User talk:Darkknight2149/Archive 2

Category:Characters that are apart of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Category:Characters that are apart of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 07:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ebyabe I didn't create it. I just moved the page due to poor grammar in the title ("apart" → "a part"). I was considering nominating it for deletion myself. DarkKnight2149 07:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd like to overhaul it

I'd like to overhaul the chicken or the egg. As it is, it is terrible and reflects badly on Wikipedia. While I cannot contribute much content (as grammar and biology are my specialties), I would be more than willing to help in any way I can.

Koidevelopment (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When should we all start?

When should we start reworking it? Should we wait for more people to respond?

Spider-Man template

The article Spider-Man in film talks about Captain America: Civil War at length and has its own subsection, so its inclusion in the template is justified, especially considering that the events of Civil War are intertwined with the upcoming 2017 Spider-Man film. Richiekim (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antagonist

I just noticed that you always remove the word 'antagonist' on the pages of many popular supervillains. However, the words 'main character' on some villains' pages are still intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.44.23 (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen those but, if you know of any specific instances, I can remove them. DarkKnight2149 13:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interview questions

Here's the questions I have. If you would prefer, you can email your answer to me via Wikipedia's email service. Also, if you are unsure of what one question means, feel free to ask for clarification, and if you don't want to answer one, you can skip it. Be as brief or as long-winded as you'd like.. although longer answers are preferred :P

1) When did you start editing Wikipedia and why?

2) Does Wikipedia play a big part in your life/identity?

3) What initially drew you to the articles that you edit? What draws you to edit “Star Wars” articles?

4) Why do you feel the desire to collect disparate info and then collect it into one (or more) article?

5) What does the term ‘canon’ mean to you?

6) When you’re making an article, is it important to ‘stick to canon’, or use only legitimate, canonical sources?

7) In your opinion, what determines canon (or, “who has the final say”)?

8) Do some editors of pop culture articles guard their articles, (or “prevent the canon from being tainted”)?

9) If there’s an edit war and you want to get involved, generally, how do you determine what side to choose?

10) In your opinion, do certain Wikipedia editors have more power than others? If yes, how so?

11) How do you gain the trust of other editors?

12) How does an editor gain expertise/become an “expert” in a specific subject?

Thanks so much!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your responses; they are very useful!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anger Thread For Uncivilized User

Oh yeah, what are you going to do about this?

Its funny how just adding a simple edit with a relevant fact of the fifth star wars episode can result in so much outrage. "Keep it us and I'll open a sock puppet investigation. The Talk Page is there for a reason, so stop hopping IPs." I think you forgot a principle rule to deal with unconstructive editors: "Never feed the trolls." Statements like this just encourage more vandalism so you better watch your language and tone or you can become a next target. Cheers 24.114.54.156 (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you expressing your concern but the comment I made was entirely justified. For one, there was nothing relevant about the fact that the user added. It was simply a piece of trivia and we don't place trivia on Wikipedia. However, that's not what incited my response. I was responding to the fact that the user changed their IP address several times in order to edit war, something that is prohibited and blatantly violates WP:SOCK. And while I was admittedly frustrated at the situation, there was no outrage in the comment I made and it wasn't "feeding the trolls", as you interpreted it. I was merely warning the user of the consequences of their actions, if they continued down their present course. The user should've went to the Talk Page instead of doing what they did.

An example of "feeding the trolls" would be if a user vandalised an article by putting something like "Boba Fett is stupid" and I responded with something childish like "well, so are you! Revert!". That's not what this is. DarkKnight2149 01:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[NOTE: Vandalistic messages redacted]

Warning (I know you're probably coming back)

I've seen your frequent personal attacks on my Talk Page, and I've tried to be nice and simply ignore them. However, you have refused to stop sending them, so that is no longer possible. Let me make something very clear: the next time you or any user I suspect is you makes any personal attacks, vandalism, or any other inappropriate action, I will open a sock puppet investigation and every one of your IPs and accounts will be reported.

And don't try to pretend like you don't know what you did wrong. You know that making personal attacks and threats is not allowed and I already explained to you what you did wrong when you edit warred. You seem so angry that your account was blocked for a week but you're only digging a deeper hole for yourself.

