User talk:Bignole/Archive 1

Link
In reference to the article Superman Returns, you said that "2006 is already linked where is [sic] states the release date. The page only needs one link for 2006, one of those needs to be removed." but it doesn't link to the same page so the link is, in my opinion, useful. If there is some standard, then please point me to that and I will be very grateful for a learning opportunity. I hope that clears things up. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this any further. --Eric Jack Nash 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Punishment and Evil
I've been reverted twice on punishment by individuals claiming "evil" is inherently POV. I've explained how its not. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean? Typos 06:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Evil This is what differentiates punishment from a mere penalty. Penalties are inflicted for minor violations. They are usually licensing fees paid out after the fact (e.g. you get a 75 dollar fine for parking at an expired meter). Punishments, on the other hand, are inflicted for far more serious violations. And consequently, punishment is far harsher in its scope and application. Evil is not an overstatement.

That said, thank you for the reply. At this point consensus seems to be running against me, so this is mostly a moot point. Meh. Typos 17:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Spiderman 3
Nice one...g00d job finding out the differences between Spiderman 2 & 3. I also said to my self, why would there be a pic, when they are starting to make the movie!? Anyway...still. The creator did the same just like the official one.

Damn...you did show my @ss:P
 * &gt;x&lt;ino 18:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea you are right! I didn't see that picture anywhere els, at Superherohype and Countingdown. But some guy posted that picture at Countindown.com (message board)

The person that created that picture, did a terrific job! Damn!

I would perfer his work, than Sony's teaser picture:P

By the way, there will be 2 villains, Sand man & Venom. Harry as been comfirmed to be the next goblin (Hobgoblin). So I am wondering, will Venom & Sand Man are to be in it, will Harry be in it? I am thinking Harry might appear in Spiderman 4

But Peter will meet a new girl in his life, "Betty". It is said that someone close to Peter will die in this movie. And I am greatly sure it will be Betty, cuz it's official. Because in Spidy comics, She dies, and dies by the hands of Green Goblin. So Harry will have to be in this movie.

What about Venom? In Spidy cartoon, one the old one, it's kinda like modern, the cartoon that sometimes have 3D buildings. In that cartoon, Spidey had the venom custome before, then abandoned it, and the venom came to Eddy Brook. I am thinking, the ending of this movie, might be Peter leaving the Venom suit, and the suit meeting up with Eddy, then Venom will appear in Spiderman 4

Sorry, if this is a spoiler:P I must be working for Sony Pictures;P

3 villians in this movie.w0w...3 hours long...like Lord of The rings:)
 * &gt;x&lt;ino 22:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, Harry will play the new Green Goblin, IGN, got that leaked information.
 * If Venom isnt going to be in it,..then what about The Lizard Man?

Sorry getting you confused with the "Betty will die" thing. I meant Gwen Stacy will die.

But Why would they want to kill Mary Jane off!? If you look at Spidy history comics & cartoons, you will find out Mary Jane didn't die. Accept the misunderstanding...

Goodness, 2007 is a long year!
 * &gt;x&lt;ino 23:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

But Riami did follow the series...like when Peter was losing is powers. Yea it's true, not many directors follow the games, comics or cartoon, beccause if they do, then they will require alot of movie for that games, comics or cartoon. Yea Dunst did say that, but she doesn't even know that much of SpidermAn. Hey, I would sit for 3 hours:) 3 Hours of action!

But I would love to see Black Cat, but it will get the movie mixed up and can even make the director make more movies of Spidy. And you are right, Harry can be a Lex Luthour type, ording Sand Man to kill Peter.
 * &gt;x&lt;ino 05:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember reading that a few days ago. I say he was just being coy--trying to cover up for all the dead give-aways that have popped up lately. Even if he was being coy though, that IS in fact what the suit should represent in the film. I don't think Raimi would allow the Venom plot to be as two-dimensional (pun intended) as it is in the comics. He really wants it to mean something... I hope. Jason 07:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, not that any further proof of IMDb's unreliability is needed, for the time being they have Aunt May listed as Carnage. No joke. Jason 07:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyborg
Wow, that was quick. I had only jsut changed it, realised my mistake a couple of seconds later, but you'd already changed it back. Impressive wikiing LukeSurl

AVP
Thanks for your message on my talk page. What I actually did was revert your edit (see and the previous edit ) due to the way you formatted "According to Superherohype.com". Using bullet points for citations isn't recommended in any medium and not suggested in the WP style guide. (Also bad is the use of bullet points for headings, as your user page does) Anyway, perhaps you could find the link and add it to the end of the sentence? That way, a user does not have to hunt around the site to verify the claim. Just to re-iterate -- I don't doubt the accuracy, I just objected to the way you formatted it. My apologies for not voicing this in the edit summary. :) Regards, Lambyuk 12:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it and edited in here. Regards, Lambyuk 13:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Punishment
OK, thank you. :-)

Sorry if I've been a bit harsh on the talk page, but I don't want to lose the common "man in the street" justfication for punishment from the article (and it does have a philosophical pedigree, whatever your opinion of philosophy :-) Evercat 01:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think we're talking at cross-purposes somewhat - you want to talk about what punishment should be, whereas I want to talk about what it is. You want to talk about why an ideal society might have punishments, whereas I want to talk about why actual societies have punishments. Would that be a fair way to sum up our disagreement?

