User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 6

The Shawshank Redemption‎
Hi Darkwarriorblake. I see that you've reverted my changes to The Shawshank Redemption‎, with the rationale that they don't clarify anything. I'd appreciate if you'd consider my justifications for these changes and consider undoing your revert, at least in part.


 * "Assault" vs. "sexual assault". These are two very different types of attack, and as the movie makes clear that the assaults are sexual (remember the scene where Boggs says "Now I'm going to open my fly, and you're going to swallow what I give you to swallow"?), it's an important distinction to make (for example, Byron Hadley assaults the inmates. The Sisters sexually assault them. Both happen in this story.).
 * "Bull queers". This isn't strictly necessary to include, but given that it's the characterization applied to them by Red, I thought it might give some extra clarity to the issue of the group's motivation. I'm not much fussed with keeping it if you really feel it doesn't belong, though.
 * "...including his one-man cell". This is important to the development of the plot because it explains why Andy, the man who took a beating and solitary confinement in exchange for letting the inmates hear an opera aria, so readily knuckled under to the Warden's threat to remove his "privileges" - not because he liked vague "privileges", but because the "one-bunk Hilton", as the Warden called it, was key to his tunnel-digging.
 * Changing "...the poster of Raquel Welch which tears through, revealing a tunnel..." to "...the poster of Raquel Welch hanging on the wall. Rather than bouncing off, the rock...". This was actually less a clarification than an English correction. Posters do not have agency and cannot "tear" themselves, so it's not the poster doing the tearing through in this sentence. Similarly, things do not "tear through". They tear, or they are are torn through by something else. If, as is apparently meant, the intended subject of the phrase "tears through" is the rock, then the original grammar was incorrect, because it said the poster tore itself. To correct this language error, I changed the grammar to match what happened: the Warden threw a rock. The rock tore through the poster. To make it clear why the rock tearing through a poster is something worth mentioning in a tightly-worded plot summary, I added the "rather than bouncing off" bit. The comma after "tears through the poster" is, again, grammatically important (without it, the reader is subjected to a garden path effect).

