User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 8

V for Vendetta

This edit summary made me laugh out loud, and now my coworkers are giving me funny looks. So thanks for that. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, that is me at my most fed up of repeating myself about the same edit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This cheered my evening up lol. MisterShiney ✉ 20:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption

Hi. Instead of acting like a self-declared pro, you could add some value by taking part in the relevant discussion. Nataev (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You deserve this - for ongoing work in and around the film project articles, among others! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much SchroCat! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Your hard work at Arkham City deserves this award. Enjoy the feeling of having a new featured article :) — ΛΧΣ21 15:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

TAS

Hi yes I am back from the dead. I was just wondering if you could help out on making The Amazing Spider-Man a GA. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Had wondered where you had gone. First thing might be to re3quest a copy edit if you haven't had one already. I will do what I can but I work full time now so don;t have as much burnable time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I did request a copy edit from the Guild of copy editors one time. I think I got one too. Can you request it more than once? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's had a copy edit it probably doesn't need another one unless a lot has been chnaged on it since. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

123

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkwarriorblake (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've been blocked but I'm not 100% if it was intentional as I haven't received a message about it. I made 3 edits but then stopped and took the situation to the edit warring noticeboard, in between that I've attempted to both ask for help from related project and engage in discussion to fruitless ends, I've just tried to restore the article to its base until the situation was resolved. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Looks like this was just a mis-target. I've unblocked you for now and will verify with the other admin. Kuru (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My goodness, that was a mistake. I'm very sorry about that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC

God of War is up for FAC again if you could voice your support again. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War (video game)/archive3 --JDC808 ♫ 04:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Notifying you that God of War (video game) is up for FAC again. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War (video game)/archive4 --JDC808 ♫ 20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been promoted and pleasantly on my birthday. --JDC808 ♫ 20:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated God of War: Betrayal for FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 18:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have some spare time, would you care to review God of War: Betrayal? --JDC808 ♫ 02:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Took care of that overlink. --JDC808 ♫ 17:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of. --JDC808 ♫ 20:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) --JDC808 ♫ 03:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have God of War II at FAC if you wouldn't care to take a whack at it. I started reading over Arkham Asylum and will leave some comments in the next day or so. --JDC808 ♫ 10:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Did a review for Arkham Asylum. --JDC808 ♫ 01:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I've not had any internet since the 9th. Thanks for the Asylum review. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Whenever you get a chance, I've responded to your comments for God of War II. --JDC808 ♫ 03:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

And once again, the pot calls the kettle black.

You've already made three revisions, isn't that a violation of 3RR? But I prefer not to fight dirty, so I don't intend to let the admins know about that. Bluerules (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See here is the problem that is also causing issues at the article, you don't know what you are talking about. I HAVE made THREE revisions, two to undo you and your edit warring in violating of guideline and discussion, and one to improve the article by updating the box office and gross, as I have done since I created it. You on the other hand have made SIXTEEN edits just in recent history ALL THE SAME THING about the cast order, you have done it repeatedly, excessively in favor of getting your way, you have done nothing to improve the article, couldn't even update the gross, your only participation has been to mess with the cast order because you want Jim Carrey higher, your edit history betrays your complete flip flopping, picking poster or actual film credits as you see fit when one fits the ordering you would personally prefer. This is the sole contribution you make to every article, messing with cast order to get your way and you will immediately edit war with anyone who undoes your edits insisting your way is correct and perhaps that is the problem here, that no one has stood in your way before so you are incapable of understanding how to deal with it beyond just continuing to push and push and push. Feel free because I'd be happy to see you blocked again for a period, I know I certainly felt happier the days I logged on and did not see your name in my watchlist having done the same thing again to The Incredible Burt Wonderstone or responded on the talk page with yet another block of text ignoring everything I had previously said. Any normal person would have called it a day and moved on, do you think what you are doing is normal? All of this text, all of this time in our ever so short lives wasted over the cast order? Honestly normally I wouldn't care because I have better things to do than monitor every time a fanboy tries to put his favorites higher, but you've done it on so many articles, been so disruptive here and there and so utterly obnoxious in every encounter down to your copy paste editing that removes references and/or content that I'm choosing to make it my personal priority in this case to enforce the guideline, otherwise you will just continue to do this forever. I asked for input from others, I asked for intervention from others, I've not just blindly assumed my way is correct, I asked at the FilmProject for their input, and one has come and said that what is there is preferred. YOu ignore that and accuse me of making stuff up again. You continue to waste my time and I ask you to stop, step back, breathe, and think if this is really worth all the hassle you are creating for both of us, and if you really think your personal rule has any at all bearing on this wikipedia when we have guidelines in place. Beyond that I no longer wish to communicate with you, I will post on your talk page if you continue to edit war, as I have done as a warning that it will be escalated because clearly I am not the person capable of handling you and I have no desire to do such, but beyond that I do not like you at all, and believe me it takes a lot for me to actively dislike a person, so bravo on achieving that. Hopefully you will get over this and go edit war with other people on other articles, as I have no desire to ever encounter your username in an article history or my watchlist ever again. Good day sir. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about when I say the pot is calling the kettle black. I write two sentences and you respond with a novella. You call that normal behavior? You think you're not making a big deal out of this? You left multiple messages over at FilmProject, begging people to respond to you. And yet you have the gall to claim this shouldn't be an important issue to a normal person and say I'm leaving "blocks of text." Yes, this is going to be a long post, but it has to be long in order for me to thoroughly debunk you yet again. The best part about your rant is you're trying to cover up the fact that you also violated 3RR by making three revisions to undo my edits. While you'll never admit this, the cast order is incorrect. It is incorrect according to the end credits of the film, material that comes directly from the film itself. That's one of the many facts you continue to ignore. Another fact you ignore is I was originally placing Carrey second. If this was just because I wanted Carrey "higher," why am I now placing him fourth? Why am I not placing him as high as I possibly could place him? The answer is I'm not doing this because I want Carrey higher; my goal is to correct the cast order. I had assumed Carrey would be second in the credits given how heavily he was featured in the marketing campaign and the premise's emphasis on his character, but later learned he was billed fourth. And you forget that I stopped pushing my early corrections because the fact that the film hadn't been shown to the public yet was a reasonable excuse (though you do love harping on the things I said back then). But once the film was released, you still refused to let the cast section be corrected, now citing three bogus reasons for keeping poster order in place- it was "easily accessible," it was "already in place," and your favorite- the only reason provided for the change was "preference." Like I've said before, the film's official website is also "easily accessible" and the cast section there puts Carrey fourth, yet another fact you've ignored. Yes, I already know the credits at the bottom of the home page put Carrey sixth, but we're not discussing a credit section (i.e. various people who work on a film), we're discussing a cast section. And before you claim you did not ignore this, you have- you responded to the home page billing Carrey fourth, but you never said a word about the cast page. Being "already in place" means nothing because incorrect information that's already in place is still incorrect information. As for your "preference" argument that you hold so dear, this is refuted by my real reason for using the on-screen credits order- it's information that comes right from the film. Despite being dismantled, you continue to claim that I switch between the credit and poster order to suit my "personal preferences" in an effort to discredit me, but you only make yourself look bad in the process. Anyone of a rational mindset can see what I'm doing is making the starring section of the infobox follow the poster order and making the cast section of the article follow the on-screen credits (as long as the credits are by prominence). You love posting my edit on The Help as "proof" that I'm happy to use the poster order, but fail to comprehend that I never made any alterations to the cast section there. Did it ever occur to you that I only edited the cast sections of Prometheus and The Man with the Iron Fists and left the starring sections alone? Of course it didn't, you only look for the things that confirm your beliefs. You've attempted to argue the cast section and the starring section should follow the same order and an article cannot reach "good" status if the orders do not reflect each other, but you were contradicted by two things. The first is the cast and starring sections of Fast Five, Prometheus, Dredd, and The Man With the Iron Fists, four articles you've made significant edits on, do not follow the same order. You made excuses to justify this, but you could have always changed the orders there. The second is those four articles did in fact reach good status despite their differing orders. The latter is also on the ever-growing list of facts you ignored. I know you're quite proud of your online achievements and I don't mean to take this one away from you, but you're not the first person to stop me from correcting an article. Before you, there was a (now blocked) user over on Heat's entry. Ironically, it was over something you would support; I was trying to make the starring section follow the text at the bottom, while he felt the section should only include the three names at the top. What I really like is you know you're ignoring the things I say and you can't stand how I continually mention it, so you attempt to turn the tables by accusing me of ignoring you. Problem is, you were only able to provide one example of me ignoring material and it's not even something you wrote, it's Sjones23's contribution to the talk page. For future reference, I was unaware of Sjones23's message because I don't have The Incredible Burt Wonderstone on my watchlist and I saw no reason to return there because you claimed you were done. You say "better things to do than monitor every time a fanboy tries to put his favorites higher" when the majority of your edits are reversions of the things you perceive as incorrect. Let me remind you that I stopped pushing my edits before the film came out, but you still continued to block me. To further destroy your "fanboy" theory, I put Willem Dafoe first in the starring section of The Boondock Saints, but on Existenz, I placed him last. How do you explain that one? I doubt you will, you'll probably ignore that fact too. After telling me to "stop, step back, breathe," you decide to add that you "actively dislike" me. In other words, you dislike someone you never met in person, and you dislike this individual over a trivial online issue. Are you still going to preach about normal behavior after that one? But it is frustrating to be constantly proved wrong, so I guess I can see where your dislike comes from. Bluerules (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked for people's input at the Film Project because it was a film project matter and it was clear you werne't interested in listening to anything I had to say. I didn't read the rest of your comment because I don't care what you have to say, I thought you hadn't replied because you'd read what I wrote, grown up and moved on. Clearly that is never going to happen. This is what needs to happen from here on then I never want to see you on my talk page again:

1. The guideline is against you at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
2. The discussion turned against you at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
3. You were banned for your actions at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
4. You have no support but your own at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
5. Thus I do not want to talk to you here again, and it is time to spend your life more fruitfully and stop modifying the cast list to suit your own preference at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

You tried to have your way, your way was wrong, it's time to pick somewhere else to try and get your favorites higher, now leave me alone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue here isn't so much that you wanted people's input at the Film Project, it's that you were begging people to respond while you rant about how this issue wouldn't be a big deal to a normal person. If you don't care what I have to say, keep quiet. You can't engage in a discussion with someone if you're going to ignore him. You really can't attack someone for not "moving on," when you're not moving on yourself. To review:

1. There is no guideline, just you believing people only change cast orders to get their favorite actors higher.
2. Only one another user took part in the discussion.
3. You got me banned because you're a dirty fighter who can't admit being wrong.
4. Only one user supports you.
5. You're in no position to discuss preferences because you want the cast list to suit your preference.
6. Yet another pot/kettle remark. My placement of Willem Dafoe on Existenz compared to where I put him on The Boondock Saints destroys your "favorites" argument.

And what are some the other facts you ignore?

1. The end credits come directly from the film.
2. The official website bills Jim Carrey fourth in the cast section.
3. I put Carrey fourth in the cast order when I could easily put him higher.
4. I use the poster order for the starring section of the infobox and the on-screen credits (if they're by prominence) for the cast section of the article.
5. I never altered the cast section of The Help.
6. I never altered the starring section of The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and Prometheus.
7. The starring sections and cast sections of Fast Five, Prometheus, Dredd, and The Man with the Iron Fists differ in order.
8. Fast Five, Prometheus, Dredd, and The Man with the Iron Fists are all considered good articles.
9. Poster order can also be alphabetical, as evidenced with The Man with the Iron Fists.

Either admit you're wrong or stop reverting the things you don't agree with. If you don't want me on your talk page, how about you stop responding to me? Bluerules (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Just shut the fuck up. Jesus fucking christ, are you even human?

1. Only one other use took part in the discussion and they supported what is already there, that is TWO (i assume maths is hard for you) against ONE (the ONE being you), so you have no support for the change. I asked for help from the Film project because you WOULD (WILL) NOT STOP, you have prolonged this discussion far more than normal, and no I am not the one prolonging it, I tried to move on ages ago but every time I do you reply with "Well I guess you concede the argument and I can make my changes then", you are the only person continuing this.
2. You got BANNED because you're a child who can't follow rules or accept not getting his own way.
3. Only ONE user supports me, that's MORE than 0 for you.
4. I'm in position to discuss preferences because what is tehre is based off a poster billing block based off a guideline, your changes that you won't move away from are based on your personal preference for the film credits which you flip between poster and film credits as you deem either worthy depending on wo is listed higher.
5. Aww, did you just learn "pot calling the kettle black"? It's cute how you keep repeating it like it makes you a big boy.
6. The end credits come directly from the film? Well blow me down with a feather, it's like we didn't even discuss that already.
7. The official website has a credits button, which uses the same credits as the poster, which we went over several times already.
8. You put Carrey fourth because that was as high as you could get him while still blaming credits.
9. That's stupid.
10. And?
11. And?
12. Again, already explained, you're choosing to ignore anything that doesn't help your argument
13. And?