From an NPOV perspective though, I think we must be descriptive more than prescriptive... Evercat 01:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What I see is you pointing to punishment as to what certain people in society thinks it is, and I am pointing to the other people. My point is that it's only aversive if it doesn't change the behavior, and aversive doesn't even have to be bad. Some people enjoy prison. How can it be punishment if it's enjoyable? Bignole 01:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Talkpage.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Talkpage.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 00:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Run.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Run.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angr (t • c) 15:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Facade.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Facade.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angr (t • c) 15:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Smallville 402 gone.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Smallville 402 gone.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angr (t • c) 15:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology
I'm sorry I accused you of the original bad edit. I acknowledge also failing to fix the capitalization. It looks good now. Thank you. SigmaEpsilon → &Sigma;&Epsilon; 22:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Images
OK, if I find any more Smallville images I'll leave them for now. Some have already gone, I'm afraid. Remember, however, there are other admins and I might not be the only one who gets round to them! The ones I deleted had been tagged "no source" since the 9th May, and the OrphanBot image tag checker had already removed them more than once from some articles. I hope you can rescue the remaining Smallville images by putting a valid source on them soon. Best wishes, RobertG &#9836; talk 12:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Also remember to provide as much detail as possible. "From Kryptonite.com" is insufficient because that is not the source -- it might be the source of that actual file, but in terms of copyright, it is not the source. The source is the show -- specify the episode title, copyright holder, who can be seen in frame, etc... You also need a detailed fair use rationale: this is essential for images uploaded after 4 May 2006. The JPS   talk to me  13:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and when you use, could you ensure that it is actually a screenshot. The meta-data says that Image:Facade.jpg is not a screenshot, and, thus, the source you have just provided is incorrect. As far as I know Kryptonite.com do not own the copyright for this image, so using that as the source is inapplicble, I'm afraid.  The JPS   talk to me  18:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Good edit
Very good edit on removing that blatantly POV paragraph inserted into X-Men: The Last Stand. That kind of watchdog effort is so needed, since so many editors just don't seem to take the time to read up on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. My kudos to you. -- Tenebrae 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

X3
Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Madchester 23:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Madchester 23:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. If or when the block expires, please refrain from vandalizing or this account will face longer blocks, and action could be taken against the individual who uses it. --Madchester 23:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism
Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not remove warning templates from other editors. Thanks. --Madchester 00:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock
I am unblocking you because content disputes are not vandalism. However, you have been engaged in edit warring and continuing to revert could result in a block for violation of the three revert rule. Please try to find a compromise solution. I have suggested including mention of the supposed scene for now, but listing it as something which has been reported but not absolutely confirmed. We'll know for sure one way or the other in three days anyway. --CBDunkerson 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

X-Men
TYPICALLY a term should only be linked once in a page. However, because of the table, a wikilink there would be quite useful. --InShaneee 01:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a guideline, not a policy. Usefulness trumps nitpicky things such as this, especially in such a large article. --InShaneee 01:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't split talk-page remarks
I know Wikipedia has a lot of rules, and I don't know all of them myself by a long shot, but we're not supposed to break up other editors' signed postings.

I'm going to put mine back it together and place it in its original place on Talk: X-Men: The Last Stand. No problem; I know you didn't do it maliciously. -- Tenebrae 21:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the nice response on my page! That was thoughtful. -- Tenebrae 21:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Horror movies
Y'know, I noticed on your user page that you're into horror movies (and it's cool you're watching the Universal classics currently). You might want to try the early (1970s) films of director Dario Argento, whose movie Tenebrae (film) inspired my screen name. The Italian-horror sensibility is very unlike that of American cinema, and Argento's sheer weirdness and the unspeakable beauty of his photography is a breath of fresh air. Just recommending, and hope you have a chance to enjoy. -- Tenebrae 22:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I found "Tenebrae" easier to spell...! :-)  Happy screenings to you! -- Tenebrae 22:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the kind words! I might disagree about the value of knowledgable professional critics, and WikiFilm may want them in an article, but it's nice to know we can discuss things like people. Facto and I are signed up for mediation, so we'll take it from there.
 * My view? As long we keep horror on the screen and off the streets, I'm good.
 * BTW, I've lived in Fla. and got family there. It's got a lot of natural beauty. Enjoy it while you're down there. Cheers -- Tenebrae 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