As I've said, I appreciate that the summary is intentionally tightly-worded, but I think the small changes I made elucidate points that are actually quite important to the plot, where they're not just correcting English usage. Please consider reinstating some or all of them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The film makes clear the intent is sexual, not that any sexual attack actually succeeds and if you consider them different it doesn't change the actions. If they're assaulting him with their fists or their peni(ses), he's getting assaulted and demoralised.
 * Bull Queers is a slang term used in the film, again, what relevance does it have? Clarifies they're gay while in prison? To what aim? How does that improve the plot?
 * The One Man Cell is original research. He threatens that alongside other things, then locks him away for another month anyway. His continued refusal to carry the scam means he stays in confinement. Never once is it mentioned that he agrees to do it for access to his cell.
 * As for the poster, this is a difference of grammatical interpretation because you're the first person to read that as the poster taking an action upon itself. You've restored it. I hope people will no longer continue to think the poster tore itself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding time to reply to me. Your comments, in order:
 * A sexual assault is a sexual assault, whether it's "successful" or not. Now, if you want to argue that the fact that Andy is sexually assaulted in prison isn't important to the plot, that's one thing, and though I disagree, you're free to believe it. But if your argument is that because we don't know if anyone orgasmed it can't be called sexual assault, I'm going to have to dispute that.
 * As I said, "bull queers" is the characterization given by Red, and if one believes, as I do, that sexual assault is distinct from assault, making it explicit that "the Sisters" are a group of predatory men who have sex with men provides some clarity to the reader about their activities and why they're referred to by an effeminate name (otherwise, we could shorten that entire section to "Andy is assaulted by other prisoners" - why is it important to name the Sisters as a group at all?). As I've said, I don't think this is the most terribly important change to make, but I object to the idea that it provides no information at all.
 * I think you're slightly misunderstanding our original research guidelines. It would definitely be original research for me to change the article to say "Andy acquiesces to the Warden's demands to keep his one-man cell". It is not, however, original research to say "The Warden threatens to take away Andy's one-man cell." That is what is said in the movie; it's not something I've synthesized together. I think it's a useful detail because it may have bearing on Andy's plan, and because the current phrasing is a bit unclear about what preferential treatment Andy is receiving - if it's access to the library, that's already stated, so it's redundant to refer to his "preferential treatment" unless we're talking about some other treatment, such as a one-man cell. This is another case where you need to decide what level of detail you're using - both "...threatens to take away his protection and preferential treatment" and "...take away his protection and preferential treatment, including his one-man cell" make sense, but "threatens to destroy the library and take away his protection and preferential treatment" leaves the reader hanging as to what the point of mentioning the extra detail is.
 * The above three points are, as I originally noted, points of style and clarity. However, the last point, about the transitivity of "tear", is a grammatical one. I'm not terribly surprised it hasn't been mentioned to you before, since many editors have trouble with the finer points of semantics and syntax. At any rate, you'll note here that "tear" is a transitive verb in the form the article uses it. This means that the verb must have an object and an (explicit or implied) subject; "the rock tears through the poster" is fine, as is "the poster is torn through by the rock" or even "the poster is torn through", but "the poster tears through" lacks either an object (in the "the poster tears [something else we're not mentioning]" sense) or a subject (in the "[something we're not mentioning] tears through the poster" sense). Since this was the only change that was necessary for the article, I thank you for not reverting my restoration of it.
 * I believe that all of my changes were useful to the article, though I understand that you disagree. However, looking at your edit history, it appears that this is a common problem for you - someone makes what they feel to be a small improvement to an article you watch, and you revert it because you feel your opinion of what an article should say trumps the other person's. I would appreciate it if you'd give some thought to what it means to edit in a collaborative environment. Immediate reversion of accurate edits because you disagree with matters of style pertaining to them is extremely offputting to the editor you're reverting, and may dissuade others from even attempting to help improve articles you care about. A better approach would be to use the article's talk page, or the editor's talk page, to start a discussion about what you feel is wrong with the edits. With that strategy, not only will you likely reach a useful compromise about the edits in question, but you will have succeeded in drawing another editor, who may be new or timid, into collaborating to improve Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't important, I said that assault covers it. And it does, he is assaulted routinely and what is shown on screen in the film is physical assault. It is never once shown or directly stated he was sexually assaulted and so it is OR.
 * If you had one you definitely wouldn't need that. That said, Bull Queers, as I said, is a slang term and so of no immediate consequence or understanding to a casual reader. It places undue importance on an already tightly worded and limit breaking plot to emphasise that they are picking on him because they are prison gay when assault conveys they are picking on him. The reader can take what they like from them being called The Sisters. The motivation behind their assaults is not a major part of the plot, teir assaults are, primarily the beating that cripples Andy which in turn moves the plot forward to its next major event.
 * Why isn't preferential treatment enough? He is a prisoner receiving preferential treatment. The preferential treatment is threatened with being taken away. Again, the major point is conveyed. There is no flash of insight or sudden reaction to the threat of his cell being taken away so you are applying greater meaning to it based on your out of universe knowledge. If he were that concerned he could have thrown himself at the door begging and pleading for the warden to let him carry on the scam right there and then. His concern was with Tommy's death. The reader is not lesser for not having an itemised detail of every benefit Andy receives for his role. While speaking with Red, Andy does not mention his cell as a benefit, he mentions the library and that it has let him help half a dozen guys get their GEDs. That is what is important to him. You're applying undue weight to the cell to set up a plot twist.
 * I explain everything I do. Your edits bloated an already long plot, they were unnecessary, unhelpful to something which has already been refined and refined and refined to trim it down while retaining the major points of note. You've posted here, since you've posted you've undone one of the edits with a needlessly long statement because you also needed to clarify that the poster wasn't hanging in the toilet or rolled up on the floor. Where posters normally go. I didn't undo it. Sometimes restoring an article to a better version is JUST restoring an article to a better version,If you're talking about the guy below, a discussion was opened, a different editor chose to agree with me, he went back and added in an edited version of the same thing ignoring the initial problem anyway "because fuck you guys, I'm right, you're wrong" (not a direct quote). Like these things haven't been discussed by otehr people at length since the film came out, conveniently all these edits come around the time the pirate copy is released. I left it because of the 3RR rule which is pants-on-head stupid and abused to hell. Anyone CAN contribute, it does not by default mean their edit is a positive step for the article. The plot for The Shawshank Redemption and the plot for Prometheus are only partly written by me and then also by others, they are not a universally perfect entity I have born unto the world that I am defending because MINE! MINE! MINE! Yet OWN is the first thing everyone cries when they don't immediately get their way. Discussion is pointless when people just ignore it in favor of their preference anyway. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And honestly this type of itemised discussion that has to be gone through every single time someone isn't happy their edit was undone is a way to lose veterans, forget about newcomers. If I removed it a year from now, would you have been happier? Or would you have reverted it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm, and I see you've reverted me again. I wish you would stop that - my edit is not intended to "explain physics"; it's intended to fix a grammatical error. That you cannot see that it's a grammatical error isn't a reason to revert the fix, nor is "this article has been copyedited, so it cannot possibly have any errors at all, anywhere." That's not really how copyediting works - it's not infallible, and you must always be open to realizing that something was missed. At any rate, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. Apologies, on a closer look at the history I see your revert was to rework my words while still including the grammar fix. That's fine with me, but I am still going to ask you to review how collaborative editing works. If the mere prospect of having to discuss changes after you revert them is so unpleasant to you that you feel you may quit Wikipedia, we have a problem, and that problem is not with grammar or copyediting. You must be willing to discuss your changes with other editors, in a constructive manner, in the pursuit of compromise and consensus, if you want to make such changes here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Guy, do not accuse me of stuff because you did not bother to read the edit properly, strike it through, then still think you can take a high ground and presume to lecture me on editing. What I just did was collaborative editing and I've said to you that I give an explanation for everything major I do and discuss major changes to articles. I did it with your edits, I did it with the timewaster below, I discuss and I discuss and I discuss some more then people just flat out ignore it anyway and ignore reality as you itemize each and every single one of their mistakes and lies. I've been making changes here a long time, longer than you apparently, and I haven't gotten here without collaborating and there are plenty of people that offer successful collaboration. I know you think I'm an idiot who hasn't spent all his time editing film articles and so clearly doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about when it comes to editing film articles and just skirted his way to having several high quality film articles. When you restore information and I copy edit it to make it make sense, it isn't a revert and it isn't an act of anti-collaboration. The user at Prometheus opened a discussion then ignored the results of that discussion and continues to ignore the result of that discussion, acting as if its my opinion vs his, when a separate long term editor agreed with my stance (amazing I know since I can't collaborate with people) and he ignored that. So go give him your lecture instead because he might actually gain something from it. You can collaborate with him on adding unnecessary information to articles and then complaining about it when its undone or copyedited for improvement, you'll make a great team. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Same vandal, new Irish IP?
Hi. You reported to the vandalism noticeboard for blocking. I declined to do so at the time but left a warning on the IP's talk page. Whois and geolocate tools (see the bottom of the IP talk page) indicate this IP is registered to Eircom and located near Dublin. Since my warning, the IP has made no edits.