I don't need to admit anything, a) because I'm not wrong, b) because you have no support and c) because as we went over, you not stopping talking does not mean that you have somehow won the debate and have support to change the cast order. I respond to you because your comments are so fucking stupid they need to be dealt with, by myself or a trained medical professional, I respond because you blatantly ignore everything I say and then end each comment with "so I win, so stop reverting" ignoring EVERY comment made, the support I have over you even if it is 1, your banning for your blatant unjustified editing, and the way users can and do revert your edits elsewhere before you edit war with them to get your way like you are doing here. You have NO justification for the change or the length of this fucking discussion that you have prolonged like some new electronic form of fucking cancer that will eventually rot the internet from the inside just by the sheer weight of text you continue to write instead of WALKING THE FUCK AWAY. Last time - you have no support, teh guidelines in place back me up, you will not make the change simply because i stop responding you, you will not make the change without support, and even then things are decided on an article by article basis so you will never get the support you seek. Now go away. You have a day to read my response, do not bother responding as even if you do I'm deleting this second text monstrosity off my talk page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know I speak too much truth for you to handle. When you spend your whole life thinking you're better than everyone else, it's not easy dealing those who are smarter than you.

1. What's the difference between two and one? One. Having one extra person support you is not a game changer. There's no big difference in numbers here. Again, I don't mind that you wanted support from Film Project; it's just odd how you were begging for a response while you berate me for making a big deal out of this.
2. Awesome self-parody.
3. If two people think a tomato is a vegetable and one thinks a tomato is a fruit, does that mean a tomato is a vegetable? The number of people in favor of something means nothing.
4. Way to not respond to the fact that I placed Willem Dafoe first in the starring section of The Boondock Saints, but last in Existenz and John Carter. That ruins your "personal preference" argument.
5. It's even better how all you can do is make ad hominem insults and pretend to be intellectually superior all while not realizing the underlying irony in your posts.
6. You're right, we didn't discuss it because you keep ignoring that fact since you can't refute it.
7. We're not discussing changes to a credits section (which includes various people who worked on a film), we're discussing a cast section (which focuses solely on the actors). The cast section bills Carrey fourth. And you only responded to the homepage billing Carrey fourth, not the cast section.
8. I could easily claim the end credits really billed Jim Carrey second or third.
9. Fantastic job not elaborating your point.
10. That destroys your "Bluerules is happy to use the poster order when it suits his preference" argument.
11. That destroys your "starring section order should be the same as cast order" argument.
12. Simply making statements without any logical foundation (especially ones that have been copied from me) isn't going to work. You've never made a reply to this point. But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
13. That destroys your "cast order should follow the poster order" argument.

Saying you're not wrong does not mean you're not wrong. The National Socialists sure got a lot of support in Germany; does that mean they were right? What makes me right is your inability to refute the things I say. Being proved wrong is just killing you. That's why you have to continually insult me (which is a violation of talk page guidelines) and pretend that I'm ignoring you in a desperate attempt to turn the tables on me. Unfortunately, your attempt fails apart due to your inability to cite specific examples. You got me banned because you're a coward and a dirty fighter, support does not equal being in the right, and most people don't bother reverting my edits. My justification has and always will be the fact that the credits come from the film and you will never refute that. You are not walking away from this issue, so you are no position to attack anyone for not walking away. Revert my edits all you want, the simple fact remains that I am right. If you delete this text, then you just show the world how cowardly you are. Bluerules (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

This is a neutral request for comments at WT:WikiProject Film/Comic book films task force#Iron Man's armor (film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion at this RfC and the various sections that followed it, the latest being "This discussion". Since there are four sections so far, very spread out, I am clarifying that the topics are whether we open with Publication history, and whether citation format should be consistent. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Image

I want to get these image guidelines straight. Sometimes they can seem so debatable. Can you help straighten out issues on here and maybe help resolve the certain issue on the GA nomination here (definitely since you are a major contributor). I find it strange these issues weren't a problem in you're GA nomination of Prometheus. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I like that you weighed in but I prefer that discussion to be moved in to the other link if that is ok. I feel that it should be debated from the editor who knows more about it. Not the nominator who admitted he didn't. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dredd or Dredd 3D?

The title of the film in the poster is shown as Dredd 3D. And so is Texas Chainsaw 3d. The dredd film is named as simply "Dredd" while the texas chainsaw massacre film is named as "Texas Chainsaw 3D". I think the title of the dredd film should be "Dredd 3D". KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's Dredd, if you look at the actual billing block of the poster it is shown as Dredd, the BBFC from its home country lists it as Dredd also here, the 3D was for advertising purposes, as shown in the article where they harshly limited 2D versions available. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Man with the iron fists box office

Look man I don't know why I have to explain this to you again and agian but please stop your "formatting" on the box office gross of man with the iron fists. So many users, not only me have reverted your edits and instead have used the accurate gross. I don't want to sound harsh but no one thinks your "formatting" is correct and serves any purposes. I don't know why don't you understand it? How many times again and again you have to be explained? KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You've not explained it once, the formatting is accurate and correct and used on many articles I've raised to GA, the incorrect figure was there when it became a GA, it is an estimate, as the figure on boxoffice.com is an estimate, just an estimate you prefer because it is higher than boxofficemojo.com's. The formatting is correct, the full estimate figure is shown in the article body, people haven't reverted, they've lazily copy and pasted from whichever site they are using at any given time, so feel free to tell me over and over because that's how it is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Higher than BOM but the gross on BOM is wrong and you know that too. If you add the gross for all countries in the foreign section then gross is even higher than Boxoffice.com 's. You know that already so why are you making excuses? When I said users have reverted you're edit I basically mean that they removed your edit even because they thought your formatted gross was not correct. I think it's you who's trying to make lame excuses because if the article looses "GA" status your hardwork will be in vain. I think that's why you're reverting my edits. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not reverting your edits, the policy is WP: BRD, the format is in place and there's no explanation for changing it. The figure is an estimate, and in reporting the figure is always presented as a rounded number because the long number is an estimate that is different from different sources. People are not reverting it, as I said, they just lazily copy and paste the figure, I know it's lazily because they never update the rest of the article where the figure is present, just the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright then I'll let this matter go. But why are you claiming that you or your formatting made the article GA? It did not become GA because of formatting the box office gross but because it was reliably sourced and everyone who made contribution deserves equal credit. Not just me or you but everybody else. Besides if I remember it correctly it was me who added Boxoffice.com as a source for the box office gross instead of BOM. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Cast Section