X-Men: The Last Stand
You're right! I should have said "crazed Ratner fans"! :-) The ironic thing is, I liked the movie. But I recognize it got extremely mixed reviews, and WikiProject Film guidelines are to recognize critics' opinions. Actually, given the vociferousness, I'm suspecting a person on the Talk page is probably from Ratner's office. I mean, who else would care? Oy, oy, oy! -- Tenebrae 23:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I dunno. Is stating the existence of a critical consensus biased? One can use metrics such as the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate, of course. But if, say, most critics find John Carpenter's Halloween to be suspensful and effective, and most critics find, just to pull a title out, Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan to not be not so much so, don't you think the critical consensus can be stated, and relevant?
 * On a separate but related note, there are one or two people who seem to shriek at the mere suggestion that most critics were not particularly taken with Ratner's direction. Why such emotional response, do you suppose? -- Tenebrae 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Horror WikiProject
I noticed you seem to particularly be interested in improving articles related to the Nightmare On Elm Street series, so I thought I'd invite you to join the Horror WikiProject, an attempt to improve the presence and quality of cinematic and fictional horror on Wikipedia. It hasn't been up too long, but its a steadily growing group. All the best anyway -- LuciferMorgan 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

X3
What grammar edits? I haven't ignored the talk page. I have kept your semicolon. I have also made the case for my placement of the word "reluctantly." Wolverine is reluctant to kill Jean Grey. We don't disagree on that. But I don't comprehend why you want to put the emphasis on his stabbing her, when it's the killing that upsets him more. To stab someone is one thing. To kill someone is another. He kills her reluctantly. It's incidental that he uses his claws. I would ask that you make this compromise, just as I accepted your choice of semicolon. --Chris Griswold 12:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Bignole, dude, you're a good guy. There's no need to take a swipe at anyone on the edit summaries. We've all been playing nice, and this is a marathon, not a sprint. Article edits smoothen out over time. Heaven knows, Facto and I have butted heads, but with other editors pitching in, the disputed Reception section is actually slowly coming into shape. Same thing will happen here if we just keep working on it in good faith, and compromise. Best regards, -- Tenebrae 13:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Once we get this over with, we can hug. For warmth. --Chris Griswold 13:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you're making fun of me there, CG.
 * In any case, for what it's worth, I read the very long text of the arguments back and forth, which Big placed on my talk page, and as someone outside the argument, I would say that the point is that Wolverine killed her. The manner in which he killed her is really beside the point.


 * "Reluctantly" seems relevant; the context of the killing affects the story's meaning. Was it a vengeful killing? Was it an inadvertent homicide (as very often happens movies)? Was it reluctant? Was it executioner-dispassionate? -- Tenebrae 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me of another concession I have made to Bignole. I don't think "reluctantly" belongs there at all. No one assumes he wants to kill her. --Chris Griswold 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Big, please sign your new post on my page. Also, it's Wikiquette to separate and indent additions. Thanks--Tenebrae 15:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And reading above, it does seem as if splitting the difference would be fair. CG gets killing as opposted to stabbing, Big gets "reluctantly". This sound like a workable compromise? -- Tenebrae 15:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, at the risk of opening up a can of mutant worms, User:P-Chan seemed to do a nice edit that, far as I know, seems to reflect both your and Chris' views: "Momentarily gaining control, Jean begs Wolverine to save her; reluctantly ending Jean's life, Wolverine tell her he loves her and kills her with his claws."
 * On another issue, I've asked editors to weigh in on including the one mainstream film critic who's also a comics writer. Please see just above Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand, and, if you want, let anyone else know who's been involved in the page.
 * Back to you and Chris, I hope my butting-in was more helpful than not. Tenebrae 01:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't even reading my talk page! Smaller postings, dude!  :- )  -- Tenebrae 01:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To reply to your comment on my talkpage Bigole... I didn't even know you guys were having this discussion. :) --P-Chan 02:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Same thing eh? That's a good sign.  That means we're working with a similar interpretation of the same sets of policies and expectations out there and are NOT simply making decisions based on personal preference.  Good stuff.--P-Chan 03:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Spidey
I supose that could be the case, though blowing up images only makes them that much more unreadable. I rephrased it to be more speculative. I'm relatively sure that reads Brock at the end. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. With all the hype behind this guy, I'm starting to wonder if he's going to appear, too. They'd normally have revealed it by this point. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rhino? Not sure. I have my doubts. It's a pretty bloated villian list as is. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wonder how. I say cut it and get confirmation. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