I noticed, however, that later you reverted another Irish IP,, (from the Dublin area). Do you think it's the same person? If so, they should be blocked. If I'm around, I'll do it; if not get another admin and reference this conversation.

Thanks for watching out for our content! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I had a look but I couldn't honestly say if it was the same person, there is no overlap in the articles they are editing. I don't think they are the same person as the first IP was deliberately altering information such as runtimes and "negative" to "positive" in articles, deliberately falsifying info. The Edit I undid of the second IP on the Avengers is a common edit made by people who can't read the hidden note saying don't do it, and the rest of his/her edits at least seem to be constructive? I don't know enough about Swedish House Mafia to know if they're incorrect edits. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks! -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

4RR
I see you've now rejected even a tiny edit/improvement I made to the article, going to 4RR in the process. As they say, "don't template the regulars", so I won't. I'm not trying to antagonize you or cause you trouble. However, I am going to ask you to respect the fact that other editors are entitled to make changes, especially one as simple as "rams" instead of "collides", etc. Referring to your edit summary, it doesn't matter if an article has been copy edited three times, or three hundred times, there are always others who may come along and nuance an improvement. If you've lost count, there are at least four reverts here, here, here, and here. Would you mind putting yourself back on the right side of that bright line rule? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears you've lost count, because its 3. You can't go cherry pick edits and call them reverts, its not a science fiction horror film. It was undone. Its been undone a dozen times, you're not prohibited from fixing stuff and for you to go pick out that edit seems like you've very quickly gone the petty route because I argued against your edit. despite you ignoring the discussion on the talk page I haven't undone what is an incorrect edit that two editors said was wrong because of that stupid fucking 3RR rule taht stops you doing things like that when people ignore discussion. As for the 4th edit there, I gave my reason why. It's been copy edited by experts, it didn't need changing, it was unnecessarily changed to its detriment, the better version was restored. You're entitled to make your change and others are entitled to improve it, which I did by restoring the copy edited version. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So I notice you continue to edit but not engage in discussion. Hey, how about that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You know perfectly well that I continued the discussion with you on the article's talk page, six hours before you posted the sentence above, and I know you saw it because you replied there before you came back here to post a comment saying that I won't engage in discussion. Shall I post diffs here so that it is clear to anyone else reading this?  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted here at 11:41, posted on the talk page there at 11:59. Try again rockstar. You know perfectly well you ignored an ongoing discussion for hours and continued to edit WHILE the discussion was going on. The timestamp, just can't escape it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You post here in response to my initial post; I continue the discussion here; you go to the article six hour later and respond here. Check those time stamps.  Are you really going to maintain the claim that you didn't see my comments there before you post a comment here claiming that I'm not engaging in discussion?  Best case scenario for your argument, you're making the case that you're not paying attention to the relevant discussion page before hurling an accusation that another editor isn't engaging in discussion. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So your argument here is what? That I post at 00:26 here, and on the talk page at 23:50, 4:35, 4:36, and 4:52 while you edit the article at 23:41, 23:48, 23:48, 4:29 and 4:33, but not the talk page until 6:03, and that the problem is you WERE COMMUNICATING, I just wasn't seeing it? Because you were NOT communicating, you ignored the discussion that had taken place and continued to edit. Don't try to hide your actions under hordes of links.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You started this argument, not me. Based on the distorted way you're construing things, it's not worth continuing.  Going forward from here, I'm only going to respond to such accusations further if you make them in the appropriate forum (noticeboard, etc).  Other topics are open for discussion, however.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * AzureCitizen, my dear man, It is a common curtesy that when you ask for opinions on whether you should do something, you are supposed to listen first then decide if you should do it, not act first and get answers later. The fact that Blake posted here six hours later is irrelevant. This was not an emergency, and you could've waited for an opinion. The point here is that you didn't wait. You shot first, got answers later. That's a failure of communication on your part.Anthonydraco (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * And please defend your point instead of attacking others' points. This way, things clear up point by point instead of becoming an argument. Anthonydraco (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You started it the second you ignored discussion to restore your content. You're making a valiant effort to push the blame for your actions on to me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Blake, now that we've concluded that "Try harder" is not needed for the understanding of the plot, how long should we wait? Also, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but "Earth-like planet" thing at the beginning of the synopsis is prone to good faith edit by someone else. To them, it's clearly Earth, and it is Earth to me but for the fact that it was cited/officially said somewhere that it was not. Ppl will be tempted to edit that. Can you cite the source? I'm not challenging the accuracy, but it will stop good faith but incorrect editors once and for all. Better yet, can you walk me through how to cite it? I would be glad to learn how to cite a book or a official website in proper format. I don't know which form or how I should put them in. I've tried browsing through help topic, but the info overwhelm me, and there's no index or table of contents for those kind of help. Would you be willing to take me on in that regard? Thank you in advance. Anthonydraco (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"Lozenge"!
Hilarious! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Might take me a while but I eventually crack out a funny. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