Let me make something else clear: this isn't me lashing out at you with anger, this isn't "feeding the trolls" and this isn't an empty threat (or a threat at all). It's a simple warning. And lastly, I saw your little comment you made:

"Its still not over! You are dead meat for blocking me douchebag!"

What exactly is it do think you're going to do? Any vandalism you make to my user page and Talk Page can easily be reversed and you're certainly not hurting my feelings. DarkKnight2149 22:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[NOTE: Vandalistic messages redacted]

Sandbox Comment

Hi DK,

I was on the RTRC, and saw an unusual edit by an IP on your sandbox. All I'm gonna say is that you wouldn't want to look at it. cough*penis*cough. I reverted it, so you wouldn't have to have a heart attack. It is pretty funny though. Here's the Rev ID:707663220. That Nolan guy is pretty funny though. If you want, I'll work with you to take him down. Cheers, --TJH2018 (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any and all help is appreciated. There will be sock puppet investigation against this user that will be filed very shortly (probably tomorrow). DarkKnight2149 03:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I can file it tonight. I don't have anything better to do anyways. I got all the info I need on your sandbox. --TJH2018 (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it but I'd rather file it myself since I have observed the user's actions up close from the situation that started this to now. DarkKnight2149 03:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if you want, I can be a witness in this. It is pretty low-brow, but at the same time really funny, seeing stuff like this on Wikipedia. Have a nice evening! --TJH2018 (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might be helpful, thank you. DarkKnight2149 04:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also got your sandbox protected until tomorrow. Autoconfirmed only. So you can have a good night's sleep. --TJH2018 (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, he went after me, and ended up getting blocked. I might have some more IP's for you, if you take a look at my talk pages's history. Have fun, and I'll be there if you need any help. --TJH2018 (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TJH2018 Sorry for that. I plan on filing the Sock report on this very day, so all of the IPs will likely be blocked indefinitely just like the main account once the report 100% confirms that they are all the same user. I was going to file the report yesterday, but something came up. I don't have anything coming up for the remainder of the day, so I'll message you the link when the report is filed. DarkKnight2149 22:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Todd: In other media - Television

A few months ago, you removed the aforementioned section entirely from the Jason Todd article. As I understand it, you explained it as removing "massive amounts of original research and trivial non-appearances". As for your reasoning, I'm just not seeing it. What I saw was sourced material that was not in any way detrimental to the article's overall quality.

While it may be more subtle than in other media, Jason Todd is still very much represented in television. and I'd love for the article to reflect that once again (as it has for much of the article's existence). I'd like to see the section restored, and would be happy to assist or even do it myself entirely. But I also don't want to put hard work in and just have it reverted in five seconds due to philosophical differences, you know?

You seem to be semi-monitoring the article at the mo', so I figured you're the one to talk to. Thoughts? RazingRazor (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. The reason many of the appearances were removed is because they are what is often referred to as "trivial non-appearances". On Wikipedia, the general consensus is that if a character doesn't make a physical appearance, it usually isn't considered notable. For example, in the film X-Men 2, there is a split second where a computer screen appears with the names of various characters from the comics on it that don't appear in the film. We can't mention the film on any of those characters' "In other media" sections because it is considered trivia.

The reason Teen Titans and the DC animated universe were removed was because there wasn't a reliable source that confirms that Red X and Tim Drake are partially based on Jason Todd in those shows. If you know of any reliable sources we can use as a citation, then they can easily be re-added. DarkKnight2149 23:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's those darn philosophical differences I was talking about, as me and letter-of-the-law Wikipedia notability standards don't see eye to eye 100 percent of the time. Also, I'd like to point out for the record (like I don't already have a userbox stating this already) that I like and support the inclusion of trivia and "In popular culture" information on Wikipedia. So...we may have some differing stances.

All these things being said, I do understand where you're coming from with the Teen Titans and DCAU (pretty much the entire television section, as I don't think there's ever been a live-action television portrayal of Jason Todd, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here) appearances. I do consider them appearances, but I guess this comes down to that classic line from "Training Day": It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. The whole point of these instances was to be vague while not actually being vague to anyone familiar with the comics, to say "Yeah, that's Jason Todd" without ever actually having to spell it out. Because of that, there will never be "reliable sources" as currently defined by Wikipedia guidelines (the same standards that won't allow JonTron to have a page here, but that's a whole 'nother subject and off-topic besides). But yeah, I know you know those were based partially or entirely on Jason Todd (or at least, I think you do). Circumstances being what they are, however, there's not much I'm willing or able to do here with this particular article seemingly being held under a microscope. Or watched like a hawk, if you want to stick with the bird theming.