smallville season 4
Hey thanks for helping out, I'm watching the epsiodes now and acquiring images as I watch the season. As far as the epsiode "run" goes where you changed it back to the orignial because it was cropped I ask that you leave it on the images I had because all the other images are 640x352 and it just looks odd that just run is different. And the images I have are in widescreen and could be more useful to those who appreciate HDTV and the 16:9 ratio. Though if it bothers you too much I guess run.jpg is ok. --DragonWR12LB 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It looked smushed for me too you just have to delte your temp internet files, I did and it looks grrrrrreat now. I guess run is fine my OCD will just have to be set aside :( --DragonWR12LB 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion. The guest character lists should probably be named with something like "List of Smallville characters in Season 6". The all capital titles are frowned upon. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns
Already a step ahead of you. I editted the revision before yours. Your edit has been readded. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * More than happy to help. The protection will keep this isolated until things can be sorted out. Went up a lot quicker than I expected. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's Kowalski. I fucked up the move and haven't replaced the incorrect version yet. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Forget about it. I merged her into the main article. She's not an especially large character and she'll only remain a stub article. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

History
Due to your history with targeting user's talk pages in the past, and being blocked for vandalism, I am disregarding your warnings, as I view them as personal attacks. Please do not contact me in any way, or I will be forced to report you. CmdrClow 02:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Superman Lives
Yay! I get to ask for help. Seriously though, mind participating in the Superman Lives discussion? I'm dealing with the same "Supes II goes into Supes Returns" anon. The article looks terrible in present tense and I've already got him on the three revert rule, but I'd like a second opinion. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 15:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the tense used in the article. The entire thing is written from a storyteller's point of view (he is excited, they sign him on, etc.) even though the event has long since past. I switched it to past tense for a better read, but he just keeps reverting to his own version. It's really quite frustrating. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 15:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The talk page for the article notes the tense. No less than two users note the tense flipping present. The references seem to be questionable, too. Your approach sounds like a good idea. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 15:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

CmdrClow report on WP:RFI
A quick look at the most recent contributions by seems to suggest correct signing of talk page comments. The warnings are in place on the usertalk page as well, so I won't take any specific action at this point in time. Might be better if you report any future vandalism (if any) to allow an admin to post the warnings (normally you'd be encouraged to post them yourself, but in this case they will probably cause more trouble). Providing diffs from the edit histories will help with that. Petros471 18:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns
What comment did I revert? The only thing I reverted was a link to Template:- which I was assuming was made in error. AlistairMcMillan 02:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just checked again and I did revert the comment you added just previously. Sorry I just meant to remove the template link.  AlistairMcMillan 02:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't help what time the estimates were posted, but there they were so I added them. It's 8:00 P.M. now and the yahoo news section is reporting the same estimates that I put into the article around 2:30 today, which is 52.1 million dollars for the June 30-July 2 weekend. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Full Moon
Hey man, thanks for looking at it. I use to work with some people during the Tempe DV times of the company, and I thought it was time that Full Moon got a real entry on here. I plan on adding that in the next week or so, but I want to make sure I have a complete list, and yeah, I plan on doing it by year. Full Moon has a vast catalog of films through all genres, so I'm working on it. But yeah, thanks for the support!

Superman Returns
It repeats apart of it yes (that's why it is indented to the one above) but even with a change in effects, its an error in logic. If he couldn't maintain a fight standing on the island, it is inconceivable that he would be able to pick it up (the mass of that thing would be too much) and fly it space. Given the benefit of the doubt that the part he is holding is plated in lead, he still has a piece of kryptonite in his skin... it's inconsitent with what happened a few scenes priorZero X Marquis 05:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I know that the Trivia section is supposed to be, well, trivial, but it seemed to me that it was getting weighed down with stuff that only the most ardent Superman fan would care about, and I was attempting to draw some sort of line. I should have checked the Talk page. :-) Chris 42 17:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

About what you presented on my talk page; good observation (can't believe I missed that) Zero X Marquis 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH-LAH! BIGNOLE!!!
I've already understand what you are trying to say or tell or inform me-lah! However, could you please stop making such cautions to me? It has been the third time by now! Had not you have enough? Why do you always have to bother me around so much by replying such admonishments when it comes to my editing [especially on Smallville (TV series)] recently while I have other stuffs to dealt with? You are nearly wasting my big time! So PLEASE, please stop it! Go get a life and get out of my presence!!! OK? Such strict editor! "Aiyoyo!" (This is your final warning from me) -onWheeZierPLot Wednesday, 5th July, 2006ad.