what do you mean first and domestic only?
haven't you seen Dredd 3D trailer, go to YouTube and check it's trailer, and you'll see what proof i have now

76.188.124.154 (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Clan Techie
It's possible, although Zwimmer, etc., are actual last names. And since the story refers to the gangs as clans and since he's a computer expert, and since the credits include other descriptive-name characters in cap letters (such as Slo-Mo Junkies) and since all the named characters just have one-word names in the credits, rather than two-word names, my feeling is that "Clan Technie" is descriptive rather than his name. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Tower Heist and Heavy D
Hello, what is your problem with Heavy D? His passing away so soon right after the release of the movie is important. If he was an artist that you personally liked/knew about, I think you'd stop reverting the changes. But since you personally don't konw about him, you don't think his death is significant. The fact that you're reverting Heavy D edits by different other people shows that there are multiple people who find his passing important to note. You can have your personal opinions/preferences/likes, but Wikipedia belongs to everybody, and multiple people are trying to include this information. "It's trivia?" The whole article is "trivia." Should you get to decide which trivia isn't worthy when multiple other people think it is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.169.45.249 (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"...because he was heavy." Unnecessary and insensitive. It's clear you have no idea who he is, but you know enough to know that he passed away and was well-liked and that your comment, then, is pretty shitty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.169.45.249 (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

BRD project
Hi, I have outlined a proposal for a potential project that you might be interested in at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. The essence of it is a peer review system in relation to challenged unilateral edits. If you are not interested then no worries, I'm just seeing if there is any interest/suggestions at this stage before going to the bother of formalizing a proprosal. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ghostbusters
Hello there, how does the Ghostbusters soundtrack cover fails NFC?... Klow (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not being used for critical commentary, its just being used as an image and it is the same as the film poster, so its there just to be there but serving no purpose. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dredd
Sarcasm isn't necessary. But did she say that? If so, I simply didn't remember. NTox · talk 23:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the sarcasm. Dredd says at the start that is she fails any of his rules she fails, and she can only become a Judge if he passes her. One of the rules is do not be disarmed. The guy, i forget his name, disarms her. In the scene where she lets the technician go just before they confront Ma-Ma, while I can't recite the dialog she says to the effect that she knows she has already failed because she lost her weapon, so he can complain to her afterwards about judging the technician innocent and letting him. So she gives up her badge at the end. This is the part that Garland talks about in the development section as being Dredd's glacial personality shift, in that he is a strict law man who says something at the start (mess up and you fail) but changes his strict nature by passing Anderson anyway based on how she performed. If you ask User:Tenebrae he saw it more recently than I so he might remember the exact dialog from that scene but she does say she knows she failed and the guidelines for her failure and laid our clearly in the film. She does not say at that point (the very end) she says it in an earlier scene (the technician) but per WP:FILMPLOT events can be described outside chronological order to aid understanding, and the information is more useful and clear there in briefly describing the ending than it would be earlier, where it would require explaining once and then referring to later. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember that technician scene you're talking about. I'll trust you on it for the time being, but I think it'd be good to double-check the dialogue to be sure. You could very well be correct. My doubts simply originate from my impression that she was leaving more because she simply didn't feel called to do the work - less so that she failed one of the rules of the evaluation, although that might be part of it. But if she did directly say she should not be a Judge because she was disarmed, it would be fine to describe it that way. I only saw the film once, and could have missed that. NTox · talk 23:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All I remember is Judge not being happy she judged the technician innocent and she says something along the lines of "what does it matter, ive already failed, I was disarmed". My overall impression is she struggled at first but by the end (and Dredd sees it in her too) she is a full on Judge and much more easily deals with killing. So Dredd passes her even though she failed his rule. There are no DL copies to check it against but I wouldn't encourage that anyway as it needs every penny it can get, I want to see Judge Death on film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