As you have participated in this discussion, I am letting you know, there are compromise solutions on the table if you wish to add your opinion. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Snitch budget

Some user keeps adding the budget for the film Snitch as $15 million. I have mentioned in the edit summary already that he needs a source for his edit. Also BOM does not list the budget for the movie. I would have contacted him if I would have known who he is but I don't. Please help me to solve this situation. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is the same user, explain it needs a source, you say you have already done this so if he continues to do it, warn them, increasing the severity if they continue to do so without discussion. And it appears to be this user: Special:Contributions/111.68.100.252 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright thank you for your help. I've already told the user 2 times in the edit summary that a source for his edit is needed. Instead of letting him adding the budget back again I searched myself and instead added 35 million dollars as the budget along with a reliable source. Probably he will realize his mistake himself now and not undo my edit. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Bluerules

I just gave Bluerules my own assessment of his disruptive editing in this section his talk page. I just you should look at it and see what you think since you gave this guy several warnings. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Battleship, as I've said in discussions with him (which I wouldn't expect you to read because they go on forever), I'm not mega concerned about cast listing, but the methods in which he conducts himself to get his way, both at Wonderstone and other articles, have forced me to take a stand over it and start highlighting his actions. I'm glad someone else noticed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't believe that guy would try to accusing you of something you didn't do. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Wow, sorry you had to go through that with Bluerules. Glad an admin was able to intervene and help. It's hard not to let angry, impolitic people get you down, I know. You hang in there. You're a really good editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks T, yeah I don't care about cast ordering I use the guideline of the billing block because it's simple and 'avoids' conflict, but he's done it before at other articles and on that particular article was doing it before there was a billing block based on who he thought was important, and I just decided that he wasn't having that one and I was going to stick with the poster billing. He just would not let it go, it was crazy. To still be edit warring even after a block and other editors getting involved, he was far worse than I had realized. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I say something? I am not too impressed with his rather twisted ways of ensuring credits-based cast sections even when consensus is against him. Regarding Wonderstone, he can't leave enough alone with his repeated insistence of the latest thread being a separate issue when it is clearly about the original topic. He even asked me to provide an opinion on the article but went on the warpath when I wouldn't. Even had the nerve to borrow some words from my recent unblock request for one of his many improper edit summaries. Yeah, you're right - indeed worse. If need be, we should blacklist him from ALL FILM ARTICLES because he's clearly a disruption. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Replaced boxoffice.com as source for Box office gross instead of BOM

The title mentions it all. As soon I saw the box office gross was in significant figures I knew it would have been you. So I posted this message so you won't revert my edit. BOM only shows domestic gross but no foreign gross. It is shown as n/a although foreign gross for 2 countries is shown under foreign tab. This problem is occuring a lot these days on BOM with many films. As you might remember it happened with Dredd and The Man with the Iron Fists. I've replaced boxoffice.com as a source instead of BOM for many 2013 films. The difference between the 2 sources is very less. Only 21 & over has a very large difference between the two sources. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's has a foreign section on this site as you will see it here. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It does but what you aren't noticing that the total foreign gross is given as "n/a". The website is contradicting itself. Will you use your brain? It doesn't even qualify as a reliable source. I already knew it has a foreign section. You didn't read my earlier statement carefully. Try reading it again. I never said it doesn't have a foreign section I actually said it does have a foreign section. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation for discussion

You're invited to discuss and help sort out this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham Series

Hello, I thought that "Captain" Jim Gordon was irrelevant because Gordon was never a in a "Captain" position. He started as a Detective, then a Lieutenant, and finally Commissioner. Since this is an origin video game, and judging by the time period the game will take place in, I figured Gordon would be a detective. He was never a "Captain". Thank you. - Special:Contributions/174.95.150.186

The games are not the comics or tv shows, he can have been a captain in the comics, and when the information is sourced we go with the source unless conflicting information arises.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to keep a head's up

...for that disruptive high-school student changing stable boxofficemojo cites without consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Invite to discussion on RS/N.

You're invited to discuss and to help sort out this issue at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fast & Furious 6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luke Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to the Edit-warning noticeboard

You are invited to join in on the edit warning noticeboard here. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion had been closed by the time I got there, but he is already back at Burt Wonderstone attempting to restart the two novels worth of discussion already had over simply cast ordering. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I know. We need to keep an eye on Bluerules. Blocking Olympus Has Fallen for three days might not help much. One other thing, BR is discussing you on the conflict of his previous actions on this section of Master of Puppets talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

On that topic; while I understand you were frustrated with Bluerules during your dispute, throwing insults isn't the best idea. Technically, that (and a few other edits) are outright breaches of the no personal attacks policy. I'm not going to harangue you about it too much, since I know that disputes can get a bit heated. Just keep this in mind for next time. Regards, m.o.p 19:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It will be kept in mind m.o.p., though I dare anyone to keep their cool when dealing with an immovable force. Even now he perpetuates this Wonderstone cast list thing and it is like 6 weeks later. He will not drop it until he gets his way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The one thing, Darkwarrior, is that Bluerules is trying to do the same thing in Olympus Has Fallen. While in the talk page of that article, I did mentioned before that we should wait til the end credits and see how it looks, but the position on some of the actors in the end credits isn't the best and some of them that are that had a little more screen time then what they are listed in. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What are the credits done by on Olympus? Order of appearance? Alphabetically? If the poster billing block was in place first then the only reason to change it to the film credits is preference, which is how BlueRules seems to work though he will argue otherwise. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit scattered in some areas. Here the two diffs for you to see. [1] [2] BattleshipMan (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Prometheus portals

Hi! Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Use_of_Portals_in_film_articles WhisperToMe (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, thank you for your constructive reversions to my edit for the movie Prometheus. I also found a reference to Zeta 2 Reticuli in the Alien (film) entry and reverted it, likewise. Again, thanks.: (Plot bloat, trivia, OR, and unnecessary image made using OR to pinpoint fictional planet.) Ncsr11 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC).