Superman Returns
The "bed rock" was falling off the island as superman was lifting it into space because the crystal was still growing. Additionally since crystals grow in all directions the crystal was growing towards Superman, as noted by the piece of crystal about to pierce his face. He only lets go of the island when his skin is finally pierced this is what the doctors remove from his body in the hospital. LL removed all the kryptonite from superman in the air plan. --Derenberg 5 July 2006

Please read this. A summary of it is that kryptonite effects get stronger the longer he is exposed to it. That would be consistant with the movie version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptonite#Variations

Additionally just because he falls back to earth does not mean he did not make it into space (out of our atmosphere). Gravity would still pull him towards earth just like it pulls the moon towards is and holds it in orbit.

Superman Returns also
I'm sorry, but you'd have no case reporting me for vandalism. Actually, you have violated the Three-revert rule, not me. You refuse to listen to the reason why I or anyone else was clarifying or removing that section. There is no inconsistency. Each time you reverted the change I made, your edit summary clearly showed you were not paying attention to the reason I entered for the removal. I did see a note to check out the talk page archive, and I did, and could not see any actual conclusion. Also, no editor has any right to mandate a discussion on the talk page for any section of an article just because of what they think, especially when consensus is clearly otherwise -- many editors have made the same change I made to that section, and you are the only one putting it back. -- Renesis13 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as "essentially" vandalizing the page. Many other editors agree with me, and there is NO consensus supporting your position.  And, by the way, the 3RR applies to a 24 hour period, not a "date".  The date changes every hour for some time zone in the world.  That would make no sense at all. -- Renesis13 16:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to misunderstand a few things. First of all - you are not "everyone else".  No one else has opposed the change I (and other editors, registered users or not) have made.  Second, I did check the talk page, and you are basically having a conversation with yourself.  Only one unregistered user replied, and just had a question about it.  So you wrote out a big long explanation about why it is an inconsistency.  That doesn't then give you the right to revert several other users.  Third, you have a misconception - the rule is that you may not revert MORE than three times within a 24 hour period.  That is why, as you may have noticed, I have not done it again.  I would, however, like to thank you for pointing out the policy that says explicitly that even stubborn actions are not vandalism. -- Renesis13 17:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do me the courtesy of actually reading what I am saying before you start arguing with it. I have not violatd the 3RR because I have only made that change 3 times - not 4.  I stopped at 3, that is the point.  I am also aware of the exceptions, and your actions don't fall under any of them. -- Renesis13 17:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I have no interest in reading pages and pages of past discussion. There was no poll taken, no consensus, and nothing on Wikipedia is ever set in stone.  Remember Be Bold?  We can discuss it again if you would like.  I will go add my points to it now, rather than leaving them hidden here.  And I never said "no one is reverting my changes" -- I don't know where you got that.  I said that many other users are making the same changes I have.  You, of course, are reverting the changes, but you are the only one. -- Renesis13 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on July 6 2006 (UTC) to Superman Returns