BRD enforcer
I've drafted out the proposal at User:Betty Logan/BRD enforcer. Hopefully I've addressed any concerns people had, and this is the version that will go before the Wikiproject proposal committee. It's been streamlined a bit to focus on operation and the name has been changed, but other than that it's doing the same job. Anyway, this is a message I'm dropping on everyone's page so they can check it out and make sure they are ok with it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The formal proposal is up and running at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Request for stable state. If you want to support it you will need to add your name at the official proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dishonored (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Escapist (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) 11:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Marvel Studios#Request for comment
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Marvel Studios. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain rv of Prometheus (film)
End of message. --71.135.163.38 (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll have to be more specific than that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
Was going to do that on the Looper (film) page but didn't want to appear edit warring/attacking the other user. Glad one of us has the proverbial brass tacs to do it. lol. It did need to be done. Most of the changes were too extensive and too descriptive. MisterShiney (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A few years ago I would have been nicer about it but I just don't have the patience for that anymore, explaining to every person that there is a word limit and that it is an overview not a replacement for seeing the film. I don't like undoing peoples work, especially those people who had like 4000 words to a plot because they have spent time doing it, but it needs doing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I'm completely burnt out, it's why I am no longer intending to take on any articles beyond those already in my portfolio, can't deal with the idiots anymore. But thankyou for the barnstar, cheers me up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 11:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To Be Fair
Hello there Darkwarriorblake. Look, I understand your concerns with the plot layout on the page of Looper (film), and how you got easily irked off with the remark I said in one of my edit summaries. Please note that I was a bit frustrated and said something out of frustration, and I didn't actually mean to say that. As a gentle suggestion, I would request that you be a bit more careful before issuing templates and always assume some good faith before issuing another template at my talk page again. You are a great editor who has their own ways of editing Wikipedia and as do I. Before things get out of hand, I intend to send my apologies to you, let's put this matter to bed and move on. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 11:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologise for issuing a warning, this place is burning me out and when I have to explain things multiple times across multiple articles it starts getting draining. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. To tell you the truth, I'm also kind of unhappy being on Wikipedia, given how it's burning pretty much everyone out, but I still stay. Nonetheless, let's shake hands and put this to bed now. See you around. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 02:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Arkham City edits
Hi,

Just wanted to say that I really haven't discussed such changes with anyone and merely did what I felt would be helpful. There are a few reasons though... firstly I think game articles should have a separate section for DLC, and should not clubbed together with the Release section. The Release section should deal solely with the release details of the original game. Furthermore, having a separate DLC section allows room for expansion... for example details on each DLC highlighting the additions. Again, these are just my thoughts; forgive me if I'm unaware of some sort of consensus in the Arkham City article regarding its structure.

I also repositioned the pics because their previous (current after you undid the edit) positions looked disorganized, especially when I'm viewing them on a large screen in 1080p. Having proper alignment goes a long way towards making an article aesthetically pleasing as well as functional in my opinion.

Thanks --CoolingGibbon (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The Manual of style says not to position images directly underneath each other, I'm viewing it on a 1080p screen and I see an image, two lines of text squashed between them and then another picture from your edit, which looks bad and why it is the guideline in the MoS. The guideline suggests alternating sides. As for the other changes, as I noted to you with Sleeping Dogs, Portal 2 is good article and has DLC in the release section, because it is part of the release, it is a thing that is released. In the case of this game, all of the DLC was part of the original release except for Harley Quinn's Revenge, and there are no plans to develop any further DLC at the moment so there is no need for room for expansion, but if there were, the release section would still be able to confine it, again like Portal 2. If you're talking something like Fallout: New Vegas where there are several DLC expansion packs which are each quite large and each contain their own story missions, side quests and are essentially a separate game since they do not interact with the main storyline, I could see your point IN THAT CASE, though I do not think that the New Vegas article is the best way to handle it.. In this particular case, all of the DLC is costumes and maps except for Harley Quinn's Revenge which is a short epilogue and does not introduce new areas, modes or missions in the vein of New Vegas. On a case by case basis then it can be judged if it is appropriate to do so, but DLC by itself does not need its own section, there is no reason that it is difficult to understand DLC if it is part of another section. It certainly isn't the case at Arkham City. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Shawshank Redemption
Just wanted to say that I totally see your point and support you. In the words of The Big Bang Theory...I got your back Jack! MisterShiney ( Come say hi ) 16:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wish I didn't have to keep having these drawn out discussions over the same thing. But thanks for providing your input, never goes anywhere when its one editor vs another. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-retirement
Well, this is a bit of a shock. Hope you don't stay away at a little amount for long. RAP (talk) 1:04 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll still be around, I'm just not going to take on any new projects anymore like I did with things like Prometheus and other film articles I've developed mostly from scratch, I can't deal with any more lengthy arguments over content and forever fixing vandalism. I'm just gonna work on developing what I have already put the work into rather than add the additional workload and stress of developing/updating/maintaining new popular things. I was already trying to do that a little by posting sources on article talk pages rather than adding the information myself, that way I don't have to feel responsible for the content or feel bad if it is removed/vandalised. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