FAC

Could you take a look at the FAC of Ra.One? Your input would be much appreciated. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a sock puppet.

I think we got a sock puppet on 145.129.97.10. I am kind of suspicious about this because some of that IP user's edits are from films that we're edited by Bluerules and KhanJohn27, based on that they have contributions on the films that they edited and some of them we reverted in the past. Might be coincidence or someone is user that IP address as a sock puppet. I think there should be an investigation on this. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Have either user ever edited about marketing budget because that user seems exclusively focused on that.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, KhanJohn27 knew that in boxoffice.com, the budget on those movies can be higher then on BOM, which either means marketing cost or they are inconsistent, butt I'm not so sure about this. I'm not 100% sure that there is either a sock puppet or it just coincidence. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP is apparently from Belgium, KahnJohn is from Germany according to his user page, so it's kinda close but pretty far apart and it doesn't say where he is living right now/ Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Press notes

Usually, just for the films I'm covering, but I've got access to epk.tv so I can usually pull stuff from there if I need. I'll check there to see if Lionsgate has anyting for Fast & Furious 6. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. All that's there so far is a one-pager:

FAST & FURIOUS 6 May 24, 2013

Genre: Action-Thriller
Cast: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges, Sung Kang, Luke Evans, Gina Carano, John Ortiz, Gal Gadot, Elsa Pataky
Based on Characters Created by: Gary Scott Thompson
Written by: Chris Morgan
Directed by: Justin Lin
Produced by: Neal H. Moritz, Vin Diesel, Clayton Townsend
Executive Producers: Justin Lin, Amanda Lewis, Samantha Vincent, Chris Morgan

Vin Diesel, Paul Walker and Dwayne Johnson lead the returning cast of all-stars as the global blockbuster franchise built on speed races to its next continent in Fast & Furious 6. Reuniting for their most high-stakes adventure yet, fan favorites Jordana Brewster, Michelle Rodriguez, Tyrese Gibson, Sung Kang, Gal Gadot, Chris “Ludacris” Bridges and Elsa Pataky are joined by badass series newcomers Luke Evans and Gina Carano.

Since Dom (Diesel) and Brian’s (Walker) Rio heist toppled a kingpin’s empire and left their crew with $100 million, our heroes have scattered across the globe. But their inability to return home and living forever on the lam have left their lives incomplete.

Meanwhile, Hobbs (Johnson) has been tracking an organization of lethally skilled mercenary drivers across 12 countries, whose mastermind (Evans) is aided by a ruthless second-in-command revealed to be the love Dom thought was dead, Letty (Rodriguez). The only way to stop the criminal outfit is to outmatch them at street level, so Hobbs asks Dom to assemble his elite team in London. Payment? Full pardons for all of them so they can return home and make their families whole again.

Building on the worldwide blockbuster success of Fast Five and taking the action, stunts and narrative to even greater heights, Fast & Furious 6 sees director Justin Lin back behind the camera for the fourth time. He is supported by longtime producers Neal H. Moritz and Vin Diesel, who welcome producer Clayton Townsend back to the series. www.thefastandthefurious.com --15:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Return of the King (cast edit)

Hi Darkwarriorblake,

I noticed that you reverted the edit I made yesterday on The Return of The King, could I ask why you did so? I mostly added information, so I appreciate if you felt this was superfluous, but I did correct what I think is a factual error (Eowyn and Faramir are not shown in the Houses of Healing in the theatrical version). I was about to restore that part, but I thought it would be useful to get clarification from you beforehand.

I've only recently registered and am unfamiliar with most codes of practice, so my apologies if I have unintentionally breached any. All the best. Theanthropologuy (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not notice the factual item, but the rest as far as I was reading was plot elements which, if notable, belong in the plot section. The cast features a brief description of each character, but should not be a retelling of their plot actions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I'll restore the factual element, and look to see if the plot section can be at all improved. Theanthropologuy (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Farewell

I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy the break, it helps trust me, have fun. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Mysterio merge proposal

Since January there has been a proposal to merge Mysterio (Francis Klum) into Mysterio. So far there have been only two comments, so I don't want to close the debate until a few more people chime in. You have always shown yourself to be a level-headed editor, so please post your opinion. Thank you. Spidey104 13:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World Page Protection

Just wanted you to know that I just request semi-protection for Thor: The Dark World, as all the recent edits have just been IP vandals and myself, you and a few other editors just reverting them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for all the hard work at Hulk (comics). Major props, dude! --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's ok, I've copied the publication history over to The Incredible Hulk (comic book), so I think that of Hulk (comics) now needs to be boiled down to the essential parts relating to the characters publication like Superman and not the comic book(s) as it is now, it's covering like 4 different Hulk books. The characterization/personality section eventually deviates into just plot retelling and duplicates info so it'd probably be a good place to remove a lot of redundancy too. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Help?

Given you did a great job with a few horror movie articles - specially the Scream one - despite the "maybe I'm burnt out" notice, can you take a look at The Evil Dead, given the GA reviewer is requesting a copyedit? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 22:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Conory in Arkham Origins

Hey Dark. I was just watching again the video of Kevin at the Dallas Comic-Con, and listening to him speak, he doesn't clearly say he's working on Origins, only the next Arkham game. Even an IGN article up today says Batman is voiced by Roger Craig Smith. Could we have accidentally done some WP:SYNTH? It is possible that Rocksteady is working on a true sequel to City (my thoughts) and he could have been meaning this one. I'm not sure. Just wanted your opinion and thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, hard to say because he said he'd been working on the game and could talk about it because it had been announced, and this [3] says that WB has confirmed its smith and baker, so conroy might be voicing batman but not the young Batman, perhaps the older one narrating or something. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's actually a bit of a nuisance now, someone added a source from Batman News that says Conroy was talking about a 4th game. Batman_news isn't really a great source, and it also undermines other sources which say that Conroy is in it in some capacity and one I added which had Conroy saying he'd spent 10 months working on the game and they had spent a year writing it. So now we don;t know which game he was talking about. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. While I do love Batman News, I do know that it is a fan site, and it's reliability can come into question (however, it usually is good at citing its sources). I'm not sure how to move forward with this at the moment, because it seems like there is still a LARGE question in the air as to what he actually meant. This other IGN article may be good to cite, as it seems to encompass what's happening. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think for the moment I'll have to remove the stuff about the time spent on the game and writing it at least, I'll save it for later as it might be relevant to the next game. The Conroy stuff will just need to be kept separate so it is easier to manage and update/remove as time moves on. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Well I added from the IGN article about what he could have meant. Take from it and rearrange it how you like. I'll assist after I see how you want to reorganize it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize

I'm sorry. I did not realize this was old news. I'd just heard it today. SalaComMander (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

S'ok Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Prometheus Viral 3 - David.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Prometheus Viral 3 - David.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

external videos

I am not sure you know this so I just thought I would let you know. External images/videos are usually supposed to link to the source of where it comes from. For example: Sony imageworks youtube site for The Amazing Spider-Man's effects .Personally if there is no original place for it still existing (which is usually the case with viral marketing) I myself might let it slide but I am not sure everybody is like that.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I thought as much but those were the only ones showing up on Youtube. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Fast & Furious 6" title.

The title is also not Fast & Furious 6 everywhere. I thought we were using the American title. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, man. I was just trying to help. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/crowded-memorial-weekend-kick-off-hangover-iii-opens-to-hot-3-1m-late-shows/
• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1905041/
• http://www.regmovies.com/Movies/Movie-Folder/2013/Fast-Furious-6-155438?ka=1#
• http://www.thefastandthefurious.com/splashpage/
• http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/fast-furious-6-2013-3

Feel free to stop me any time you think that Fast & Furious 6 isn't the common name, the main name, the advertised, the released, promoted, marketed and known name and yes, the American name if you want to be jingoistic, Iron Man 3 is stylized on screen as Iron Man Three, the article is still Iron Man 3. I'm sorry for the tone used but people moving articles without discussion is becoming a frequent experience of mine. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's fine. You're absolutely right. It was foolish of me. I had thought about making a discussion after I had already moved it. I was going to move it back, but you beat me to it. We learn from our mistakes and this was a good teaching experience. I was confused as to if we put the most common title, or the one in the film and I made the wrong call. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Arkham Series Page

I was wondering if you have seen the Batman: Arkham Asylum (series) that was created by User:TreCoolGuy. This user has made quite a few (Iron Man in film, Captain America in film) articles that have been largely copy and pasted and poorly written and organized. They seem to also be prepping a Thor in film page, by writing on their talk page (as the previously mentioned pages have been done as well). I was thinking about creating an article for the series, but somewhat along the lines of how the Assassin's Creed series page is laid out. For one, I feel if there was a series page, it should be titled Batman: Arkham series, or along those lines. I was probably going to start sandboxing something to get an idea of what I was thinking, but wanted your thoughts on this. Rework it? Nominate for deletion? Other idea? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of series pages for things with so few games, but I guess if you include the handheld and IOs games, the comics, the merchandise, it's notable somewhat. My major issue with it at the moment is, as you said, the massive, lazy copy paste and the made up Arkham Asylum (series) name, Batman: Arkham is better but I'm still not sure it's official, maybe someone involved in the series has referred to it as something besides "the arkham games". The ridiculous cast list also needs to go, the Asssassin's creed article you linked doesn't feature this and it's over the top here. If you decide to work on it, I don't mind doing small things, but I don't want to get massively invested in it as it's a lot of work trying to get the remaining two games to FA plus the film articles I work on and Dishonored. If you want to nominate it for deletion however I would support that nomination while you work on your own project.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The cast list was the major issue I had with the article as well. As for the name, I've really only seen it mentioned as the Arkham games, Arkhamverse, or Rocksteady's Batman games (which wouldn't even apply now). I will attempt to get something relatively workable in the coming weeks in my sandbox, and let you know to see what I've done. As for now, I don't even know what to do with the page. If I blank it, there isn't really a good article to redirect it too because the name is horrible, so nominate it for deletion? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess so, at the very least it's improperly named, unsourced, copy pasted, and a general mess. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion was denied. Will bring the page to AfD. Also, if you want to get an idea of what I was thinking and working on, this is what I've got so far. sandbox 2 I copied most of it from the Assassin's Creed Page and have not gotten around to deleting all of that info yet (more of a place holder to remind me of the type of content to add). And I was going to look at as many videogame series pages as I can to see what is similar to them, and what may work on this, if decided to create it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We were too busy noticing that page that I guess we never payed attention to this page. :/ Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed, and replied on Batman: Arkham Asylum (series) talk page to your post. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion on what to call the article now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I just did a bit of work on the The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift page reducing the plot here. Can you give it a once over please just to check for grammar/making sense etc. That would be awesome! Thank you. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Prometheus

Regarding Talk:Prometheus (2012 film), I do not think your sardonic reply is warranted per WP:BITE. We should be able to respond to the IP editor's concerns in a reasonable manner. The comment may have been hostile, but that does not warrant us returning the hostility. We should take the high road and explain how such articles are based on policies, guidelines, and consensus. We could at least learn why this particular reader found the article lacking. Like I said on the talk page, it may not have been covered a particular way yet, or we may be leaving out some content that could cover the topic further. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit War

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. TJD2 (talk)

What a dick, "wah, I'm not getting my own way and ignoring the WP: BRD policy you linked to get my own way ignoring that historical fiction is linked in the lede in an appropriate way because it isn't a genre and because a year is more useful, I'm gonna be a big boy and use the automated tagging service to warn you so you will think I wield some kind of authority to be a policy ignoring douche". That's you btw. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

While I can defend your revert and the reasons behind it, BRD is not a reason to ignore the 3 revert rule.. BRD is an essay, while useful, no one is obliged to follow it. 3RR is part of a policy. Anyhoo, the issue should be discussed - from what I gather linking to historical is not really appropriate here, firstly it's not historical, it's historical fiction (or fictional history), which is something completely different. Evening mentioning this is probably unnecessary, historical fiction is already linked on the articles that I looked at in the second paragraph in the lead.. Яehevkor ✉ 21:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What the difference between linking second time on a name than the first one? User:Shookallen88 July 19, 2013