In any event, the whole point of my starting this discussion was to assess whether or not this was worth a time investment for me personally. It clearly isn't at the present time, so I thank you kindly for playing ball. RazingRazor (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gorilla Grodd sub-sections

Greetings, Darkknight2149.

I disagree with your assertion that the Television section for Gorilla Grodd can't be split between Animated and Live Action, since Grodd has only had one live action appearance.

Other Wiki articles, like those of other Flash characters, have this same differentiation, despite there being only one live action appearance (again, usually on The Flash). I direct you to the articles on Firestorm, Killer Frost, and Heat Wave for proof. Those Television sections are sub-divided into Animated and Live Action, even though there is only one live action appearance.

I don't want us to get into an editing war over this. But, my edit does have precedent and should be restored.

Please get back with me on this and we'll hash it out. Thanks.

Ooznoz (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Ooznoz[reply]

@Ooznoz Hello. Regarding using "Live action" and "Animated" sections, the general consensus is that we don't use them unless there are multiple forms of both media (instead of just one live action series). As for the other pages you just named, had I been aware that they contained unneeded subsections, I would've already removed them (though I would recommend reading WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:SEWAGE).

I understand that you disagree, so here's the good news for you: consensus can change. Since this applies to all comic character articles, it would probably be best if you opened a larger discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. DarkKnight2149 02:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Spider-Man

Sorry, I didn't receive you message until now. I edit while I'm a school sometimes, so the message showed up the IP account that's the school under. Anyway, my apologies. Someone already added the ratings for "Iron Vulture", but no one has added the ratings for the episode "Lizards" yet. Can you please add it? If you look at the edit I made (at school, so my IP address is different), I put it in the page, but just hidden it. Here you go Archived 2016-03-15 at the Wayback Machine. Naturally, the article has ratings for the Avengers Assemble episode and Guardians of Galaxy episodes that aired that week, too. I'd be great if you add their ratings to their respective articles, too. I'd like to do these myself since it seems no one really seems to keep track of it until much later, but I have no idea how ratings are calculated.--137.30.93.133 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bump.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@68.11.91.158 Sorry for taking so long to respond. I have been very busy and I initially had trouble finding Ultimate Spider-Man on the ratings list when I first took a look at it. DarkKnight2149 04:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you requested the episodes list to be locked up, can you add this week's ratings for the episode? Here's the link to this week's ratings Archived 2016-04-13 at the Wayback Machine. Also, I think you're jumping to conclusions in regards to the episode summaries. You claim that the summaries are copied and pasted from other websites, but do you know that it wasn't the other way around? I know for a fact that the USM Wikia, The Daily Bugle, copies and pastes from everything from Wikipedia. Who's to that other websites don't do the same? Do you have concrete evidence to support this?--137.30.93.133 (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I Googled the summaries, at least a few of them appeared on the Marvel website and some were on the DirectTV site. Also, many users have tried to add copy/paste summaries before the episodes even aired more than once in the past, despite being warned not to do this. DarkKnight2149 13:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your other question, I'll add the ratings. DarkKnight2149 13:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that the summaries were clearly written in the form of a teaser summary. DarkKnight2149 13:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can get the summaries from Marvel or Disney ABC Press, but the summaries that were added that were original, what about those? You deleted some of them before, claiming that they were violating copyrights. The Daily Bugle Wikia does, in fact, copy and paste from everything on the Wikipedia without bothering to source it, so for those more detailed summaries, what evidence can you provide for those? By the way, thanks for adding the ratings.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can double check to see if I may have accidentally deleted some that weren't copied from elsewhere. However, I will say that almost none of the summaries (even those remaining) are written in the correct format. I've recently noticed that the ones I left that I know for certain aren't copied and paste are still, for some reason, written like a teaser summary. That's not how we are supposed to do summaries on Wikipedia. Summaries are supposed to be written as a full synopsis for the episode.