lets resolve this, in all seriousness
I've left a plan on the talk page of Shawshank, what do you think? Please don't rush it. --JTBX (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Please respond? JTBX (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

JTBX's post at Editor assistance
You might want to have a look at this. I am not telling you whether or how you should respond, but I do think you should be aware of his one-sided version of events. Cheers! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright
I'll watch Shawshank and get back to you, and if you have time, I ask for your opinion on the Godfather. Like you, I am trying to put forward a plot which, n my view, removed unneeded details but has been in dispute for a long time. It appears there is consensus not to include it but I disagree as, again in my view, there are actual errors which have been failed to be addressed. I know that unlike the others you will actually look through and give me feedback, Thanks.--JTBX (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the Godfather so I wouldn't be able to say what is wrong with the plot, sorry. All I know about it are from random scenes I have seen in other shows or referenced in other films. Sorry. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, man. Ok then. No worries.--JTBX (talk) 00:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC) It would be good if you watch the Godfather films though, I need help in editing those articles. Plus you get to watch some of the best films ever made. --JTBX (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

After watching the film, as it turns out, when Andy is assaulted the first time one of the attackers (probably Bogs) shouts "Take off his pants!" and Red then states that Andy never says who did it, however Red says that as it went on like that for a while, sometimes Andy fought them off, sometimes not. So it seems that for now, the sentence is the plot is fine and summarises it, in addition in regards to the sentence of Hadley, you were right! I was wrong, Hadley does indeed beat him after then everything else happens later. Basically sorted then. Thanks for your time. My offer on Godfather is still open to you as its turning into a mess now with the two editors who refuse to engage and really are violating WP:OWN, I might just take it to AN or something. I left something on MarnetteD's page. See you around buddy. --JTBX (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Expendables
(cur | prev) 01:43, 29 September 2012‎ Darkwarriorblake (talk | contribs)‎. . (37,282 bytes) (-26)‎. . (FFS, JBTX try reading edit summaries. His name is spelled Gunner, not Gunnar, see Talk:The_Expendables_2#Gunner_Vs_Gunnar. Austin is credited only as Steve Austin, don't make up credits.

It's a while back, but why was this addressed to me? I have nothing to do with this. --JTBX (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because when I searched for who had restored it, it was you you. You restored it as part of a larger restoration though and so probably didn't notice. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware, my bad sorry. cya --JTBX (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Semi-retiring?
Dark, I know exactly how you feel &mdash; I took several months off a couple of years ago, and it was the best thing for me. And conversely, yes, the satisfaction one gets from seeing a news report and knowing people got the facts right is immeasurable, and shows how important the work we do is.

The fighting that comes with some contentious and often immature editors is maddening. Hopefully the collegiality and sense of community that some of us other veteran WikiProject Comics editors bring helps make up for it, at least in part. Know that what you decide and whatever you do, I and others appreciate you and your work, and will always be supportive. I hope you can make it back in full force after taking a well-deserved break. . . or semi-break! With great regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll still be around T-Bra, I'm just gonna mostly stick to the articles I've already started on, bringing them up to GA and beyond maybe but not taking on new things. Either I build up an article and it ends up flopping with little info or after information like The Watch (2012 film) or its a lot of fighting and moaning over things like at Prometheus and The Shawshank Redemption. Add in the days when the vandals seem to attack a lot of pages in my watchlist and it just feels like being spread too thin, so for my own sanity I intend to stick to older less contentious articles except for the future articles I had alrady started on like The Man with the Iron Fists and Burt Wonderstone. There are lots of films Id like to work on, but I just don't have the time and once you do it, you do feel some compulsion to protect it from vandals so it means somehting else to watch, something else to stretch your limited time over. So I'll definitely be less pro-active on future films and games, and be leaving that up to other editors. I had already started doing it somewhat before this, adding references to the talk page of an article to let them deal with both adding it and then protecting the addition, rather than doing it myself so I intentionally avoid becoming greatly involved. Like I let TripleThreat deal with the Marvel films, I will give him or Fandraltastic sources if I find them but I dont often add the information myself, just trust them to make the decision and get on with it.


