a template like Infobox Film, obviously. Also, I recommend writing out a guideline that would address certain aspects of writing a future comic book film article. Some ideas that come to mind:

• How to write the opening paragraph
  • Perceive yourself as someone with no familiarity with the film's superhero(es) to explain accordingly
  • Limit to director, key players, preceding/succeeding films, general release date
  • Define "accomplishments" of so-called film: How would one determine if the film was a box office success or critically acclaimed?
• Citing sources
  • Differentiate official sources and rumor mills, especially when it comes to fan blogs
  • Define weasel words that are so commonplace in these articles
  • Explain when to use "citation needed" tags or just revert (I could use an explanation for this myself)
  • Appropriateness of mentioning citation in sentence (e.g., "Ain't It Cool News said that this actor was reportedly...")
  • Write in a timely matter when possible to limit "updating", such as "Filming was recently completed on October 3, 2006"

Got any ideas of your own? --Erik 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link looks good! I look forward to expanding it. I put in the Ghost Rider goal on my user page as well as the link to the template. Is it OK if I contribute to that template with any ideas that may come up in the future? Just askin' permission to edit. Also, to let you know, I'll be busy in the coming week and half (midterms, bleh), so I may not get around to the Ghost Rider deal immediately. --Erik 03:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider and Wonder Woman look good. I know Wonder Woman should be up to date (having worked on the project history and trying to be on top of it since), but I know there can be more substance for Ghost Rider -- there's a production diary in video format, so I can't get any information out of these in particular, being deaf. Like I said about Ghost Rider, I'll try to go a-link-hunting and see how much more the article can be expanded. You can see the new trailer for that film at this link. --Erik 04:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link repository

Not a big deal, but I created a stand-alone link repository of mostly upcoming films (comic book films, video game adaptations, etc). Thought you'd be interested. If there's any other upcoming films that you think I could watch, send/edit them my way. --Erik 18:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some misunderstanding, and I'd like to clear it up here because you only have one change left before 3RR. The press release quote from ACS on the talk page is not a citation. It's a quote from an unnamed source; basically, the opposite of a citation. I already pointed out the only place on the Internet where that phrase appears, and it's just a blog. The entire first paragraph at Wikipedia:Verifiability deals with exactly this situation. Every statement needs to be verifiable, and anything that isn't can be removed. I think I was pretty clear on the article's talk page; my point seemed to make sense to ACS, as he removed the "drug-induced" part himself. I don't have a problem with the content, as long as we have a reliable source. Until then, the claim should not be replaced. I can see you've been editing here for a while, so I'm sure you understand. Thanks. Kafziel ^Talk 02:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I'm sorry that I didn't notice your comments to me regarding the image on the Two-Face article until just now. Thank you for the kind words. I'm sure that you've noticed that a lot of editors on comic-related articles can get hot-headed due to their passion regarding these publications -- It's always nice to see someone with kind remarks on the talk pages! ~CS 01:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more than happy to remove my last post, voluntarily, if you give Ace the same advice you gave me. Let him know sarcasm isn't appreciated. Let him know I would rather be hit head on with insult, not subversively. You do that, and I'll delete my last post. And if I had a martini right now, I'd drink it :) Reynoldsrapture 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would just prefer to remove the entire section under "Death of Venom". As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and delete it... but again, only if Ace understands his conduct is less than appreciated just as mine obviously was. Thanks. Reynoldsrapture 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your decision, so respect mine: I'll leave the post as it is, and agree not to stir the pot any further. If I have any questions about the movie, I'll avoid Wikipedia altogether. Reynoldsrapture 03:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read your post for Ace. Don't know whether to say thanks or not after the "sloppily" remark about me. But I'm willing to forgive and forget. Reynoldsrapture 03:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My asking of the cast list was simply so it could be populated into the article, NOT for discussion purposes as you claim. Next time assume good faith. The S 02:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things I've noticed that you're putting into place that I have to question.