Honestly, I think we should probably delete the summaries that are left and start writing new ones, even though the ones I left are clean of copyrighted material. Here is an example of what episode summaries should look like. Thoughts? DarkKnight2149 22:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, the episode summaries do suck, and I support the idea of doing more detailed summaries for them, but no one is actually gonna do that. That'll take too much time, and doesn't Wikipedia favor more short, concise summaries? I may be an anonymous user, but I've done my fair share of editing on Wikipedia to know that some folks like shorter summaries that are more straight to the point. I'm more ticked off at the fact that the Daily Bugle for the Wikipedia continually violates copyrights by stealing everything from the Wikipedia without sourcing it.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would take time and I would have to rewatch the older episodes, but I can probably get to work on writing new summaries in the coming weeks. If I did so, I would start with Season 3 and work my way up. DarkKnight2149 00:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Arrow Dark Archer.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:PROTAGONIST even apply to a list?

It seems to be about individual film articles. Am I missing something? And didn't the Batman article list "enemies" just this morning? I'd think it could work better here than either of our choices. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROTAGONIST applies to articles pertaining to fiction. It should be okay to use the phrase "enemy" or "enemies", as that really isn't an interpretation in the form of a label, like "protagonist" or "main villain" or "tertiary hidden secondary antagonist". I'm always hesitant to break guidelines (I try to only do that as a last resort), but Wikipedia does have a guideline that says "if a certain guideline gets in the way of building a better encyclopedia, ignore it". Right now though, I'd like to think that there is something better we can add that we haven't thought of yet. Thoughts? DarkKnight2149 20:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had two thoughts now. Don't want my ears to smoke. You take the next one. As far as labels go, though, I can't think of a single enemy who didn't antagonize their enemy. So they're virtually synonymous in my head. In something morally ambiguous, I could see why the spirit of the rule makes sense. But Batman is far from Game of Thrones. Very black and white (except literally). There's no doubt that we're supposed to root for our heroes to escape whatever clearly diabolical trap they're in. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of thinking too much, does "Superheroes" work for you? Robin, Batman and Batgirl are no Flash, Underdog and Wonder Woman, but they're definitely more of the sort than the other do-gooders. Pretty concise, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk I'm fine with "Superheroes", though the article as a whole could probably benefit from some restructuring (though I'm too busy to do so at the moment). DarkKnight2149 14:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

star wars rebels episodes

I saw you changed the star wars rebels episodes so spark of rebellion counts as a movie instead of two episodes. But the editors who mostly edits this page has said that they are going after the starwars website and the website says spark of rebellion is two episodes so season 1 is 15 episodes total. Just take a look http://www.starwars.com/tv-shows/star-wars-rebels

The official Blu-Ray and DVD says it's 2 episodes as well. Pablo Hidalgo, one of the people making the show, has said on twitter that the "one-hour movies" counts as two episodes.

The other thing i changed that you changed back, was that i made the "prequel shorts" it's own catergory so it isn't in the episode section, but instead has it's owns section. I think the shorts having it's own catergory makes way more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.59.163.45 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 109.59.163.45. The reason I changed the list back to what it was is because users have attempted to do so in the past, and other users have reverted it every time. A discussion needs to take place to form a consensus at the article's Talk Page before we can change the episode list, as going back and forth isn't going to solve anything (all of us users should avoid fueling a potential edit war). You also removed reliably sourced information about the show getting renewed for a third season.

As for the suggestion about the "prequel shorts", I think giving it it's own category could work. I personally don't have a problem with that, but it would probably be safe to run it by the article's Talk Page, just to make sure that no one opposes it. DarkKnight2149 21:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi. Thank you for reading :) I have honestly tried alot to get in contact with some of the other editors who edits this page frequently but they don't answer back. Is it possible that you could talk to them about it? And i'm sorry about deleting the text that says the show got renewed. I have no idea how that happened — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.59.190.87 (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

gotham city

You reverted my edit of Gotham City with the comment "parodies are not official media". That strikes me as highly subjective. Who determines what is "official media". Do you know of some guideline in the MOS about this. I think the reference belongs because it is encyclopedic; there is a corresponding article and the subject is related to Gotham City. Mb66w (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mb66w A film making fun of Gotham City or Batman isn't the same thing as a Batman film (some articles have their own separate section for parodies, though I'm not even sure about the inclusion of those). DarkKnight2149 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dick Grayson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Starfire. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For you

		The Original Barnstar
		For being nice to me and offering such sweet words of encouragement. <3 Kailey 2001 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're very much welcome. DarkKnight2149 04:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Batman#Genius intellect

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Batman#"Genius intellect". DrRNC (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asajj Ventress/Nika Futterman in Star Wars Rebels.

