User talk:ThuranX/Archive 5

flags on ANI page
Yeah, I would have fixed it quicker if someone hadn't saved while I was working. Thanks for the attention, though.KrytenKoro 01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Corey Clark
Thank you. It's about time someone other than myself said these things. Nightscream 18:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Version 7.
That's not what you're reverting to, look at the diff link and compare it to #7. --Mardavich 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Excuse me, but the version shouldn't have changed at all until the voting has been completed - and I quote you here -


 * "ALL votes cast by ALL the registered users will be counted, and there will be no expectations whatsoever. --Mardavich 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"

So, let us leave the statment alone until voting is completed, shall we? However, you are welcome to suggest an alternative on the talk page that people can agree with. Maybe we should work on that particular skill set. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  04:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't quote ME, that's mardavich there. I'vebeen backing up YOUR restoration of the pre-Arad edit. You don't want my help? i'm out. Good luck. ThuranX 04:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see fine, thank you. You're reverting to:

"300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film based on the Battle of Thermopylae, The 300 Spartans."

This is version #7:

"300 is a 2007 film adaptation of the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller, itself partly inspired by another film, The 300 Spartans and is a fictional account of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. "

You see the difference now? --Mardavich 04:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and yours isn't #7 either. get off your high horse. ThuranX 04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and neither is yours, so please just change it to #7 per your own rational. Thanks. --Mardavich 04:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you'd only revert it out for other reasons. The article's as much a POV minefield now as before. No point in fighting it anymore, i'm dropping it from my watchlist. ThuranX 04:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Snakes & Arrows
How do I cite it? All I know is; I've got it right here by my keyboard as I type. what can I cite to prove that? Happy to leave the comment out but interested to know how I'm expected to cite it. Warners AU aren't going to post anything saying, "Oops, we f**ked up don't hurt us parent company. Please." Are they? So how do I find a citable source?

Oh, it is absolutely awesome. Make sure you're there as the shops open on the 1st because you won't want to miss the opportunity to hear it the extra few times getting it early will allow you in your lifetime. This coming from someone who was disapointed with "Vapor Trails" and "Test For Echo". Let me know what you think about "The Way The Wind Blows" - that's my favourite at the moment. Answer here because I've switched on watching on your page & conversations on two talk pages are fragmented Megamanic 05:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See, here's the problem. You can't cite yourself. here's a couple good links: WP:ATT, and WP:CITE. they should help you with citation and knowing what it is taht wikipedia considers reliable sources for citation. Editors generally cannot cite themselves, because "I have the new Rush album right here in my own hand nad I have heard it" and 'I am the new messiah, come to save the lollipop kids" are equally impossible for other wikipedia editors to verify, and verification is a major aspect of the attribution policy (the ATT above). Obviously overall, editors will be far more likely to believe you than that candy messiah, but all the same, there's no way that anyone can verify your claims. However, finding a news article or press release about the date conflict would be fine. If you find an online newspaper which mentions it, simply put a [ and a ] around the URL, and put that URL in brackets at the end of the text you add, then in the edit sumary, state something like, 'added early AU release, please fix my cite', and leave a similar note on the article's talk page. A more experienced editor will probably have yoru citation in the proper format by the next day. Alternately, find the appropriate citation style from WP:CITE, and try using the available template to help out, and all you do is fill in a few blanks. Hope this helps. ThuranX 11:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ThanksMegamanic 02:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you mean the Lollipop Kid Messiah isn't coming? How about the Gumdrop Toddler Mother Ship? ;) Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Molly Walker
Why did you recover the phrase "a man believed to be Sylar"? We've seen that is Sylar. The description is probably before we really find out that the man with the jokey cup is Sylar. -- Magioladitis 13:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to find ways to shorten a little bit the descriptions. They are to detailed. English grammar is not my strong point... yet. -- Magioladitis 13:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In future maybe you would want to base your comments on facts instead of opinion.
I have replied to your comments here.--Vintagekits 00:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rush is North American

 * I've been able to get this guy blocked before based on sheer persistence; there might be more than one guy, though. At least one of the anonymous users that does this is from Japan. JuJube 05:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Episode#20
How did you get to see this episode before its air date?--Lostcause365 16:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 talk page
I must have been editing an older version somehow. Thanks for the revert. --Atlan 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you were involved with Spider-Man 3 for a while, can you take a look at Spider-Man 4, currently undergoing AfD? Your perspective is welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect, some questions re "How does Peter know he caused explosion? - NOT A FORUM."
I'm new at wikipedia. I don't understand why I can't discuss an issue regarding the show Heroes(TV Series).

I think people are assuming a person explodes and that the person is Peter. I haven't seen, heard or read anything that conclusively settles this.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you. I'm just looking for some guidance on the criteria used to remove my serious question, that drew three responses in less than one day, with one person commenting "Yep, that is an interesting question - I've been wondering about this myself... "

--Raymm 01:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for taking such prompt action on the issue I posted in ANI! -- vi5in [talk] 19:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Sands
Thanks for the input. See the IP editor's talk page, it's worse there. The comment from Capitalistroadster made here is of relevance as well. One Night In Hackney 303 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Genre in HIM (band)
I was not arguing that Love Metal should be included, I was arguing that Debated is NOT a valid genre. ≈  Maurauth  ( 09F9 ) 14:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rush and genres
Firstly, thank you for encouraging me to use the talk page to state my reasons for the edit. I'm glad you agree that this is a hotly debated issue, and you're absolutely right that it deserves explanation via talk page.

I've put a full explanation on the talk page for the Rush article as you suggested. Please feel free to have a look at it, and comment further on it as you see fit.