Read the article's talk page, because despite your short memory we've already had this discussion so you know what the difference is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This is User:Shookallen88 just like to say sorry for all the bs over fast five and 6, it was stupid and I was a junk about it, and I like to move on from this. So no more fighting over edits. 2:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.158.23 (talk)

If you can leave fast 6 they way I had, then why not fast five. Give a good reason instead of being hard about it then might think about stopping. Reporting me isn't going to get me stop. User:Shookallen88 12:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Batman-Arkham-Origins-Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Batman-Arkham-Origins-Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey hey

Just a heads up, you seem to be edit warring over in Fast and Furious 6. Just wanted to let you know that on GA articles I have seen, in particular Skyfall, the figures are not rounded but updated precisely as to what Box Office Mojo or another reliable source have said. That is the general particular style that is used. I may have it wrong, but perhaps other WP:FILM editors such as Betty Logan or Erik or SchroCat can confirm. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no guideline, and with no guideline and no justification for change, lazy editors like the editor in question copy/pasting from box office mojo without bothering to update the rest of the article have no backing for messing with the format. I've raised every good article I've worked on since Fast Five using that formatting and it has never been an issue, nor prevented Prometheus from becoming a Featured Article. At the end of the day BOM's figure is an estimate, no reputable news sites report the figure in a long-form manner because they are estimates. We use BOM, we could just as easily use one of 3-4 other sources but we use BOM because it's easier and consistent but it's figures are not even always accurate based on its own information, not updating foreign information or a total gross even when it has the foreign information. And at the end of the day the figures beyond the first 3-4 are meaningless. If it earned 403,544,323, what meaning is there to anything after the 5? The 44,323 is an insignificant amount in comparison that would only have bearing if it impacted some ranking between a film that was 403,544,323 and a film that was 403,534,323, which is the other reason the figures are rounded on the industry sites. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

But the consensus at the moment, across multiple articles is that we use the long figures. It is not lazy to copy/paste from BOM. I see that you raised the issue before and from that there was no real consensus or discussion either way. The info box is ideal for posting precise figures like that and it is a lot easier to read rounded numbers within the context of the article. Either way, you shouldnt be trying to shout down another editor just because you don't like it. Especially when another editor comes along and disagrees with you also. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

New Message

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. You have new messages at Midnightstrike3625's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please enjoy an American! Cheeseburger

Thank you very much for wading into the lovely discussion we've been having regarding American Dad!. Greatly appreciated! Doniago (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fast & Furious 6

Isn't the standard to write out the entire gross thus far, as can be seen here, here, here, here, here, and here? It seems like the majority write the number out. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#To_Round_or_not_to_Round_that_is_the_question. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham Asylum

Hi Darkwarriorblakel, I'm beginning the copy-edit to the above article that you requested at the GOCE Requests page. Please feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert my edits if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Baffle, was hoping you'd do it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries :-) Regarding the "Reception" section (you know what I'm like with those!), I'm finding that most of the direct quotations lack quotation marks. It's probably not your mistake but it's something you should keep an eye open for; FA reviewers hate finding these kind of obvious omissions and it falls foul of WP:MOSQUOTE. Further Actually it's not as bad as I feared, but I'll still need to do a full source check which will slow me down significantly. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Different people react to quotes differently, I've had people remove them for being short, so I just avoided them here, I don't think there were any direct quotations. Is there a reason you're putting Batman: Arkham Asylum in quotes? I was gonna fix it to italics but thought there may be a reason behind it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oops, it's my silly mistake, feel free to fix it or I'll do so when I recommence copy-editing. There were two or three quotations in the forst three paras that didn't have quotation marks, and I thought there were more but those are properly paraphrased. You're right about varied reactions to quotations; I suppose each reviewer brings his/her own experience to the article. I usually remove quote marks around quotes shorter than one sentence clause, for example if an article says Critic Joe Bloggs said the game was "brilliant" and "enjoyable", I'll remove those quote marks or expand the quotation—single- or two-word quotations don't really say much and can be mistaken for Scare quotes. Thanks for spotting my own error! :-0 Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You're thinking of the sequel -> 6th British Academy Video Games Awards.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I spotted that one quickly and reverted myself, and later added the correct link; thanks for noticing it though! :-) Anyway I'm done; feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit, and good luck with your planned FA nom. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you Baffle! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

So I have a few quick questions about the CE while I touch it up towards submitting it to FAC.

• In the character section you removed several characters from the section about other character references, why was that?

In this diff: "including" doesn't mean a complete list of mentioned characters, so I though it best to summarise there. If the characters don't appear in the game, they shouldn't be given undue weight; also see WP:GAMEGUIDE.

Fair enough. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Same for the part about the secret room in the Warden's office. I think you said it spoke about the sequel? I dunno, I thought it was interesting that they had embedded it in Asylum before hte game was released.

Yes, in this diff I removed that text, I thought it was awkwardly phrased and removed it as extraneous material, though I summarised the connected narratives. I'll add that part back in—but I found some a little confusing. How did the secret room stay hidden for six months? Was it released as an online update or was it already hidden but accessible in the game's released version and players hadn't discovered it?

It was in there but no one had found it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That might be worth mentioning, if it can be referenced.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• And just this line in the sequel section, "Batman: Arkham City, set one year after the events of Arkham Asylum, is the sequel to the earlier game." It just seems to read a bit awkward to me.

I wanted to avoid a repetition of Arkham Asylum there. I can't see how I'd write that more clearly; what would you suggest here? Feel free to rephrase as you wish.