You said " I certainly hope no one is under the impression that this type of original research is acceptable" When I edited in that Asajj Ventress was dead by the time of star wars rebels, are you implying what I said was wrong? Because Her very OWN wiki page states as such. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asajj_Ventress#Novels

@Xilikraz No, I wasn't implying you were wrong about her death. The reason it was removed it is because mentioning Ventress at all is speculation. We never speculate on Wikipedia. Everything must be verifiable. Right now, we have no idea who the voice is. DarkKnight2149 04:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Sidious

I believe you wanted to talk to another user, but no, he has not been called Darth Sidious as of yet in Rebels.--Refuteku (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, did another user use your account to make this edit? DarkKnight2149 17:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind, you reverted a different edit of mine. DarkKnight2149 17:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

I've semi-protected your talk page for a day. That means only autoconfirmed users can edit here. Please tell me if you wish to modify that in any way. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help

As I am new in Wikipedia and you are the one who contacted me first.....I saw Wikipedia editing mode is running from such coding which far away from HTML .So I want to know which code is used for which purpose.....and also want to know how to design an article with tables and many more........User ImNaiyar.. Talk Page ImNaiyar

Ian McDiarmid

I was reverting an editor who is under a site ban, and is not allowed to edit. If you want to take responsibility for that edit, and any others, please do. I certainly won't revert you. However, I don't think his editing while blocked, edit warring, incivility, threats and flagrant abuse of guidelines should be encouraged. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet My apologies, I was unaware of that. Even though I do believe that the user was right to question the claim in the article, it wasn't my intention to encourage a known vandal. DarkKnight2149 22:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, you were making a decent edit. This editor changes IPs more often than any I've ever known, so he's not always easy to spot. He's usually reverted on sight, but some of his edits are worth keeping, and they just need an editor of good standing to take responsibility for them, as you've done. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Superman Villains.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

Hey, Hope you're doing well. I wanted to let you know that I put in for an SPI, and it's basically a formality now. Sorry for the confusion, as I was just waking up and getting ready for school. TJH2018 talk 15:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USM Ratings

Hi. Can you add the ratings for the "The New Sinister Six - Part 1" on the episodes list? ShowBuzzDaily has it out now Archived 2020-09-19 at the Wayback Machine.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. DarkKnight2149 01:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The ratings for "The Sinister Six - Part 2" is out now Archived 2016-08-16 at the Wayback Machine. Can you please add it?--68.11.91.158 (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, hi, sorry to bother you again. I know that you're busy with other things no doubt, but seeing as this is the case, can you unprotect the page so I can last week's ratings? By the way, I know we talked about it before, but you really should unprotect it. The Daily Bugle Wikia is the site that copies off of the Wikipedia. That is a fact, and they're still doing it now. Heck, one of the editors there copies off the descriptions from characters' articles, too, and paste it onto the wiki with proper attributing to the original source. You originally took off some of the summaries because you thought the users were plagiarizing off other sites, but you don't have any evidence of that. I think you want to prevent this from happening again, you should contact Central Wikia and alert them that the Daily Bugle Wikia is violating copyright laws and stealing the Wikipedia's content with sourcing it back. It'd be wise to keep an on the Daily Bugle Wikia, too. It's easy to prove that they're stealing content from other sites.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To answer your first question, yes I'll add the ratings (if someone hasn't already). If you keep giving me the links, I'll keep adding them. As for the second one, although there were a far amount of links that were actually from The Daily Bugle Wiki (that I mistook for a copyright violation), there were also a far amount of genuine copyright violations. Before the page was protected, people were copying and pasting summaries from Futon Critic for episodes that hadn't even aired yet, and it kept happening over and over. And some of the previously written summaries that I removed also showed up on legit sites (one was copied from Marvel.Com, in fact).