 * I hope you get this William. I believe that I was unfairly, and biasedly labeled to be blocked for the 3RR. First, User:Renesis13 engaged in an edit war with me over a dispute about the section of the Superman Returns article. I have left messages before for people to see the Talk page before they delete information that had been discuss already. Renesis13 refused to use the Talk page and insisted on deleting it. The instances where I did violate the 3RR were not from reverting just him, but anonymous users that kept deleting the information without supplying a reason or going to the Talk Page. This does not fall under a clear violation of the 3RR, especially when people can simply log on to another computer and delete anonymously. Please review all the edits more clearly. I have repeatedly left messages on his Talk page about using the Superman Returns discussion, but his response was to nominate me for violation of a 3RR, which I didn't use on him, but was for anonymous users deleting without explaination. Please reply. Bignole 19:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Um. I'm afraid 3RR still applies to you. Have a break and read the rules carefully, and maybe WP:1RR too William M. Connolley 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And the fact that the reverts weren't all directed at the one section, but mass reverts to claim back what vandals had done doesn't count? Where is the "in good faith". I left messages to go to the Talk Page yet I was completely ignored until after they had me blocked. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the punishment in editing waring and complete ignorance of what someone requests? He merely stopped at 3 reverts because he knew he would get in trouble for that, but I can't help that my other reversions of vandalism also count against me. Look at all the links, not all are directly about that one section. Sometimes I was reverting anonymous users who were coming and one after the other and adding, removing, or changing information...why does that count against me? Bignole 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a few things to say to make sure the accusations by Bignole above are clearly understood:
 * I did not "engage in an edit war." I deleted a section of the article with a very clear edit summary. Bignole reverted it with an edit summary which seemed to show a lack of understanding why I deleted it.  Over the next 12 or so hours, I did this 2 more times, each with a more explanatory edit summary.  Still, Bignole seemed not to understand.  After the 3rd time, Bignole left a message on my talk page and a discussion started from there.  I only made the change 3 times (which is clearly not in violation of the Three-revert rule), and then discussed it with Bignole as can be seen on our talk pages.
 * Bignole has accused me of sock-puppetry above, which is a ridiculous and unfounded claim. My edits and edit summaries were distinctly different from any made to the same section by anonymous IP addresses, which were all widely different anyway. I always edit under my account.
 * Bignole has also accused me of vandalism and "bullying". I only made the edit 3 times, and each time tried to explain my position more clearly so that hopefully we wouldn't have to clutter the talk page with something so silly.  Bignole has been taking control of that section from any other editor, reverting all edits.
 * My reporting of Bignole for 3RR violation was not in response to our dicussion. I informed Bignole initially of the violation, and his/her response was to accuse me of the same violation.  So I continued compiling the information for the report during our discussion.  We didn't get anywhere, and in the process I found Bignole had made the same revert six or more times in those 24 hours.  There is no reason for such bullying to go on about such a trivial section.
 * Of course I stopped at 3. That is the rule. Bignole's edits were not anonymous users' "vandalism" (Bignole should read: Vandalism).
 * I do not wish to have an edit war or bad feelings. I would, however, like to be able to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (in this case, Be Bold) without being falsely accused of bullying, vandalism, and 3RR violation.
 * --Renesis13 20:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep accusing me of not understanding, but if you look I left a summary of why it was reverted in the first place. You are the one that refused to go to a Talk Page and actually explain your side. You think that just because you leave a message in the edit summary that you have a right to delete what you want. But, your opinion was expressed by others in the discussion, like I told you to read. I left a message in the edit summary myself, explaining why that wasn't correct, and why it was inconsistent, yet you keep accusing me of having a "lack of understanding". I think that you just didn't appreciate being reverted. I did not do it maliciously, I did it because the dicussion had already taken place in the Talk section, and the inconstencies were noted. Just because you and Dsen. and some anonymous users disagree does not mean you can bypass the talk page and go straight for deletion. And just because I revert you doesn't mean I don't understand what you were doing. I clearly left a message when I reverted, yet you obviously did not understand me. You act as if I reverted you with no clear message as to why, yet I left one each time. Also, I did not accuse you of sock puppetry, what I said was that you can't stop all users from logging on at another terminal. This was more directed at the different anonymous users that were editing back to back and altering information on the page, not just in the trivia section; which is why I had more than 3 reverts on a single page in 24 hours. I only reverted you 3 times, but I reverted anonymous editors for other edits (where the kryptoniate section happened to be in the middle of) for other reasons. Being accussed of bullying isn't calling you a bully, just that you were persistent in an edit that was disputed and yet refused to go to the Talk Page, like I suggested to the other editors as well in the summary. Check them, I know you are "watching" the page, so I'm sure that you saw where I told people to go to the Talk Page. These charges are unjustified when taking all the facts into consideration. Bignole 20:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no need to continue this bickering over who-did-what. Your accusations above are hugely distorted and I just wanted to clarify the picture. I am not acting like you didn't attempt to explain yourself&mdash;you said things like "kryptonite was showing before he ever let it go". What I was saying is that I always understood that and each of my edit summaries attempted to say that I did understand that, and that it didn't affect my point (my point was: that it wasn't visible at first, which explains why he was able to start lifting it).  Anyway, you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. You say "Just because you and Dsen. and some anonymous users disagree does not mean you can bypass the talk page and go straight for deletion.".  Actually, I have every right to.  Every editor does.  That's at the fundamental core of Wikipedia&mdash;consensus.  If I disagree with something, I can remove it.  If you do not agree with the change, but many other users do, then it needs to stay gone.  I explained that I didn't want to take something so silly to the talk page.  However, since it's caused so much trouble, you'll notice that I have now left my reasoning on the talk page, and if you want to continue the discussion there, that's fine. -- Renesis13 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Leaving a message to explain a revert is good practice. But it doesn't undo the fact that it *is* a revert William M. Connolley 20:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Where do you get "many" other editors? You can't even be sure all anonymous users are separate so that leaves you and Dsen., where if you look at the Talk page (archives 1) there is more than that supporting the conclusion that there is an inconstency. Also, please not that the inconsistency (if you read the talk page) is about the effects and how when Kryptonite did show itself he didn't lose his powers. Even if you take into consideration the fact that the bedrock protected him initially, it doesn't explain why he still had his powers when the Kryptonite showed itself, which it did well before he let go, even you said you understood this. Now, why should this be noted? Because Kryptonite is the backbone of Superman. It's his only legitimate weakness, the only thing that can kill him, essentially. There is no "creative liberties" when it comes to green kryptonite, especially for a movie that people are claiming to be a sequel. Notebly, you can't have a creative liberty and change something midway through. First they have him with no powers then they say he's stronger than kryptonite. The creative liberties would work if they had done so from the beginning; like say have him still be able to fend off Luthor's henchmen, and fly around a bit (that would instill the fact that kryptonite does not affect him in this movie as it normally does) yet there is none of that when he first comes in contact with it. Hence the reason why it is an "INCONSISTENCY". Bignole 21:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are the one who said "you and Dsen. and some anonymous users". To me that means "many". At the very least, its enough to show you that you do not have clear consensus over keeping that section in place, since you are the only one defending it.  Look, I took my thoughts to the talk page.  I don't want to continue this user talk page bickering.  You need to understand the concept of consensus.  I can't put on Wikipedia that "Leprechauns" are real just because I can prove that I saw one this morning.  If it's a matter of opinion, it should just be left off Wikipedia altogether.  You fighting against me, another registered user, and several anon users clearly shows a problem with consensus. -- Renesis13 21:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep saying that I am alone, as you have obviously again not read the Talk Page. Here is a list of people who either agreed initially, or after all the facts were laid agreed in the end.