I'll take a look, it's the sequel to the earlier game part that is throwing me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean now; it's a little difficult because it's a section-opening sentence. You could always wait and see whether the reviewer picks it out. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:American Dad!". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 13:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Blake, you are a great contributor, but I am worried that you are no longer enjoying editing on Wikipedia. I don't like that we've butted heads, but I have said what I said because being an editor is more than about adding content. We have to deal with all kinds of personalities, ranging from obvious vandals to sneaky vandals to guidelines-disobeying editors to aesthetic-disagreeing editors to mass-wrongly-editing editors. It can be damned frustrating sometimes, especially if it is an article that we've worked on. Yes, it can suck that one has to go through the channels of trying to engage in discussion and contacting other editors for input, even over such small matters like a secondary blue link, but it is the higher road. You've talked about being burned out, both on your user page and again with the infobox discussion, so I hope you'll consider taking a wikibreak of sorts. If you're reluctant to leave behind articles that you've done, remember that you can go back in the page history and restore the original version. Or even ask other editors to watchlist your work for you. I think it would help to unplug and to realize how unimportant this is at the end of the day. What matters is what readers learn. If you do try to stick around, I hope you'll consider moving slowly in content disputes. Put yourself above that fray. Even if my suggestions do not match the situations you feel you've experienced, I hope you can find a way to match them anyway. You do great work, and I don't want you to lose your head over it. So much of what you do will stay indefinitely. That should be a huge and enduring point of pride. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral Notice

Hello, as an editor with an interest in science fiction I would like to invite you to a discussion taking place over here in the Man of Steel (film) talk page. Thanks. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Shiney, I haven't seen the film yet so not something I can comment on. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here

Hey Darkwarriorblake

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Hey! I wanted to say hello and inform you that I have taken Pirates of the Caribbean: Armada of the Damned to FAC. The nomination page is here. Comments are welcome :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets

Darkwarriorblake, thank-you for your suggestions on your FA review! Please return and indicate your Support. —Prhartcom (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Die Hard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Detective (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused

Since you participated in a relevant prior move discussion for Dazed and Confused, I hereby invite you to comment in the new discussion that I just opened. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

TreCoolGuy

Your the burden.

My the burden what? First, it's "you're" or "you are". Second no one wants to stop you contributing, your tendency to just contribute nonsense or constantly in the face of policy or the edits of others makes you no friends where people have tried to help you. Any time I see you doing something on here it's generally if not always negative. Take the information people give you on board and learn from it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Tre, you're a burden because you add unsourced content (Evans reprising his role) or make assumptions (Vin Diesel in the film) about the content of some references. Other editors, such as myself, Darkwarriorblake, or TriiipleThreat, have to waste our time removing it. Please stop and pay attention to the information in the links we have provided to you multiple times in multiple locations. Spidey104 18:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Dredd

Please note that you are in 3RR territory with this article. Thank you. Taroaldo ✉ 22:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at [{Dredd]] as a disinterested third party. I have to say, I agree with you that Home media should be below the sections dealing with the film's theatrical release, and I have no idea why WP:MOSFILM puts it as a subsection of Release. And as much as I don't care for that, the style guide is the style guide, and we can't really go against it except in unusual cases where there's a logical rationale for doing it differently — the way a film with complex, multiple, back-and-forth narratives like Pulp Fiction can go beyond the usual 700-word limit of WP:FILMPLOT. So my heart's with you but my hands are tied.

On the bright side, The Wolverine opens in the U.S. tomorrow.... --Tenebrae (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I might go see it next week, it seems to open everywhere. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Game of Thrones Awards

I don't really know how to reference like you have but here is the link http://www.emmys.com/award_history_search?person=&program=game+of+thrones&start_year=1949&end_year=2013&network=All&web_category=All&winner=All Hope this helps!

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Orange Is the New Black may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• includes prison guards Maxwell (Lolita Foster), Wade Donaldson (Brendan Burke), and J. Thompson (Harold Surratt(. [[Deborah Rush]] portrays Piper's mother Carol, [[Todd Susman]] and [[Kathryn Kates]] portray

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Dredd petition

About my edit that you reverted ([4]), firstly it is not advertising to link to a fan page. You may argue that it's not a proper source (though I would argue that it is perfectly proper to use a Facebook petition as a primary source for a sentence mentioning that petition), though I've found journalistic articles that mention the petition. As far as I'm aware, the fans on Facebook created their petition first, which was then endorsed by 2000AD (who also now have their own "Official" petition). I'll try to rewrite both sentences into one, mentioning both petitions. --Hibernian (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Linking to a petition on top of an independent source reporting on the petition is advertising, you cannot justify needing a facebook link when you have a news source giving a third party view of the facebook page. Then linking to the 2000AD petition on top of the source talking about the petition is advertising, it's an attempt to spam links to promote the petitions. It is advertising. Conflict of Interest. Any number of things. The links have been removed. And as far as I can see, the 2000AD petition and the fan petition are the same thing, just endorsed by 2000 AD which is what Dredd already said. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC

This is a neutral request for comments at Talk:The Avengers: Age of Ultron#Evans.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Better distinction on Arkham Origins

Hey Dark. Quick comment/food for thought on this edit. Not all of the skins are considered pre-order bonuses (such as the DC One Million and Worst Nightmare one) and same with the PS3 exclusive content. I understand the intent to include everything together, but in that form it's not the most accurate. Should those three items (One Million, Nightmare, and PS3 content) be readded to the retail section? I believe at least Worst Nightmare and the PS3 stuff should, as we don't have any more details to know how the One Million skin will be released. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup that was it. Thanks. But what of the skins? I'm not to sure on them myself. I know the ones you just added are pre-order ones, but what of the others? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure because i think the Worst Nightmare skin is just unlocked for completing the game. Maybe Pre-order Bonuses should be renamed to additional content or something. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Just made an edit. See what you think of the rewording and reformatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Short Circuit may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• out to explore its new life. ''Short Cirtcuit'' stars [[Ally Sheedy]], [[Steve Guttenberg]], [{Fisher Stevens]], [[Austin Pendleton]], and [[G. W. Bailey]], with [[Tim Blaney]] as the voice of Johnny Five.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Warner Bros. Games Montréal may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Reflist|30em|refs=
• <ref name="WBGM1">{{cite web|url=http://ca.ign.com/companies/warner-bros-games-montreal|title=WB Games -- Montreal|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Spirited Away#Character page?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spirited Away#Character page?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ghostfacemaskdiscovery.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ghostfacemaskdiscovery.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham Origins

Hey, I have contributed very important details to Batman: Arkham Origins and I don't appreciate you telling me off. Show the least bit of respect, I'm trying to help make this the article up-to date and very informative. If you had a problem, you could have resolved it without it needing to become an issue. Instead you think you can talk down to me like I'm a little child. Ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWE Batman131 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WB Montreal

Hello I was wondering if you could check out Warner Bros. Games Montreal. I cant get my references right. Please Help. Thanks Mainstreammark (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)