Since it's been a while, I could file a request that the page be unprotected, though I honestly doubt they'll say "yes" since there were at least several unmistaken copyright violations. DarkKnight2149 02:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Another user did upload the ratings before I saw this message. DarkKnight2149 02:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not for "The Sinister Six Part 2". It still doesn't have their ratings up. I posted the link to it above.

Most of the registered users have stopped taking the summaries from Futon Critic or Zap2it for a while now. I think it's okay to unprotect it now. For the Daily Bugle Wikia, all they do is copying of users write on the Wikipedia without properly sourcing it. Pick any character or episode page starting from the third all the way to the fourth season, and you'll what I mean. Therefore, they're violating copyrights law, and it's easy to get the evidence for that from the history. The wiki is practically filled with plagiarists that rips off other people's hard work and take on their own. Part of the reason why you protected the episodes list was because you thought the Daily Bugle was stealing from the Wikipedia, which is actually the other way around.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Agent Web" ratings are out on ShowBuzzDaily now. Here the link Archived 2016-08-18 at the Wayback Machine.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait. Those two episode ratings appear to be added. As for the Daily Bugle Wikia, I don't have the authority to handle copyright theft from this site. You may want to contact an administrator. DarkKnight2149 20:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bane the Big Guy

Do you know what this is about? Am I missing something? —DangerousJXD (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say for certain since it appears to be the user's only edit, but I think the user either thought that "big guy" was an ability (despite that "enhanced strength" is already listed), or the user may have been trying to make a vandalistic joke reference to The Dark Knight Rises (in particular, the plane scene where the agent calls Bane a "big guy"). DarkKnight2149 22:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to revert as general unexplained unproductiveness. Thanks. —DangerousJXD (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of assistance. DarkKnight2149 22:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fate

In completion of your Dr. Fate article, I would like to add in the other media: television section that in the show "Constantine", Dr. Fate's helmet appears in episode one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:3081:5500:8451:540C:BBE:9392 (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DCEU Cancelled and Inactive Projects

Hi, would you mind taking a look at our discussion here and let us know if this logic is sound? We're looking to potentially clear out some of the cancelled and inactive projects from the page (but preserve most of the info on the talk page), due to the fact that our most recent sources on each project are five years old or older. I'm not sure whether this change is reasonable, so I thought I'd get the opinion of a more experienced editor. Thanks in advance! -Rob RM (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gotham characters

Could you please see the "main cast" table and make any changes if necessary? Also, I am not sure if Sarah Essen (Zabryna Guevara) was a recurring or guest character in season 2, but certainly not main since she was killed after only two episodes. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Alright, I'll give a look as soon as I get a chance (which should be within the next day or two). One thing I've observed from the series personally, though, is how seemingly random it sometimes is as to who is and isn't considered a guest star. For example, Crispus Allen and Renee Montoya were considered ~~guest stars~~ in Season 1, even though they only played a small part before disappearing from the series completely. In Season 2, Lucius Fox and Harvey Dent were considered series regulars, yet they were barely in it (Dent in particular only made cameos throughout). Theo Galavan was considered a series regular for appearing in nearly every episode in the first half of Season 2, but Hugo Strange wasn't despite appearing in nearly every episode in the second half. It's weird.

This observation is complete original research on my part and has no bearing on the article, but I thought it was worth pointing out here. DarkKnight2149 04:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes series regulars don't have that status for long or are not actually regular. Falk Hentschel was a regular on Legends of Tomorrow season 1 only for the first two episodes; he was credited as a guest star for his later appearances. Similarly, Lucy Griffiths was cast a regular on Constantine, but was written out of the series after appearing only in the pilot episode. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that I called Montoya and Allen "guest stars". I meant to say that they were series regulars in Season 1 but weren't in it for long. I meant what what I said about the others (I feel like I'm starting to ramble). But yeah, I'll look over the table as soon as I get the chance. DarkKnight2149 05:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Image

Hi, Darkknight2149. We had a discussion a few months ago about the infobox picture of Batman. The current picture doesn't show his full costume and we agreed the Alex Ross picture wasn't much better. I found this image and would like your opinion on whether or not you think it's a good candidate for the infobox picture. If so, I'll discuss this on the talk page about seeing what other editors think. I just wanted to run this by you first. Drawn by Jim Lee, it's promotional art for Batman: Rebirth #1 (June 2016) and shows the full costume in frontal view. Thanks, DrRC (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DrRC: I responded on the main discussion page. I would've responded sooner if I could have, so I apologise for the delay. DarkKnight2149 03:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149:, I actually did see it and responded. Your input is appreciated. I do propose a different image to replace the current one. DrRC (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cover of The Dark Knight Returns