I hope it's clear that my reasons for the edit are that I want settle for good what has already been, essentially, a long slow edit war over what Genre(s) rush deserves to be labeled in an encyclopedia. I'm aiming for consensus. Personally, I (A) get satisfaction from coming up with a solution that reaches consensus, and conversely, (B) get irritated over "long, slow, quiet edit wars" like I've observed -- It seems that every week or three upon returning to the Rush page, the genre has changed yet again. : )  I've endeavored to be Geneva, in this edit war.

So my goal has been to help form a consensus, which will hopefully end the long slow edit war, and keep the "Genre" entry, specifically, as consistent as possible. (Until Rush breaks out the Country album they keep jokingly threatening to make -- then it's obviously time for a rewrite : )

So again, thanks for pushing me in the right direction. I welcome your input. And I'm not going to get upset if someone disagrees with me -- My paramount hope is just that we get something everyone can agree on as objectively as possible.

Thanks!

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 22:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

redirects

 * I'd like you to explain that statement. Stellar disk was a dictdef that was transwikied to Wiktionary, and set for deletion, and covered teh same content as disc (galaxy). template:dict was a redirect that redirected to a redirect, and fixed the double redirect. Dark Knight was a DAB page before May 11, and I restored the DAB page, from the redirect. What established articles that were not on PROD did I turn into redirects? 132.205.44.134 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Assume Good Faith, you do not. 132.205.44.134 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Accusing everyone from a particular IP block of actions of everyone on that IP block is particulary not nice. If you want everyone to register for an account, go and get a policy change. Your response seems to be sure to want to make sure that people do not contribute, or to make sure that people use throwaway accounts all the time. 132.205.44.134 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, you're trolling, and you want a fight. The timing was suspicious to me. I never said anything hostile, iasked you to stop, nicely, belieing you were a new editor who didn't realize what the chagnes were doing. As it turns out, you weren't connected to that editor, and just coincidentally further confused the problems. I suggest that you get an account so that you're not taken for a random collection of editors using a collegiate IP, and you get hostile. Go away now. Do not reply, do NOT come back. What happened was a simple error, compounded by your obstinate insistence that having accounts is stupid. ThuranX 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Captain Marvel
Everything I added was from the comics not my own theories.70.170.27.143 04:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

wp:ani
sorry, computer broke for a couple of days, so I didn't get to reply to you.

I DID try the spoiler thing first on my sandbox, and until it was working there I moved it to the template. The main problem was the lag between the saving of spoiler and endspoiler, coupled to the fact that many people forget or are lazy and not include endspoiler template eeven though the tempalte documentation says it so. So yes. I asked a couple of guys if that was a sensible idea nad they said yes, so I went ahead and tried it. It did work, itdidn't break any policy (at least not any of the 5 important ones). I'm all saying that the inmediate knee jerk reaction of desysop calling was unwarranted. -- drini [meta:][commons:] 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mary Goldsmith
Glad to help! The info I added was from here: Jokestress 00:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Steve Gerber
If you think Will Eisner needs a template, make one. Don't try to marginalize an important and influential writer like Steve Gerber. I'd make one about Eisner, but I'm woefully ignorant of his work on the whole. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Gerber's a nobody. he's a dime-a-dozen writer whose best contributions were made so by better writers. He doesn't need a template any more than 90% of the comics industry does. The few names that matter stand out. He doesn't. he's non-notable, and frankly, he's probably best known as the guy who claremont replaced. Big deal. This is fancruft and link collection, and nothing more. Templates for Eisner, Lee, Kirby, Miller, Gaiman and Moore would matter. Gerber doesn't rank that high. Not by a long shot. ThuranX 22:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ghostrider
It is a relevant point to compare Mephistopheles to a character in the Nicholas cage film, as a point of debate to whether that is a worthy item to be linked to the page. I appreciate the sentiment, re forum, however it could have been handled more diplomatically. Many thanks.CorleoneSerpicoMontana 15:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading what I wrote it wasn't quite what I thought I had put down. It was a wiki-worthy comment in my head, but upon typing it came out mcuh less a valid wikipedia comment. Cheers CorleoneSerpicoMontana 12:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits
please dont mess with my edit. its not your website. THANK YOU!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsome (talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 May 2007

please stop vandalising or you will be reported to the administrator. Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsome (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 May 2007

Original Research huh? here, I'll give you a little quote right from the page

Physical appearance Two-Face is generally depicted with the left side of his face a twisted, discolored mess, with his lips and eyelids pulled back and his hair discolored or burned off. His left hand matches in some interpretations, while it is undamaged in others. The coloration of his deformity also seems to be at the whim of the colorist at the time, though green or purple seem to be the most common.

The severity of the disformations also vary. Most early versions of Two-Face depict his hair, ear and lips as mutilated, but intact. Long Halloween and Dark Victory, however, depict Dent's scarred side with no hair, and the skin burned so badly that he no longer has his ear lobe, eye lid, or lips. What remains is colored pink. This look has also been adopted somewhat for his current disfigurement as part of One Year Later: although he retains his eye lids and lips, his ear lobe and hair are gone. His skin is also a dark red. His left hand may or may not be scarred to match his face, depending on the artist. There is also some question as to whether he retains vision in his left eye or is partially blind due to the acid strike(depending on the colorist, his left eye may not match his right).