 * User:Keeves
 * User:Someguy0830
 * User:Daniel Villalobos
 * User:Zero X Marquis
 * Now, including myself that is atleast 5. At least 5 people that tried to at least leave a comment regarding the issue at hand. Yet, the only ones to refute anything are you and Den and an anonymous user. Also, stop playing with the numbers. You can't even count the anonymous ones (and I don't mean their votes don't count, I mean you can't count the number) because you don't even know which ones are real users or just people swapping computers. I have 5 actual users, you have 2, with an undeterminable amount of anonymous (which when you actually look only appear to be about 2 anonymous users). You say "i'm the only one to revert"....IT'S BEEN 24 HOURS! I could understand if it had been a week or at least several days where I was the only one reverting your claims but your accusation that I am the only one is based on 1 days worth of edits. I'm not here all the time, and I'm sure you aren't here all the time either, so why would you assume that everyone else is. That is what you are saying. Because if I'm the only one reverting you then it must be because those others don't agree, but are sitting back watching. Bignole 21:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not going to win by comparing "your five" against "my two". All I am saying is that in the last 24 hours where you insisted on reverting SIX or more times, there were 2 registered users and 1 or more unregistered users who felt it should go.  All I am saying is that is obviously enough that it should make you stop and think whether inclusion of that section is so obviously right. -- Renesis13 21:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it made me think that it needed to be discussed more, or that you needed to read the previous discussions which you didn't do originally. My belief was that had you read them you would either have realized that your "theory" was already mentioned or you would have posted something on there, the same for the other two users. That is how things work. They become disputed so they are discussed to find some clarity in the situation. Secondly, I didn't revert 6 or more times on solely that one section. Please look at the links you posted to have me blocked. Many of them were massive reverts on things that occurred when I wasn't around, by multiple anonymous users to other areas, and the "kryptonite bit" was stuck in the middle. Some of those times I didn't even realize that it had been erased until after I checked to see everything that had been reverted when I went back to the last "clean" edit. There were 3 reverts that were strictly on that subject, and those followed you. Bignole 02:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did read the archived section. I didn't see any agreement on anything except a lot of back-and-forth arguing about what Kryptonite does and does not do. There was no conclusion about how it all pertains to the Superman Returns film.  If you are going to say that the effects of Kryptonite in the new film are inconsistent with the comics or maybe even the other movies, then I would give you that, but in that case I would say that there is no need to report such trivial information on a Wikipedia article about the new film.  Wikipedia is not a Superman fan board or a place to archive trivial facts about the comic-book universe.  If it is an inconsistency or continuity problem within the film itself, then it might belong in the article, but I do not believe there is any inconsistency within the film itself. -- Renesis13 15:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The inconsistency is in both. Supe Returns doesn't follow the effects of kryptonite established in any other version of Superman, let alone the movies that it claims to be a loose sequel to. The effects have always been the same, it is his recouperation time that usually changes from medium to medium. Then there is one in the movie. He lands on the island and loses his powers, but lifts the island and doesn't lose them till after he has let it go, when there was kryptonite (thicker forms than on the top of the island) all around him while he was flying. That is an inconsistency. Now, if they are saying that the Sun's rays charged him enough to withstand the effects then that is a change also, because that doesn't happen in other variations either. It's all correct, but at best it just needs to be reworded. I'm not saying that this is an error in the movie, just an inconsistency with 1. the universal form established in the other mediums, 2. their own initial form established when he first lands on the island. Bignole 16:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasoning on #1, but don't think it is grounds for it to be listed in this article. As far as #2, I think what the director wanted you to pay attention to was how much of the kryptonite was showing.  When he landed on the island, it showed all the little bits glistening through.  He then became weak.  When he lifted the island later (and, I assume, some of the seabed), it was distinctly not showing at first (so he still had his powers to be able to start lifting it).  Then the rocks broke off, and the camera zoomed in on the now-showing kryptonite.  His powers started reducing, and he got the island into space just as he lost his powers and fell.  I don't think it is an inconsistency because I think it came out exactly as the director intended.  