User talk:CyberGhostface/Archive 2

Saw 3
Good job. -JNighthawk 04:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was referring to Saw 3. Those kids were very wrong, and you dealt with it the right way (by telling them so, and not beating around the bush). -JNighthawk 02:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Saw III was released. just thought you might wanna know

Leatherface
That is not fancruft. That is his name from The original Texas Chain Saw Massacre. This is an encyclopedia which means it is important to list all of his other identities. Also, that image is up for deletion, so it should no be used in this article. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 20:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the earlier versions of the article. I'm talking about the original movie. Have you even seen that? He is referred to as Robert Sawyer. Yes, I've seen the prequel and the remake. They changed his name along with various other thing from the original. This is an encyclopedia which means those things that were changed have to be included.

I didn't mean to remove it, I didn't catch it as I was paying more attention to what you were doing with the names instead. I apologize for removing your valid prequel information. I'll fall to yor side on the Robert Sawyer issue. But don't you think that his real name ,Thomas Hewitt should be in the opening paragraph? --Mikedk9109 20:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think you should consult WP:OWN. You seem to have a problem with letting other people edit Leatherface. The name makes more sense to go at the top since its an alternate identity, and that section has just as much information about the prequel as the remake does. So, it should be mentioned in the header. You continuously revert other peoples valid edits, just because you don't like them. Thats considered vandalism. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 19:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Vandalism, according to this site is, "any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." So I advise you to look it up in a dictionary as you have no idea what the word means.
 * Taking a quick look at the history page, the only times I revert edits is A.) Its vandalism, B.) Its innacurate or C.) Its irrevelant. Not just because I don't like it.
 * Here's what you don't get. The article applies to Leatherface's character as it has been in all six films. He's only been referred to as Hewitt in two. Its like if someone makes a Dracula film and says his real name is Marten Vladimir. That name might be relevant enough for its own section, but it would be irrevelant and infactual if in the main header of the article it was written "Dracula, also known as Marten Vladimir is a character..." and so forth.
 * Do you understand what I am trying to tell you or is this falling on deaf ears?--CyberGhostface 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is his alternate identity! You taking that out of the intro is like taking Leatherface out of the intro. THAT IS HIS NAME. What he is also known by. It should be in the opening, where it belongs. That statement you made was uncalled for. Especially since its over the internet, and I cant hear what you are saying? Yeah, maybe you should think about what your saying before you type it. --Mikedk9109 19:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits on Leatherface
Hi, I just wanted to point that you were both violating the WP:3RR policy on this article. The policy is in a nutshell that you shouldn't make edits wars on an article. So please both stay cool and discuss your disagreement on the article talk page :) Peace and Love, -- lucasbfr talk 19:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You have just broken the 3RR. I have no other choice but to report you. --Mikedk9109 20:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've only reverted 3 times. Which isn't breaking it. You have reverted 4 times. --Mikedk9109 20:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Only three of which were reverts. --Mikedk9109 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:
Hey, I've done nothing wrong. I've already gotten my point by. But you just won't accept it. I've suggested you look at WP:OWN, but you just keep on reverting, thinking you know anything and everything. Sory, but I've already reported you. I think mediation would be useless, seeing that we cannot get along. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Threaten? What? Excuse me, I've done nothing wrong. Except try to contribute to this site, without people harassing me. Its not one more edit, its one more revert. Shouldn't you know the difference? --Mikedk9109 20:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You have no right to drag another user into this conflict to team up on me. That user has no business in it. Also, I am not a new user to Wikipedia as I've been here for 6 months. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 21:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on October 12 2006 to Leatherface
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 07:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey
I just wanted to let you know that I apologize for everything that went down yesterday. It was very childish of me, and it won't happen again. Just hope that we can get along, and work together on this article. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I accidently wrote it in the 3RR block section. So I moved it. --Mikedk9109 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright. --Mikedk9109 20:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Saw 3 edit
Hey, thanks for reverting the "jacking off" thing for Troy's trap. As you'll see from the S3 talkpage, I removed it because it just sounds sexual. Lol  ViperBlade   Talk!! 08:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Question for CyberGhostface
I would like to know why you deleted the parody from Avengers Disassembled page? Last I checked parodies of a topic are acceptable. While, I'm no expert on the rules here, I'm pretty sure you only delete something if it's:

A. Vandalisim. B. Uncited Rumor.

Not if you have a personal problem against it. You keep personal problems aside when doing edits. 66.233.190.223 11:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A one issue reference in an obscure comicbook parody is not relevant enough to deserve a whole section in a wikipedia article.--CyberGhostface 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you at least tell me of somewhere else I can put it? 66.233.190.223 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Randall Flagg
There are still some quotes that lack citations. These and any "questionable" statements (that is, anything that could potentially be disputed) need to be cited. Also, it always helps to include more outside material; I suggest adding more info from sources other than King's books, as this will help show that more research has gone into the article than simply reading the books that he's in (for academic level literary analysis, this would be a requirement). -- LGagnon 15:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Leatherface
No discussion had taken place since Oct. 8. There really were not enough participants in the discussion to reach a consensus. I agreed with Abu Badali so I deleted the image. Abu pointed out to me that you have uploaded it again as Image:Leatherfaceentertainmentweekly.jpg. You say it was scanned from Entertainment Weekly but you must be more specific. What issue of EW and what page? It also needs to be linked to an article. -Nv8200p talk 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Era of photos
Okay, leave aside copyright status for the sake of this discussion. Doesn't it make more sense to have a photo from when the person was most notable? Say, for example, Charlie Chaplin. What image is more representative: this one or this one? Would you want to go with the "more recent" one in this case (assuming, again, that copyright wasn't an issue)? &mdash;Chowbok 01:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

ATTN: CyberGhostface
Is there really any reason you keep deleting the parodies from Avengers Disassembled? You keep stating it's unimportant, that's just your opinion. There are many who do look for parody/parodies of their favorite comic books, cartoons, video games, books, tv shows, etc.

If the parodies were deemed unfit in the first place, then it would have been deleted sooner as it was typed in May earlier this year. Again, the rules on deletion are:

1. If the information is unorganized/misleading.

2. Vandalisim

3. Unconfirmed rumors.

Not because you have a PERSONAL DISTAIN for it. The important thing about being a Wikipedian is to bring information to an article, not to delete every minor detail that offends you. If that's not the case, then why is it so important to keep deleting it?65.54.98.101 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But, while it's not distain, it is still a personal opinion. Which again is not grounds for deletion. If the section was a violation, then wouldn't it have been removed months ago? Just don't think that being a long term Wikipedian makes everything you do right. 71.115.231.16 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events
Sorry about the delay to my response (had to work), but I realized your edit was clearly in good faith a long time ago. I noticed your edits to the other related "A Series of Unfortunate Events" articles, which I marked as "not vandalism" using VandalProof. I have no idea why you're on VandalProof's blacklist. Regards, Tuxide 03:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blacklist? For WP:VP2, it gives your edits a higher precedence than those not on it for reviewing because some other VP user thought adding you to it was a good idea.  I have no idea why.  VandalProof2 is basically just a tool to aid in edit reviewing, and being on the blacklist, or whitelist even does not necessarily mean you are a vandal or a trusted user, respectively.  It is just a convenience for precedence, and delightfully I thought clicking on "not vandalism" in response to your edits umpteen times this afternoon was annoying!  As far as I can tell, I don't see anything wrong with your recent contributions.  Regards, Tuxide 04:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Aplogy to CG

 * I do apologize if I have been harsh, and I do hope we can come to an agreement for the Avengers Disassembled page. My other reason for typing in, User: 65.54.98.101 hasn't really been involved in the edits.  For some reason when I get on our other computer at the house, I end up with his name.  To settle it, I'll stick to this computer for future edits.  71.115.231.16 09:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Leather height
On the third source at http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/texaschainsaw.php is says his birthday is February 13, 1969. -- Mikedk9109 ( Sup ) ( stalk me ) 23:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Saw IV
Isn't this proof enough there is a confirmed Saw IV, and a mentioned Saw V, and Saw VI. -SawFan2006 01:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Saw II
Sorry. I didn't notice that the quotes around the director's words didn't end, I thought it was just a review from a new user at first. Sorry again =P.