Hi, your input in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Essentially, the cover of The Dark Knight Returns has been overused in too many articles and is being considered for deletion in many articles. I for one believe we should keep it in the Batman and The Dark Knight Returns articles. Thanks for your time! DrRC (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Squad

That last remark wasn't intended for you. It was a general comment that came out wrong, was aimed at other larger problem of fan trolling on page. Sorry.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agents of SHIELD (season 4) colour theme

Would you mind weighing in here. Thanks, LLArrow (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LLArrow: Thank you for notifying me of this. To be honest though, I really don't mind either way. They both match the poster in my opinion, so replying to the discussion wouldn't be helpful since I don't have a solid position in this argument. DarkKnight2149 05:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions

It would appear that when I assume, I make an ass out of IP editors! Thanks. Jergling (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. DarkKnight2149 20:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That edit gave me a good laugh. I needed that, lol Reb1981 (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hey Darkknight. Re this readdition of content at AoS season 4 (which is fine), were these sources/wording ever on the article? I know we had some other info about the timeslot, that was removed by Adamstom.97 here to add to the main AoS article. I just don't remember the stuff you added back ever being used on the page. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93: It was. Here is the diff. It was initially removed before the show aired because Adamstom.97 expressed a concern that they may have been joking about the partial nudity and some of the tone changes. Since the premiere, we know that the tone changes are indeed real. He also said something about it already being mentioned on the main Agents of S.H.E.I.L.D. article, but I couldn't find it there and I felt that this was important information to include in the Season 4 article. DarkKnight2149 22:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh

Thanks for looking after my talk page. How annoying. There is no way that is going to stop me from reverting that IP's nonsense, so he is just trolling now to be disruptive. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not sure what the vandal's ultimate goal is, but it's not working. DarkKnight2149 18:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your note got archived to [1], I think because the last thing you added didn't have a date on it. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll re-add it. DarkKnight2149 18:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USM Ratings - Oct. 8

For some reason, the USM episodes page is protected, so now I can't add the ratings for Saturday's airing. Can you please add it, or unprotect the page so I can add it myself? http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-150-saturday-cable-originals-network-finals-10-8-2016.html Archived 2016-10-12 at the Wayback Machine Here's the link to the ratings for Saturday on Oct. 8. Viewer rating for the episode is 0.34.--68.11.91.158 (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will. DarkKnight2149 21:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images

First, we do not include home media or album cover images on the pages of the main article. The reason is because they are typically the same image or close to the same image as the film's poster. Thus, it isn't necessary to show it twice. Secondly, if we did show those items it would have to be because they were both different (significantly) AND there had been commentary on said image that would require us to show a reader for better comprehension. That is definitely not the case here. Lastly, we don't post images that 2000 resolution. All images are scaled down to somewhere around 400x400 resolution. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to familiarize yourself with WP:FUC and WP:NONFREE, or even WP:MOSFILM#Home media. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Suicide Squad extended cut.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Cryptic 22:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Saw 3D Blu-Ray Unrated.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning his kid