Ever since "The Long Haloween" that is how he has been generally depicted, and I don't see were you have the right to be super mod and tell people what they need to do. It's not your page, and I'm keeping it updated and giving a reader the best possible description of Two-Face and trust me that Annual cover doesn't do it So, no I won't listen to you and yes, I will keep changing the image and I'm sure that this image would have quite a bit more support than yours Good day

Two Face reverts
I never came trolling for a fight all I did was quote the ARTICLE there is no "Original Research" when quoting the actual article is there? You want to dispute my claim, you pick up a mainstream Batman book from the last 10 years that depict Two-Face differently love to see you try —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole435 (talk • contribs)


 * Two-Face had not been on my watchlist, but for some reason, I feel suddenly inspired to watch it too. Doczilla 06:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

About me "saving Wikipedia"
Nothing wrong with what you said, but just adding some context. The slogan on my userpage is for "Unity to save wikipedia," not me. I borrow that from the Serbs: Only Unity Can Save Serbia (Samo Sloga Sprske Spasava). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Genocidal Muslims are a GREAT role-model. ThuranX 03:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Reports
I'm puzzled about the 3RR report page myself. If you think your report isn't being acted on quickly, consider this: I made a report over a week ago that's still pending. At first I understood that my report would take longer than others because it was a special case (4 reverts in 25 hours, not 24, but by someone with an extensive history of edit warring and getting warned about things like this), but ten days? Or more, depending on when it finally gets covered. Doczilla 07:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

BOF
In case you're interested, I've been responding to the BOF folks here. I'm using the handle "Erik the Bad Guy". :) Just trying to diffuse a situation before it starts; I wasn't liking the talk of BOF invasion of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Image
I didn't remove the image. I simply made it a link that people could click. It was large, and not necessary for public viewing. I did to it, what we do with the non-free images, I just put a colon in front of "image" so that it isn't visible on the screen, you have to click the caption. It had been removed at least twice before, so I figured this way it would serve both parties best, you don't have to stare it all the time, but it's still there for arguments purposes.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Over there because of a report against User:TTN. People were upset that he was redirecting individual episode articles that don't meet the criteria established by WP:EPISODE and Television episodes. It's been there forever, but like those non-free images, no one bothered to "uphold the law", so to speak. So, now they are all pissed because their 1000 word plots and trivia were all redirected to a parent article and are complaining.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

R68
Well, technically, I am a child, but how does the vandals get "rewarded" by my angry comments? The Legendary Ranger 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you telling me that the vandals are only here to irritate us and mess up our heads?The Legendary Ranger 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hulk (Marvel Comics)
Hi, ThuranX. I think we may have some crossed edits. I'm assuming you weren't finding my default-sizing images and formatting the caption per WikiProject Comics editorial guidelines the vandalism you were referring to. All good. --Tenebrae 04:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Per Wiki civility guidelines, please do not personalize your edit summaries against a fellow editor, or imply vandalism on his part. Two editors, you and I, were simply editing at the same time, which occasionally happens out of chronological coincidence. It's really not necessary to state "tenebrae's edits continually conflict with the the conflict box", whatever that means. Thank you. --Tenebrae 13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. Thanks. --Tenebrae 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Catwoman
Explain to me why what I added to the Catwoman section was Completely speculative compare to the other Catwoman parodies and homages. If you fail to explain all of them, I will add the info back. Duhman0009 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not my job to do your work for you. All you need to do is cite something about YOUR information. As for the others, they're all plain on their face. A video game female using a whip is simply not enough to make her a parody of catwoman. By that logic, all dominatrixes are simply imitators of Catwoman. Go do your own research, find an RS, cite, move on. Removals of the sort you describe are WP:POINT violations. ThuranX 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but this entire section is lacking source:


 * This article does not cite any references or sources.
 * Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
 * Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time.
 * This article has been tagged since January 2007.


 * This basically means that most of the stuff in this section was simply added because a female character dressed up in a cat suit. So I'll make you an even better offer, you personally add what you delete, or I remove the entire section, it's been tagged 5 months ago anyway, about time someone did something. Also, don't try to hide behind the Wiki rules, I am well aware of your kind. You hide behind the rules for which you brake yourself, you only use the rules to prevent other from editing what you like but brake the rules when it's for your own personal gain. Duhman0009 12:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're still violating policy with a POINT violation. I suggest, again, that you go read policy, and if you want to add something, find it a source. It really is that simple. ThuranX 13:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not the answer I was looking for. Since their are no sources for this entire section, I will take it down. Duhman0009 14:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job, deleting sourced information. That's the proof you're acting out a temper tantrum online. Had you read the section, you'd have seen that I did, in fact start sourcing the stuff. As such, youv'e got NOTHING now. Kindly go away. ThuranX 15:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks
for reverting the edit and helping keep my name clean.TheManWhoLaughs 20:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

ultimates
thats fine but loeb has stated in interviews that venom, panther, and a classic villian will appear so it should be in the article.TheManWhoLaughs 20:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How do i do that?TheManWhoLaughs 15:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bedini
I didn't insult him, I hope. If he added relevant things, why would I put them out? If you check my talk, you'd see I'm in good relationships with many authors, and nobody so far accused me of "taking in hostage" any article. If you see, I also tried to improve the article until discovering it was somewhat an automatic translation at a whole and losing enthusiasm (also 'cause the subject is the less interesting for me). Anyway, I still remain of the opinion that all that stuff is unrelevant and has no dignity to remain here; if I must be furthe sincere, I doubt at all that the whole entry is too large for such a minor figure (make a comparison... it's larger that Lorenzo il Magnifico's one!!!), but this is my POV. Sorry if I looked uncivil. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Faults
Well, I see you always expressing anger at editors like Essjay and ChrisGriswold at the top of your page. Still, soldier on. Alientraveller 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Spiderman
Hi there. I'm just informing that my edit to the Spiderman3 page was not "incorect". I thought the sentence was needlessly long (and possibly a comma splice), and I shortened it. Oran e  (talk)  14:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edit broke the sentence, not broke it up. It's generally bad to start a sentence with 'yet', jsut as it's poor form to start with 'Because' too often. Both can open a sentence in certain situations, but the case in question isn't such a situation. The sentence is premised on the contrast between the critical reviews and the large box office take. Separating the two as you did undoes the contrast and the ... subjunctive - IIRC my College English - clause cannot stand alone properly. It would probably have been a grammatically proper change to start that new sentence with 'Despite this, ....box office numbers...' but that would be taking a tacit, subtle, implied contrast and making it blatant, and more verbose. Hope this helps you understand why the edit you made was incorrect. ThuranX 20:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from, but I disagree with your stance to some extent.