Saw II and Amanda Cluse
I've noticed you reverted an edit by me that replaced the cast names of the actors in Saw II with Amanda Cluse. I don't know what happened, but that was not me. I've actually made several contributions to the articles, including creating the articles for both Jigsaw and Amanda.--CyberGhostface 21:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I know I only reverted the cast names. If I reverted anything else I apologize, you can revert the rest of it back. If your worried that I turned you in for vandalism or anything, don't worry about it. I usually only go after people that I see vandalizing a page several times. I hope that clears things up. If not just message me back. --Dleav 12:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

172.147.144.167
I see that 172.147.144.167 is launching several personal attacks at you (Look at his user contributions for details) and by looking at his contributions, has changed the message in one of your Barnstar boxes to the one he wrote here. As I'm still not quite sure about what he wants, I'll leave you to decide what to do with him and I've reverted the attacking comment he made on your Barnstar. You might want to check his contributions and add his name to WP:PAIN. Thank you. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bendis
Thanks for adding my stuff back in, I appreciate it. Very magnanimous. Thanos6 14:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For your information...
I traced the now blocked IP's (that used to launch personal attacks at you) using ARIN and found out that they're registered to America Online. Written just for your information. --Bruin_rrss23 (talk) 08:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional character biography
See the exemplars page. The section is to be titled "Fictional character biography". If you don't like it because you consider that redundant (there are nonfictional characters in comics, you know), then take up that issue at the exemplar talk page. Going through and changing every section title to suit your preference in contradiction of the exemplar not only might be a huge waste of your time but might create a lot of work for other people. Much past discussion went into establishing what that section should be based on Wikipedia policy for clarifying fiction. Doczilla 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. You're not the only one who feels that way, which is why I've just posted a comment about that on the project talk page (without mentioning you). If others feel it's inherently redundant to say "Fictional character biography", then the issue needs to get taken up at a higher level. Doczilla 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So would you please fix all the work you just undid? Doczilla 07:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks dude. I've been real busy with school so I've only been able to do minor things on most pages, most of which include reverting of vandalism. Right now we're trying to decide of The Invisible Man and The Phantom deserve a spot on the HORROR ICONS template, but I haven't been able to do anything but vote because I've go so much stuff with school. I plan to, at the start of next week, provide my discussion for that and get back to Leatherface. I think I'm going to focus on that one because, as far as fictional character pages go (from the Horror genre) it's got the best base right now. The rest are going to need a complete makeover, while this one is just in need of updates and touch ups. Bignole 00:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the barnstar. I appreciate it. -- LGagnon 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Alavigneheather.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Alavigneheather.PNG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Chowbok 17:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Leather Pic
I'll contact him and find out what it is that he finds isn't acceptable about the picture's source. Bignole 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, who? Who is the user and when did he try and get the image removed, because it was an Orphanbot that labeled it? Bignole 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotcha..Thanks. OK, well I see what he's requesting, or at least I assume I know. What he wants is the actual source that Miked got the picture from..the actual hyperlink. When I get home, in a couple hours, I'll do a quick search and try and find that same picture, and then grab the hyperlink and the website's name and add that to the info for the picture. I'd ask Miked but I haven't heard a peep out of him since his last blockage, so I don't even know if he's still editing or if he's just taking a break for awhile. Bignole 16:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find the original source so I had to upload a newer version of the picture, and I included the website the picture was taken from. Bignole 19:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I informed Miked that I uploaded a newer version, and that since he provided the original, if he finds his source website that he can make the decision to put the original photo back up there or not. Also, I have the pictures on my watchlist now, so if Abu marks it again I'll know this time. Bignole 19:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)