 * The community means a lot, it's good when people can band together to get stuff done, its just a shame that the process is so imperfect. At the Shawshank Redemption, it took like 3 days of conversation and 4-5 editors to resolve a dispute with a single editor, and lots of the available processes were employed, but its all slow and requires you to spend time explaining events and debating and discussing, which is ridiculous and time that could be spent on an article instead. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Arkham City GAN

 * Thanks for taking it on, I've had some films on the GAN list for like a month+ so nice to see this one tackled so quickly.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I do a lot of work to VG articles (primarily God of War) and the the backlog for VG GANs is rather large (thanks to one editor nominating the majority of the articles listed) so I thought I'd help out. I'm also a fan of Arkham City and Asylum. Great work to the article, by the way. I've also began the review and have left comments for the lead. -- JDC808  ♫  07:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More comments. -- JDC808  ♫  00:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to that source issue, I've added comments for the Synopsis, Development, Marketing, and Release sections. -- JDC808  ♫  23:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments on last three sections before Ref check. -- JDC808  ♫  02:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna be able to check the Refs tonight, but I will do them tomorrow afternoon. -- JDC808  ♫  05:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments on References. -- JDC808  ♫  21:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I know you're not finished, but I went ahead and listed all the refs I see issues with. -- JDC808  ♫  06:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've passed the article. Great work! -- JDC808  ♫  23:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you nominate this for FA, let me know. -- JDC808  ♫  23:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do, I'll have to wait for the Wii version to come out first since it may or may not enter a period of instability as well as requiring the Wii information to be added. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When you add that information, if you would like me to look over it, I can. -- JDC808  ♫  23:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Will do, I'm hoping it won't be much, it's due out in 10 days and there is 0 news about it so it sounds like it is just the same game with gimmicks for the WiiU Controller. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

-- JDC808  ♫  05:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the discussion~
Editing from an Android's been a real chore. Much appreciated. Papacha (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * no problem.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey again. Someone cut your chart edit at List of WWE Champions already, but what I might suggest doing in potentially contentious revisions is to use your sand-box and link/discuss at WT:PW first. An addition like that would affect all wrestling list articles and probably require consensus. Stay cool, sorry I can't really chat as much as I like thanks to this thrice-darned machine o' mine. Papacha (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Skyfall
Hello. I am confused as to why you felt the need to revert my addition to this page in the plot section, but it is nice to actually hear from someone for a change. My addition the plot section was to aid users with a warning that the plot "summary" was actually a full plot outline, which actually ruined my personal enjoyment of the film by giving the ending and some key reveals away just because I stumbled upon them browsing the page doing research to see which (if any) novel Skyfall was based on. My addition "WARNING: PLOT SPOILERS THROUGHOUT" is not from a vandalistic point of view nor should it be deemed unconstructive. I did it to provide users warnings from actually (like me) spoiling their enjoyment of the film. As a side point, and as mentioned, would MGM or Columbia be happy about the full plot disclosure of the film being up on here anyway?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pughga (talk • contribs) 01:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is that information is not spoiled no matter what the case, that if you choose to visit an article about something you don't want to be spoiled then that is your mistake. So while I get what you are trying to do, and I wouldn't mind it myself on some films which might not come out in England for months after the American release, deleting information or adding spoiler warnings is not allowed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Adding spoiler alerts is not allowed??????  Seriously????  Oh and how exactly did I spoil the text, when a user edited/owned site like IMDB.COM contains (and promotes) spoiler alerts???  I saw Skyfall tonight and really enjoyed it, but can't help feeling annoyed that mine (and thousands of others who have the unfortunate chance of browsing this page for research purposes, etc) will ruin their enjoyment or simply tell people not to bother because the FULL plot is online.  In fact, I'm going to get on the blower tomorrow when I'm in the production office for an in-development feature, which I will fight tooth and nail to keep under wraps (even after it's released), to the guys over at MGM and Columbia, plus the Brocolli's office isn't too far from mine, and let them know the full plot is up on a free site and see what they think.Pughga (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler is interesting reading. People have clearly misused the spoiler alerts "tag" in the past.  I'm obviously on the side of the argument that promotes courteous advice as such and would be keen to find this topic and read up on it's inconclusive finding...  Regardless of neutrality, courtesy and consideration (with a little common sense) should be basic human traits. Pughga (talk) 02:00,  7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Spoiler that's the policy. It's not realistic to keep the plot off the site to keep certain parts of the world happy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't (and didn't) want to remove parts of the plot! I simply propose spoiler alerts as common courtesy, especially from the point of view from someone working f/t in the film industry with the constant frustration of pirating killing our industry (and taking food out of my unborn children's mouths) to work on something, giving it all for two years plus, to be ruined by the whole thing being put up on here and belittle what me and thousands of others do for the masses...Pughga (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that is a debate you should maybe start at WP:SPOILER, but I can tell you I have read the plots for lots of films and games on here when they don't come out in my country for ages and still gone to see them (if they sound good). The plot sections give a summary of events, they don't convey action scenes or things like that, someone isn't going to not pay for the film based on the plot here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the plot for Skyfall on here. Tell me that doesn't cover all key reveals and the ending at least and is a "summary"...  The one in particular I'm referring to is a main character being killed off and how!!!  That's a major spoiler and would have far more impact if warned not to read (then it's the users fault)/ or simply not on here.  Thanks for pointing me in that direction for the link too.the impending collapse of it all (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on becoming a Veteran Editor IV
Many congrats to you becoming a Veteran Editor IV, my friend. This is a huge milestone, that you have reached. All I can say is: "You deserve it". After all you have made such tireless contributions to Wikipedia, for a very long time. Great job once again. Surge_Elec (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Surge, doesn't feel like i've made 20,000+ edits though, *phew* Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise sending kudos your way. Still remember the olden days where we made futile tries to improve DBZ articles, six years ago wow. You'd figure we'd know better than to edit Wikipedia by now. :) Papacha (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the DBZ articles. Good times. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Expendables 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Amazing Spider-Man (film) (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) 12:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Dredd
Hi, Darkwarriorblake, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested for the above article at the GOCE Request 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) 23:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for taking this on Baffle gab. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries; 'Done - Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of Dredd, please don't edit pages for that manner, if you must please restrict off hand comments to the talk page (although obviously it's not a forum *wink* *wink*). Anyways, I believe studios have deals in place with cinemas that restrict the earliest they can release a film on DVD so that might have something to do with the odd timing, but otherwise I agree the marketing campaign was awful, well they only have themselves to blame for it's abysmal gross.--Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, All, you can't tell editors not to edit certain articles (unless you're enforcing an Admin action); see WP:OWN. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The Expendables 2