 * The sentence is premised on the idea that SPD3 got bad reviews, but warm commercial reception. Both clauses are equally important, and are also independent clauses: "The movie got bad reviews." "The movie was popular." (None is subordinate or "subjunctive.") To make the connection between the two sentences, you need a coordinating conjunction (yet, and, but, so...). (As a side note, the fact that the two ideas in the article were connected with "yet" reinforces my point that the two are equally important, and are independent clauses). While you can use one sentence to state the two ideas, in some cases, especially when the sentence is convoluted or unusually long, like this one, perhaps, it's best to separate them to offer a level of clarity for the reader. The implication that the two sentences are closely related carries over into the second sentence, especially because one comes immediately after the other. And because both sentences are independent clauses, a period between them wouldn't be incorrect.


 * Additionally, one could use a coordinating adverb (however, nevertheless..), which, in my opinion, would be far more appropriate. Consider this: "The film broke most of the opening weekend records, both in the United States, and in foreign markets, including records held in IMAX theaters; however, it received generally mixed reviews from critics, in contrast to Spider-Man 2's highly positive reviews."


 * PS: I'm an English major at the University of Toronto, and a self-labeled "grammar freak." (Though I'm not implying that I'm always right.) Oran e   (talk)  03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PPS: If you maintain that the second part of the idea is subordinate, then it is incorrect to use "yet" in the article. It's correct, however, to state that, "Although the film received generally mixed reviews from critics, in contrast to Spider-Man 2's highly positive reviews, it broke most of the opening weekend records, both in the United States, and in foreign markets, including records held in IMAX theaters." Oran e   (talk)  03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A request
Dear Thuran, few weeks ago, you had posted a very strong message in ANI about an editor who exposed my real identity through an error I made in a sandbox. I have being thinking about it because not only did he expose me to grave danger but also my family back home. Also number of editors have been harrasing me with that information ever since1,2,3. Although I have been contributing to Wikipedia for one year, I have not involved myself in admin and sanction related issues. I have looked at rfc after your post to redress my problem and I need some guidance as to how to go forward. If you have the time, can you let me know. Thanks Taprobanus 20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC
As you had previously commented on this matter, I thought you might want to take part. Requests_for_comment/Mark_Kim.--Crossmr 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Catwoman Edits