I don't think he ever intended anyone to try to measure the amount of time he was exposed to it or try to figure out how many inches or feet of rock were covering the kryptonite -- just that when it was visible, he was losing his powers, and when it was not visible, he was fine. -- Renesis13 17:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The first should be noted because this is a main element that has been changed from all other variations. It would be like noting that Superman using telekinisis in Superman II, when that has never been an ability of his. It's something that exists in all other mediums of the character, it's effects do not change, nor does his reaction time to them, yet this film chose to alter that. The second part would be considered a continuity issue. It becomes continuity when a director is going for one reaction with a scene, yet edits it and creates a new one. It's understandible if the kryptonite was meant to break through just as he let go of it, but he wasn't even through the clouds when it appeared. Then you have the piece in his body. The speckles on the island can scrap his hand when he falls, but the sliver in his neck/back isn't larger enough to prevent his body from turning into soup on it's fall back to Earth. Look at the hospital scene. His suit is just as indestructible as his body, when he is wearing it, yet the doctors rip it off like it was linen. They then remove the kryptonite from his body, and when they go to put the needle in his arm it snaps. Now, if the needle scene had been first then you can assume that he was able to survive the fall, but because of editing it creates a continuity problem, and continuity problems are viable trivia. Bignole 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All the things you are describing have good logic, but are much more appropriate for a movie message board or Superman fan site where the main users are Superman or movie enthusiasts. I just don't think it's fitting for the main article.  Put it in a new article that would be geared more to enthusiasts, if you want. Something like "List of continuity problems in Superman media" or something.  Do you see what I am getting at? -- Renesis13 17:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need an entire article to itself, this is why we have trivia sections. It's simple trivia. This movie deviates from mythos norms established in the comics and supported in tv series and films. Then it's own establishment is questioned in scenes that follow the initial reaction to Kryptonite, because of scene editing and duration, create the belief of an inconsistency or continuity error in the films usage of kryptonite. It's simple trivia with a touch of continuity error. Now, as I said, it probably needs to be reworded, seeing as I didn't write it initially. It probably comes off as more of a fact when it appears to be up for debate. But you cannot disregard what occurs by assuming what was intended. You don't know what was intended with those scenes, all you can do is see what was created. Everything that has been listed, in the actual article and on the Talk pages by me are straight instances from the movie, no interpretations. In the talk page I list what occurs and what is the straight forward reaction to it. I didn't assume that they made an error, just that the scenes do not match up. What people are doing is making an assumption as to the possible answer to why this could not be a problem. Right there people are trying to assume the answer to something that cannot be accurately established. So, instead of trying to create an answer to a problem, it should be simply listed as it occured. You say the bedrock was there. Ok, it was, but we both know the kryptonite broke free before he let it go, and since he lost his powers as soon as he landed on the "glittering" kryptonite top, he should have also here. You cannot make assumptions as to why he didn't lose his powers (i.e. because he was charged by the sun. well that might be true if they establish that the sun can prevent the effects of kryptonite up to a certain point.). The fact remains that he lost them on the top, where the kryptonite was more spread out, yet didn't lost them as quickly when a more concentrated piece appeared. I can understand if it was red kryptonite, and they did something with that that had never been done before. That really wouldn't need to be mentioned because it is already known that the effects of red K can vary. But, the effects of Green have been long established and supported in other mediums, yet this film chooses to stretch them. That is worth noting. Now, if they do it again in the sequel then it wouldn't be worth noting because they would have already established their own continuity on the effects in this film. Bignole 18:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not stating "assumptions" of what they may have meant. I am stating it as I saw it.  Either way, we both should probably go by WP:NOR.  The problem is, this is like picking hairs over placement of props in a film.  There is no way we can know how much time it took from when he landed on the island to when Lex punched him versus how much time the kryptonite was exposed while he was flying.  I don't think Wikipedia articles on movies should list things in trivia like "at first the mug was in his left hand and then it was in his right hand".  Maybe we should delete the section and wait until a third-party verifiable source writes about it.  Then we can put it back in. -- Renesis13 18:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)