 * Thank you for taking the time to take on the project, it is much appreciated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to help, and thanks for the brownie! :-)  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 15:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Backlund title reign(s)
Don't mind at all, typing on an Android's just a real bear to do. That's right, WWE recognizes Backlund's first WWE title reign as unbroken until his match with the Iron Sheik, as noted in the chart. You'll see that these "phantom" reigns are not acknowledged officially here either - still only two - and that the bottom table gives his total numbers as they would be as though the Inoki win and other vacancies never happened. There'd been quite a lot of discussion over the topic and what to include down at WT:PW; you can peruse the archives easily by entering a keyword (like Inoki). Papacha (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice
There is a discussion involving WikiProject Comics at Reliable sources/Noticeboard that may be of interest to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Watch (2012 film)

 * Very nice article and FYI, don't worry about edit conflicts with me; unless I'm moving images around or otherwise reformatting, I copyedit in little bites (section by section). All the best,  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 02:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, though I have the knack of picking films t hat end up being duds at the Box Office so there tends to be less information available. Doesn't say much about my future as a producer. If I ever become a producer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on your good article and all the best,  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 02:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Some concerns about first-party sources and self-published sources.
I am addressing some new concerns about the sources we're using in Skyfall article. As I feel that you're one of the main contributors, I would like to invite you to participate. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't thanked you properly
Dear Blake, I haven't thanked you properly for adding the bullet time vid for The Matrix article. You said you can't deal with idiots, but may I convince you to help us with The Matrix article? There are only Nick R and me there, and I have a feeling that Nick doesn't like me very much. As it is, I doubt that our project will go anywhere. Will you join us?

BTW, when you said you were tired of people instituting changes before talking, were you talking about my Plot edits in Prometheus article? I recall edit/overhauling without asking. There were something I thought missing so I thought I'd add. If I was part of the reason you retired, do tell. I know how to take crit. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't do anythnig significant right now because of other commitments but I will try to look at the article and see if there are any improvements I can make. I don't know why you think NickR doesn't like you but it might be worth talking to him, it might just be an issue of him wanting things one way and you wanting them another. I don't recall saying that or the edits you made, the only ones I remember to teh Prometheus article were small and I recall them being improvements so I likely wasn't talking to you. The issue was on articles including Prometheus where I kept getting dragged into multiple-day long conversations about issues that I personally felt had obvious solutions and were backed up by logic/policy, but they end up dragging on anyway. I had this at The Shawshank Redemption over the plot and I'm having it right now at Prometheus where a user wants to add info that some people said it was scientifically inaccurate, and I'm just kinda dumbstruck because it's science fiction, it isn't meant to be scientifically accurate. If you're going to complain that a film about us 80 years in the future isn't scientifically accurate, where do you stop? Complain that a Delorean can't really travel through time? It's daft and yet its another discussion that just keeps going. Stresses me out and a volunteer thing shouldn't make you feel stressed so that is why I semi-retired and why I've just mostly stuck to the articles I already maintained now instead of working on any recently released films. I've avoided doing plot rewrites for instance, did a few fixes at Skyfall, but I mostly leave them to it because they're arguing back and forth over it (its been fully locked twice now) and I don't want to get involved with it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks T3, though I don't think I did all that much :D Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)