 * Sometimes, I have difficulty deciding whether you are the pompous, uncivil bastard that others think you are, ar the greatly misunderstood genius who has difficulty tolerating those who he feels aren't at his level.
 * I tend to believe its the latter, ThuranX. I know you put up with a lot of crap (even from me in our first meeting, wherein you sent me on a blind search through 6-7 archives to find an old conversation), but there are people here in WP who do feel the way you do. There are many of us who feel that the loss of the in-joke articles is something to be mourned, and not simple obstacles in the March of Progress.
 * I disagree that retaining the Black Cat reference in the Catwoman article serves as an electric fence preventing others from seeking out other comparisons in media to Catwoman. The section itself contradicted the very title and reasoning as to why it would be in the article in the first place. What I did was to remove the section to the Discussion page, so that it can be referenced in response to an argument for the inclusion of any future Blkack Cat addition or some other unconnected addition. It allows for more crafting to be done on the Discussion page, and not going back and forth int he article itself.
 * It seems to me (granted, I have less experience at dealing with the wide range of ass-clowns that you do) that this sidesteps the revert-warring nonsense that is better resolved 'off-camera', in the Discussion Page. If it was imperious to make that decision - to not have someone like yourself waste their time arguing with someone who has little respect for any point of view different than their own, then I'll take the labelling. You time is better spent preserving the dream, not arguing with chuckleheads. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  10:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Then again, if you are going to get snippy over "kibbitzing", perhaps a wikibreak might not hurt you. For someone who's decrying the loss of the WP's sense of humor, you sure aren't displaying one. How about just an iota of pleasantness? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  01:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I've spent almost 10 minutes trying to think of reply, but they all come down to the fact that your attitude that nothing can be solved without your presence is grating on my nerves. You do it so habitually that I can tell you have no clue that you're doing it, but I'm tired of it. As for needing a wikibreak, no, I don't. I'm working just fine with numerous editors. You're one of a small, select few who are driving me nuts for editing and not policy reasons. ThuranX 02:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC) In fact, I'll go one further, and say that this is a perfect example of the problematic behavior you exhibit. Read that whole thread through. Duhman is right. not only did you shove your nose in, when there was no need for dispute resolution. You like egging others on, and seeing reactions. Do not replicate your pattern here. Go away, and think about how your actions seem to regularly engender these sort of reactions in others. ThuranX 02:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(comment reinserted by ThuranX) Thank you for your opinion. I have considered it, and dismissed it. This is one of those occasions where its a 'hellp pot, meet kettle' situations. Frankly, I don't give a skinny rat's ass if I grate against you. i am done trying to defend your behavior to others (especially with folk like Duhman). I will contribute wherever I wish, and if you are displeased with that, you should feel free to go elsewhere. Don't consider this egging on. Consider this my throwing up my hands at yoiur inability to evolve and be even a bit more thankful for those who actually defend your uncivil nonsense. I guess we are done here. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're the first to be rubbed the wrong way by his personality. Since I somewhat helped him into Wikipedia in the first place, I just took his personality as it was. I suppose he injects more humor than necessary in some serious discussions. I haven't had an issue with him 'cause I'm pretty much a straight-up contributor with my results pretty much defined; nothing to clash over. I don't venture into the unknown. I'd just suggest playing it straight; keep your tone neutral. The above criticism you just served up isn't going to help matters. Just explain things clearly, and don't back it with attitude. You know how the saying goes: "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." (And I just saw Arcayne's new comment... here we go...) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just pulled my earlier response, mostly because it was a knee-jerk reaction to getting kicked by someone who's edgy responses to others I have defended on more than one occasion. For the record, I don't like egging others on. I think you might be confusing me with Duhman, who defined your description as his "game" was. It also bears pointing out that I defended you in my response to Duhman. Clearly, you either missed that, or disregarded it. I have been in your corner for quite some time, and I am actually disappointed at your recent attacks on me. Perhaps you should consider how how your own actions seem to regularly engender negative reactions in a great many others. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hope you kids can work out an armistice... I'm off to bed. Wiki disputes ain't worth it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Further Catwoman Edits
(proceeding with trepidation, as I am disappointed in you) you stated in an edit summary this morning: "Citation is needed for casting choices, not for reporting the cast. One's a pre-production situation, the other is post-release." Could you explain where policy covers that? I am trying to understand your reasoning, ThuranX. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  15:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you aren't interested in applying common sense to citation, nor to the widely established policy that facts which aren't controversial in any manner, and readily verified anywhere, don't need citation, like 2+2=4, or charlton heston played Moses, I have added two citations. Your POINTy behavior is obnoxious. If you're not further familiar with Wikiedia's policies on citation, I suggest you go read up on them. ThuranX 16:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not what I asked, and I am not trying to be "pointy". I am not doubting your edits, ThuranX, I am trying to understand the reasoning (and policy) that backs that up, so I can learn from it. I am familiar with the policies, but I don't see the distinctions you are making, and am asking you to give me the benefit of your larger experience in WP and help explain your reasoniong. Honestly, not trying to be difficult here. Please stop snapping at me. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're a troll. You're deliberately disrupting pages with citation demands for every line and section to make a point. What that point is, I don't care. but it's tiring, childish, and irritating. If you feel that every single thing needs citation, you go find it. I found more than enough, given that this all started with you being nosey. Finally, you have chosen to repeat the 'having the last word' pattern you displayed on Duhman009's page. Any return here will be taken as harassment, and followed up with WP:HARASS. ThuranX 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It didn't need to come down to this. ThuranX, really, take a breather. Even if you don't agree with Arcayne's methodology, and I seriously doubt he means to act out of malice, that's no reason to blow up. The information was easily findable, but I wouldn't say it's on the same level as recognizing that Charlton Heston played Moses. For the sake of completeness, I added a citation that pointed to the Lego Batman characters' webpage, which has Catwoman listed (as I can't directly link to the profile due to the Flash setup). Arcayne, if there is something that appears pretty plain, just give a shot Googling the keywords in the sentence and add in a citation if it's readily available. If the process is easy enough to go through, take a minute out of life to see if it can be addressed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I self reverted. That's enough. I've had it with his behavior, and with this ridiculous portrayal of my attitude as biting the hand that guards me or some such. I've always been after him to act like an adult, or I've tolerated him. But he has a bad habit of butting in, and irritating BOTH sides. You would think that when he sticks his nose in, and finds BOTH duhman009 and myself agreeign that arcayne needs to butt back out, he would. Instead, he gets self-righeous about it. When Galliaz points of that simple facts do NOT need citation, Arcayne arrogantly reverts it, then acts like a wikilawyer. It's ridiculous. His immaturity comes at a time when I simply do not have an interest in having pages i've worked on be disrupted like this. There are a lot of pages I'd like to be attending to, but instead of that, I have to deal with a guy whose has a nearly compulsive need to get the last word in. You'll note he had to make one more comment at your page, and then come here to do it here too. When Galliaz and I both tell him there's no need for citation on a product release year, he should accept that more experienced editors are backing each other up about policy. instead, he wikilawyers. It's damn childish behavior. ThuranX 18:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate you self-reverting, ThuranX. I should point out that I have had very little in the way of contact with you, and I don't recall any conversation wherein you tried to help me in any way. As well, we have had contact on maybe one ro two prior occasions over the past seven or 8 months I've been here, and I have never attacked or been uncivil with you until your recent targeting of me. I am sorry for not responding more civilly to your assumptions, when I could have tried harder to be more polite. I am sorry you do not like the way I edit, and I am sorry that my edits come at a time when you are more impatient with helping others learn (which is why I even bother posting to you after yesterday - I wanted to learn). I won't respond again and have you think that I am after the last word here. I am really disappointed that you attacked me, and I think you were pretty unjustified in doing so, but I will take the hint and not look to you for advice or help in the future. Again, i am sorry if my earlier posts upset you, as I - up until yesterday - had enormous respect for you. I won't write again. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Called it, he had to grab the last word. But since he just can't be bothered to read it himself, I refer him to Verifiability, and specifically, paragraph one, lines two and three, and I quote: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Right there. No one is challenging it, and it wasn't likely to BE challenged. Further, placing a CN does NOT constitute an actual Challenge, the edit summary or talk page needs to be used to expand on the matter. ThuranX 18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude. Quit being an ass. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Staying cool when the editing gets hot
Keep your cool dude. Comment on the content, not the editor (repeats mantra over and over). Sasquatch t|c 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Transformers
Thanks, it's been fun taking care of this article since I first came onto Wikipedia. You know, all my recent research has been gearing me up for this film's tone: Spielberg storylines meets Bay action. It'll be an interesting mix, one that will get criticised. Alientraveller 10:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I know it'll be criticised, but I'm confident in Bay's storytelling abilities (Bruce Willis in Armageddon, The Island was a step-up), and I think a boy and his car works to his masculine direction. Alientraveller 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Architect
Hi ThuranX. Can I ask that you have another look at your edit to Infobox Architect, as the "nationality" field now seems to display incorrectly (see for example Moshe Safdie), and I don't know how to fix it myself. Many thanks, Edward Waverley 08:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I know I could have edited it, but I meant that I don't understand all the brackets etc, and how they work, so I thought it safer to ask someone who does! Cheers, Edward Waverley 12:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cap cover
Right on both counts -- found no hard evidence, and real life socked me. You're a gracious collaborator, the embodiment of the cooperative way things should work. And pretty insightful, clearly. With thanks, -- Tenebrae 14:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Joker
Just wanted to let you know I've given User:BlueShrek two warnings now &mdash; the first of which he deleted &mdash; about removing other editors' posts from article talk pages. If he does it again, I'll ask an admin to step in. Sorry to see you or anyone going through this.... --Tenebrae 18:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hulk
From my experience watching films go from pre-production into production, there are gaps with some projects where filming is announced for a certain date, then later announcements say it's currently filming, with no footnote as to whether it started on time. I think that when articles recede into the past, we can make the filming start date more vague if it's based on a citation like the one for the Hulk -- instead of saying the specific day in July, we can say that it started in July 2007. It's probably not necessarily encyclopedic in the long run to have very exact start/end dates. If there is a clear-cut citation for them, that would probably be fine. In this case, we still have the rest of July, so maybe in a month or two, we can just let go of the day attribute. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Furniture pages
Thanks for the feedback - I appreciate the need for proper citation, I'm going to try and pull out some books and papers I've got on Asia in general to track down where it talks about furniture and put them in as references. If not, as I mentioned before, I'll have access to the full library facilities at university when I'm back this fall, so if you feel it's more appropriate to change some of the info around until it can be better accounted for please do. I'm rather new to this contributing thing quite obviously and really appreciate the guidance. Have valued wikipedia for a long time, but never found a niche I felt I had much to contribute to. Moketronics 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thor
Very good edits. Just wanna say. --Tenebrae 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Link on your User page
Hey there, the link on your user page directing to here has been archived, but I think I found the archive link:. Just wanted to point that out - :-) See ya, daveh4h 07:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Michael Hall
Your mention of him as Mr. Arkham was new to me, and I actually like the notion, since it'll keep the major villain count down. I can imagine some potential storylines with that kind of character. Come up with that yourself, or somewhere else? I haven't even heard a mention of Arkham in my RSS feeds and Google Alerts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Something I came up with talking to a friend. He's got the physical for it, lean, tall, blonde, and he's got the acting chops to handle it; it'd be like his Dead Zone character's perceptiveness without the psychic, and playing the suspicious of the crazy is osmething he's probably eager to try after playing 'the crazy' for a while. Glad you like the idea. I've imagined him testifying in the Dent case, consulting with the GCPD Chief about Batman, interviewing Gordon, coming face to face with Batman in Arkham, possibly as a subplot about recapturing the inmates let loose in Ra's release. he'd be great for commenting on the diametric oppposition of Joker and Bats, or on Harvey dent's shattered psyche. ThuranX 23:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much along the lines of what I was thinking, that kind of collaboration after Arkham Asylum empties out. Good call, I hope you're right about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