One is the parenthetical dates in the mayoral section. While I agree with the reasoning to differentiate the television show and the first of the moder movies (and kicking myself for not doing that in the first place), I don't believe it's proper to include it in the italicization. The title is italicized, and the date reference isn't part of the title. Have I got this wrong?

The other... is a little awkward. It's the reference and link to the same show in the geography section. In working through that section, I had moved the information into the parenthetical because it was less awkward. Same information though. And... I've also been trying to remove redundant links. Since there was already a link to the article for the show, I reduced it to just being italicized. The sentence structure I think I can deal with, but is the duplicated link warranted?

Thanks — J Greb 03:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I agree that if the intent is to keep the article as list free as possible, it should have 2 list pages devolved from it: the landmarks/areas and the residents.

However, that would need the mayoral section being compressed in to a prose format. At the moment the article has two closely related sections (Mayors and Residents) that should be treated in the same manner, if not, in all likelihood, consolidated into one subsection. This was the intent of what I was doing with the list format, the Mayors were in that format, so I brought the rest in line with that. Personal opinion here, but it would have been best not to just do a blanket revert, but to have addressed the inconsistency of the sections and the desire to de-listify by converting the Mayors section into prose.

In addition to that, the blanket revert cut information that had been added. The major portion being the characters related to the police force. Looking at that I have to ask two questions: First "Had the change been read through as opposed to just looked at?" In terms of good faith editing, I have to assume that the material was read and the edit was not spurred on by purely aesthetic reasons. Second "Was the additional information found irrelevant for some reason? If so, why?" The characters that were added were and are as important as, if not more so in some cases, the characters that have already been listed in the article.

Thanks for listening — J Greb 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm sorry is the above came off as a complaint about the edit being undone. That wasn't my conscious intent.

Second, I want to make sure I understand how you are saying the edit should have progressed:

1. Creation of the Police section in the manner of the Mayors section as a unique edit.
2. Restructuring and renaming of the "spandex" section into a list as a unique edit.
3. Creating an over all "Residents" section and changing the 3 sections into subsections.

This being done so that a subsequent editor, spotting an grievous error has an intermediate point that can be reverted to/ Have I got that correct?

Third, you're right, the "spandex" section does need a better heading. "Residents" tends to evoke the image of everyone associated with the city, not just one small subgroup.

Again, thanks for listening — J Greb 18:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is someone (or someones) at the film article that is trying to edit in a Criticism section based on a couple of message board threads. I've reverted out the section three times now and will not be able to do so any further without violating the WP:3RR. I've tried to open dialogue on the talk page, so hopefully this issue will be addressed. I'm extremely confident that this information does not belong and tried to explain my reasoning as such. --Erik 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the west coast. It's near 7:00 as I'm typing/posting. I only reverted the data because of the way it was written up. It's not so much a question of you as it is a question of readability. It needs to be clear...make sense. One guy's talking bullets flying and you're throwing out psycho powers. It's crazy, man. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry. I wasn't watching the page. I trust your judgement, and you certainly know more about the subject matter. I've removed the tag. Good work. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that I'm working on a timeline thingie for this film article like I did for Watchmen (though this film only goes back to 2002, thank God). Don't know if I'll have anything up by tonight, but I'm pulling together sources and such for it. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 03:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I finished it tonight. Just added a lot of production information, so this sucker shouldn't come as close to the edge as The Punisher 2 did. There could be further information added from these videos at Ghost House Pictures, the film's production company. I'm deaf, so I'm not able to get any information from these videos. Maybe you can find something that can be added further. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 07:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked on this with senior admin. It is as I recalled — there is not a policy at this point; it is in the proposal stage: Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. In particular, the current proposal is specific to those under the age of 13. — ERcheck (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New comic book film article showed up -- In the Blood, same writer that did 30 Days of Night. To be honest, I think the article creator jumped the gun on this one... it's way too early and might be crystal balling if there's not any info beyond what's already on the article. That's why I have some red links in my link repository -- so I can create articles when there seems to be enough production information regarding the films. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, how do people know how many edits another person has had? I guess I'm curious as to what mine is. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 02:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for telling me how. I guess I was hoping there was an edit counter I wasn't able to find in the help pages. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 02:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that in a pending RfA discussion, you were concerned that someone was being insulting by referring to readers of the page as "the bureaucrats." Just in case you didn't realize, the group of high-level Wiki administrators who close RfAs and decide on consensus or not have the actual title "bureaucrats." (I assume it was picked ironically.) I mention this just in case you hadn't picked up the context for the comment - I'm not commenting on the issues in the RfA itself (whose outcome seems pretty clear). Regards, Newyorkbrad 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are of the people who have edited these templates (specifically the Batman fan films template), I'd like to request your input at Template_talk:Batman#Template_width so those of us who have been working on these templates can agree on how to standardize them. Doczilla 22:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up on another comic book adaptation. I've already thrown in a project history section. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Shannernanner 13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having my back on this one, X. I've made a 3RR report and now I'm gonna to chill for a bit. That was...hectic. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X, Argash is preparing the move the existing discussion. It's easier to discuss character specific stuff on their talk page. Plus, the issue is more about Isaac, with the ultimate result applying to both pages. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whatever.