HP7 protection discussion at WP:ANI
Hey, I added some more comment and just wanted to see if you might respond further. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 07:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your comments on the administrator's noticeboard, it does go a long way. Hopefully this situation will be resolved soon. MezzoMezzo 14:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Professional baseball
I was merely trying to explain what was going on. The banned User:Tecmobowl aka User:Long levi, keeps coming back and messing with things. I'm done striking through things, though. Baseball Bugs 15:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I think of it... what is your sudden interest in this specific matter? I haven't seen your name on the baseball pages. Baseball Bugs 02:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care?
I've stated I'm willing to block if he persists, but he hasn't. I checked through his edits yesterday and noted that they all appeared to have been reverted, and asked if any more needed doing' and then advised those who know and understood the situation to do the reverts as it would be difficult for an uninvolved admin to do it. I am perfectly willing to help out in any other way I can. What have you done? Three posts in that one thread demanding that others take action! As far as I can see you've done nothing practical yourself whatsoever.

Why do you demand action from others that you are not willing to take yourself? Try this exercise, go through your contributions list and look at the posts to the AN/I. Count how many offer good solid practicable, actionable advice, and how many do not. Count how many times you personally did something to solve one of the problems that was presented on the AN/I and compare it with the number of times you asked action from others. You don't have to tell anyone the results. Just do it for yourself to understand why I am a tiny bit irriated with your posts over the past couple of days. I'm sorry I removed you post with a "trolling" edit summary btw. That was out of order on my part.

It feels nice to have got that off my chest. I hope you will forgive the terse tone. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. I prefer to keep the discussion in one place to make it easier for others to follow the conversation. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

McSweegan / "copyvio"
Just FYI, the McSweegan material you removed was NOT a copyvio; McSweegan is/was an employee of the US Federal Government (at the National Institute of Health), wrote that material in the course of his employment, thereby making it a "work of the Federal Government", and it was posted on a US government website. It was material in the public domain. Wikipedia policy explicitly acknowledges that, see Public_domain.

Someone has come along since and tried a "from scratch" rewrite anyway, which needed to be done on more general principles. Studerby 17:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Schallodenbach
Hi. I have just reverted your revert to Schallodenbach. The infobox template already contains the coord template, hence the duplication. - 52 Pickup 08:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message
I use TWINKLE to tag stuff, so have a word with it's authours. :) ShakespeareFan00 17:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Endless Design
I just put a vandalism 1 tag on his talk page. That should hopefully slow him down, outside of the category spamming and the nonsense reverts he made a few decent edits yesterday and early today. --Basique 23:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Creepy Crawler
I haven't done checkuser on Creepy Crawler's latest sock because I've busted so many CC socks that it will look like I have a personal vendetta. I should mention that more than once, checkuser and suspected sock reports have failed because Wikipedia records on IP numbers don't go back far enough to confirm or disconfirm whether or not someone is CC. The last few times they worked, I had to do checkuser/suspected sock reports on User:EJBanks rather than User:Creepy Crawler. Doczilla 05:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Check some history I listed at []. Doczilla 05:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More history on the Creepy Crawler clan: []. Doczilla 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== WP:ANI ==

Since this involves ignoring last weeks ANI resolution, I'm informing the editors who were involved. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:16, July 30 2007 (UTC)

TDK
Don't bother responding to TabascoMan. There's nothing left to say, and he shouldn't be dignified with a response. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(Hahaha... apparently I do this a lot, since my following comment is just like the above one.) Just wanted to suggest not responding to this. I don't care to get into an edit war about whether the comment should stay or not, but he shouldn't be dignified with a response. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

re: "evidence"
The ability to link to their letters, but not the ability to verify with the men themselves, was handily banned by some very interested parties as part of the "attack sites" campaign. Not a coincidence, the slashdot furor has been expected in some form for a long time by interested parties and the wikishredding has been purring along for awhile. Perhaps you should google to find the two letters from two very notable men, who also happen to have had either/and their BLPs + related heated topics adminned by a familiar face. Some people who aren't in the cool crowd on wiki get banned, then outed, because then they're fair game. The in-crowd can't get outed, because you have to get banned first or not have friends up the ladder - otherwise you have wikipedia immunity from coi investigations - until some news outlet does an end around wikipedia and does what should have been taken care of internally. Not a management policy that ensures the long term credibility or survival of an organization. Piperdown 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Shadow of the Bat
BOF has mentioned Shadow of the Bat as the title for the third film under Nolan. I've created the article as a redirect; see further discussion on the redirect's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hancock House
To be honest, no, not at present. However, here's my reasoning: there are three Hancock Houses (plus the Hancock Manor) -- presumably articles will eventually be created for the other two, thus the need for a disambiguation page. Is there a special reason why "Hancock House" should lead to the NJ house alone? Biruitorul 22:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nowhere does WP:D state that "disambigs to redlinks are bad", but I've created placeholder stubs in any case. Is this solution workable for the time being? Biruitorul 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In fact, this has nothing to do with my emotions -- let's comment on content, not other users. If you must know, when I wrote Hancock Manor I considered creating a disambiguation page but decided against it, figuring no one would write an article on the other Hancock Houses for some time. I was wrong, and now I've taken what I think is the right step to fixing the problem. If you'd like to pursue the matter further (which you did say you don't), I recommend WP:3O; otherwise, let's move on. The assumption still is that those stubs will be expanded in due time. Biruitorul 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom Come
Hey, I'm hoping to work on Kingdom Come (comic book) as a non-film project, and I've set up a subpage at User:Erik/Kingdom Come. So far, I've implemented a comic book template and fit the image in it, and I added the fair use rationale for that image. (I will have to address the other images, though.) Since you're more familiar with comic book articles than I am, can you provide some advice in how to start re-shaping the page? I was thinking about forking the list of minor characters that appear in the comic book and retaining the major players -- Superman, Batman, etc. Your advice would be appreciated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen
In line with collecting resources for Kingdom Come, I've done the same for Watchmen. I've set up a subpage at User:Erik/Watchmen. I also reviewed the references at Watchmen, and I found half of them to be bad references. At the subpage, the green check marks are references that I evaluated and found acceptable. The red X marks are references that are inappropriate, with the reasoning at the end of the line. The rest of the references in the article are from the comic book itself, and a lot of it seems to put forward original research. Take a look at User:Erik/Watchmen/Draft: The red text is the text that depends on the bad references, and the green text is what seems to be original research, either stand-alone or reading into the primary source. I'm seriously considering putting the article up for WP:FAR. I had considered it somewhat before, but in evaluating the used references, I've realized that this is not a high-quality article at all. Watchmen (film) is in much, much better shape than this. I'm wondering, though, should I put it up for a FAR now, or should I try to see if I can prepare appropriate information so when I put it up for FAR later, I can implement the changes? The FAC process might be rougher to go through again. WikiProject Comics doesn't really have many strong articles, so I'd like to see if Watchmen can be rescued. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, no rush. Sorry if I sounded all concerned.  I've got plans tonight as well; just editing and doing laundry in the meantime.  Have a good time with your company! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thor (Marvel Comics)
I couldn't find anything in WP:COMIC regarding guidelines where the top has to be linked fictional character; if they're introduced as a superhero, supervillain, etc., in the top paragraph they're indirectly fictional characters so that makes it a redundant. Nothing also did I find saying the use of [superfluous] disambiguaton dabs were recommended, see WP:HAT on why there are limited circumstances where they're needed. Either show me the section where it says that stuff or I'll revert your edit to that page. Thanks. Lord Sesshomaru
 * Did you mean another guideline perhaps? Still can't find it. Lord Sesshomaru


 * WikiProject_Comics/exemplars. There ya go. Since it already fit the exemplar, there's no need to change it. As to the HAT, disambiguating between multiple comic characters of the same name, and the actual figure of myth who inspired them is worth having. I don't have to find a specific guideline for it. Including a disambig to closely related topics is the point of having disambigs. Thanks for asking, though. ThuranX 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, but you're wrong on two things: it says, like I thought, "The opening sentence should be formatted in one of the following two ways" ... either use fictional character or superhero (or supervillain if that's what they are, etc.) for the top sentence. The disambiguation above is not worth having, see WP:HAT manual of style. An example of an appropiate dab would be the one at BLEACH, Kal-L or fiend, disambiguation should only be used for these types of situations (ie, redirects or words that look too much alike). If Thor redirected to Thor (Marvel Comics), then a disambiguation dab would be acceptable. I am asking you kindly to please revert to my revision on that page since I've provided my reasons. Or do you oppose these guidelines mentioned? Lord Sesshomaru