Hey. I remember when you'd do those routine checkups on me whenever I seemed to be really losing it. Time I returned the favor. You okay, man? That outbust on Talk:Isaac Mendez was just the topper. Argash is a good guy. I talked to him on AIM. And you're lucky he is. Some one like Elliskev or Maddy might have either of our asses if we snapped at someone for no good reason like that. A little tough love and harshities are defendable from time to time, but Argash just made a spelling mistake. He's not the bad guy in this, believe me.

I know it looks hypocritical...me coming to to you like this, but I am trying. I'm trying not to make offensive editting summaries. I'm trying to address content and not users. I'm even trying to be a bit more patient. I hope you are, too. Neither one of us can afford another block. Whether they like it or not, Wikipedia needs us. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. He/she uses a wide enough range of IP addresses that rangeblocking is somewhat prohibitive. Their pace isn't so quick, and in the end perhaps just reverting them a few times and following up with short-term sprotection is the way to go. I haven't quite gotten the formula for this sort of troll down, yet -- usually I just go for that pattern until they get bored. Luna Santin 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(rv - in most stories, Ivy is a primary antagonist, thus, not a 'foil', who, by contrast loses easily, making a hero bigger before the major climax of the story.) I am not going to start a revert war but, that doesn't even make sense. A Primary antagonist is still a secondary character, and ivy loses easily? I am not a dedicated batman reader but i don't think any of his rogues lose easily. Also, you use crazy amounts of commas! WookMuff 20:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin is a secondary character, except in his own book. Alfred, Gordon, both secondary. and a foil isn't someone who is easily defeated. How does that show batman's skill and strengths? A foil is not someone who's "puffs up" the hero by their very weakness, but by the overcoming of their strength. Of course every villain in the dc universe is a foil to someone, THATS WHY THEY EXIST. They aren't REAL, they were designed for the express purpose of being defeated by the heroes. Otherwise, the heroes just sit around drinking coffee and, say it with me, never showing their strengths. I didn't add the information in the first place, i just reverted someone elses removal of it. Just Like Yours. Foil (literature) You can argue about this as long and as much as you want, all comic villains exist as foils to comic heroes. In conflict, Drama. "No, sorry. You're still wrong" plus you don't capitalize pronouns, Poison Ivy is not Ayesha WookMuff 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, woe is me that i shall never have the benefit of thine surely sterling education. I shall never know the joys of poor grammar and random punctuation. You don't get it, you seemingly CAN'T get it, and so I don't have the time or inclination to educate YOU. I have said that I won't revert your mistaken revert, so I suppose I also can't take the time to be Anne Sullivan to your Helen Keller either. Ah well. I am sure you will just delete this, so i bid you good day and hope that one day you will click to what foil really means. WookMuff 20:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]