 * I can see reverting the intro, but I'm standing firm on the dab. There are three or four comic characters that come to mind immediately, named thor. the dab is fully warranted. ThuranX 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well. Let me have another person's view, someone from WP:HAT to help decide whether the dab is needed for Thor (Marvel Comics) or any others aside from the original Thor. In the meantime, I'll ask if one is even needed at Count Dracula, which I think one is not. Lord Sesshomaru


 * Fine, go bother other editors. You don't like HAT, argue it there. but going around randomly undoing it per an unsettled issue is going to put you into conflict a lot. ThuranX 03:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Please remain civil while we talk this out, you may want to see WP:NAMB at this time. Need I say more? I'm going to make those changes based on that but before I do so, what else would you like to know? Lord Sesshomaru


 * I am sorry to say this, but the guideline is crystal clear on this issue. Hatnotes shouldn't be used when the main article (i.e. the title without brackets) is a disambiguation page, such as Thor. The person searching for "Thor" doesn't end up at Thor (Marvel Comics), and the person searching for "Thor (Marvel Comics)" is looking for information on that specific subject.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 04:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Endless
I guess I was wrong about him eventually coming around and fitting into the Comics Project, he blanked both of our talk pages. --Basique 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
I'm pretty sure I'm right, please see the discussion on the talk page for List of Outsiders members when you have a chance. Thanks. --CmdrClow 08:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing that seems a little off are his purposes of formatting the list. He lists "apparent death" in place of deceased, because comic book deaths aren't always permanent. While this is true, shouldn't a character in which the deceased label applies remain that way until a resurrection occurs? It's basically a question of making this particular list uniform with the other DC team lists regardless of personal opinions. I appreciate your input. --CmdrClow 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting the Gothic Chess page
I appreciate you stepping in to halt the edit war going on at Gothic Chess. Thanks infinity!

GothicChessInventor

Requests for adminship/Crockspot
You forgot to sign your comment. —AldeBaer 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?
Exactly where did I say that authority has the right to kick the crap out of anyone? I just said it happens. Every year. - Crockspot 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah yeah. I read what you said. And I replied. ThuranX 20:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You also attributed something in quotes to me, which I did not say. That's extra special. - Crockspot 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I think I'm done responding to you. I interpreted what you said, and you don't like it. Your feelings about my response to your statements is not my problem. From you, to me, back out. not back to you, then i have to do a dance. I'm done replying, and I'm not about to give you any sort of means to eliminate my vote on some perception of personal aggressions. I'm sure you're a fine editor, I simply don't want someone who makes jokes about jews, gays and blacks as an admin. Your support of police state behaviors and the sentiment that protestors should shut up or get what they deserve further my opposition. that's all, good bye. ThuranX 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Elonka articles
What complaint do you have against me about the Elonka articles? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

X2
I've just checked again on my copy of the DVD. The onscreen title is X2. The movie's official title as listed with the Motion Picture Academy of America is also X2.

I know fans like the longer title -- I do, too -- but just as Die Hard 2 is not Die Hard 2: Die Harder, we can't just call a movie whatever we like. We have to go by the official title, and note the marketing titles in the text. --Tenebrae 05:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and the X-Men United thing is primarily American. In Britain, the film was marketed as X-Men 2. Alientraveller 08:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I jsut wanted to be sure about the change. Thanks, both of you. ThuranX 16:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Rogues
I've seen that, and I had commented when Rhino forced through the merge just after it had been proposed.

I've also been toying with what some will see as gutting the tables and restructuring along the general lines of the other DC team lists: Name, ID, 1st appearance as a member, Notes. The mini bios are fine for the "Foo's foes" lists since they can become homes to some of the minor characters. Team articles, including the lists, don't warrant that level of detail.

- J Greb 06:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got no problem with moving the pertinent, team related stuff from the "Notes" back into a good article sitting above the tables. The is even a degree of precedent for that type of combined article with Sentinels of Magic and Trenchcoat Brigade. I'll take a look and see what can be brought forward... - J Greb 17:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Head honcho himself
Yeah, I figured that the conflict didn't need to be revisited. Hopefully you two don't cross paths anytime soon. :-P But regarding Jimbo, he was contacted by someone who thought I was being paid by film studios to edit Wikipedia. (Turned out to be an editor whose blog I removed that reported specific detail about filming -- both violating WP:IINFO and WP:RS criteria.) He said he didn't really think I was up to no good and commended my contributions. He also invited me to get involved with Wikia in some capacity, and I've been thinking about that, to possibly set up a Film Plot Wiki where people can write about the plot as much as they please, though I'm not sure about the legal connotations of that. (Existing wikis under Wikia.com put up an awful lot of in-universe information about specific subjects, so I don't see why the same can't apply to plots to a degree.) He did have me worried all day at first (since I responded to him via e-mail then left all day on errands), so it was a relief when I got back to find out that it was an insipid accusation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that possibility. I've read through a few RfAs myself, and the involved parties tend to dig pretty well through the candidate's contributions.  If one's not even remotely salt of the earth, chances would seem low for support, I believe.  I personally gave up the aspiration myself some time ago, as I feel better off as a contributor. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello, thank you for the supportive comments at WP:ANI. Happy editing! Johntex\talk 08:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Batman film series
Dude, is it actually you? Regardless of continuity, it is still the Batman film series. Alientraveller 16:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it something is up with your keyboard? Alientraveller 16:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Meh, you got me. I looked at the talk page and realized that I had commented on it before.  So I screwed up as much as you. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Aquaman Edit
That edit was mine, I got logged out somehow. Cheers —Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)