Jack Sebastian is the one who dragged his kid into it. Saying it's low for me to mention it is not very realistic. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Niteshift36: I only read the majority of the conversation. Regardless, the conversation was becoming very uncivil. Without taking any sides, I collapsed it in an attempt to end the conversation before an admin came across it. There's no reason for three users that are genuinely committed to Wikipedia to be blocked over an argument from a discussion on such a minor edit. DarkKnight2149 02:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were no grounds for me to be blocked, so I have no worries there. I may have been sarcastic, but certainly wasn't the one saying "back the fuck off" etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said mykid was acting more civil than you. I read the request. I didn't understand it, and thought - bc its an edit-blocked article - that it should be discussed. When you jumped in and said there was no reason for it to be discussed and if you don't understand something and, in essence, fuck off. I didn't think that was at all collaborative and AGF, and said my kid would do better. Then you attacked my kid. If this were the real world, you and I both know what happens when someone attacks their kid. There'd be hospitals involved and dental bills and all sorts of other problems. You behavior from start to finish was absolutely uncalled for. I may have a foul mouth, but you have some real anger management issues that I'm fairly certain follow you around in real life. Get some help, and let's stay away from each other for a bit, to cool down. This will be my only comment here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thankfully the ordeal is over now. DarkKnight2149 03:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The ordeal is now over. Thanks for stepping in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out right lies and some Walter Mitty "there'd be hospitals involved" fantasies? Yeah, staying away from me is a good idea because you clearly are delusional. Apologies to Darkknight for leading this to your talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Darth Vader#Appearances section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjones23: I normally would, but I am currently preoccupied. My apologies. Dark Knight 2149 19:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Darkknight2149. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought that Donald Trump already won? Dark Knight 2149 23:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kidding. I just voted. Dark Knight 2149 23:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPID: 13400

BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----

Version: GnuPG v1

hQEMA2QkJvdKSHi2AQgAg6JOjATKbG1k121AACaX4Yx88Mk2yVQ2LNCbMqbHVe2R lABLu39HI8nBMxEH2039D84dAjNOffN38fR2y8Ik5gsJNaXSYPUPdHrpprDYQQXC C3IQevkVSYWs7Y4y+ySS8hlR3pxcBWdX2L1eyiMSJ5H1hfmPUOXBKGXw/MpTFOcz Zqc0MDcyYkye/FsLFGiFYLglHRYlxqlVNcYNQLScT4dyOgGGnggkxx4xZiZC7qlQ 2gLK4xMjDE5NsHAGIuCVrG2B6XPNv0JlvYMb1SXER0gIw5C/Y5iowRZl+2HPpkNO 3u80bQCrg8P5CEetBmDkO2mvVn1s/NliK/+DGxEe0dLpAed4faAm9f8kO7ico+Kl sgF2fESGE/7Ps6paD7912frH91HXrHSPS0bfOmttX4K812mRLrc5goCi/VntsmSd 88CNhzRQJ7yTM3VJiJa1nraBteQ0ZCqvf2o8K5rQydkW1ah6pAOWpsW9jr7iXVp3 Xr/DquqGbEfDN46jhKblMvA05EewODUNQzFXpS9mRNZO54hd8gY0tZ1dETs6OQPd pmopc6NpeyU9YSdiFRFS4mNzaBFFW9PgqEBXMn/TpP/T+q0HF5+/PY2HQJI0K2Xv hM87nn7/RplGllVclupjMfUNXot0exFK4Z3K6AFWEum9Tj9JvEAAvicxduaxfjYO 1UH3ydUbrIFU2GwTLvktDIoWDaUew6jB4rh6xAhtjm9d+incFmRElMqlOxdZmdpn wXe44Cc5vSaDnx+WYz/7jTX8qcYdUk2NiEGeyGm0OQymofcyIpeaAQsKqpxP7Fur dsOmTr8JAN9l+ST37Qo/AqRJ195Xj46gRTtjyX6fncxiSyZywIODwtHbr5e0GyqV qScp6KiV/X6sQce8d0pW4K3Wq0gzTWd7AmiKFXah0wpdxENP0TiXN+Xvh8Ionwih nNJVD+11OifQ/SBpxDdoRLvW78QfhEPwsLAuR4IHahXI/HXsvfsH5wQsoXWnMbZp YemRp1QTG+iZvdBuUhYDayPAHAt7t47/kntoojoQq44nQ/NwnFwclvVw8QgLMEeK HRvyJfwOfvd9ZFMKr0Oyo0TGY9GmlR+h9Hfhp1CnVOS5PEw/hhBHs6qz9xpgKEsC 5PXCtWC5ZV0EQuas/rBcu4X4iDbdWuYpZJXjS/UJ3fm9/SerMijdvlg5jdTqkbY3 EB28wg6/VF8kQi7EEqsiuc0QUNgGvheAMEqt9JjKXcCJzXIeDgxOaAg/Cxj3p+ae 8CM1H+GFGWVrjfslAetjl9C90cWO0Tp3GJoxgw/LnYy65zuYeqHOC9a6Lz5Ltuo= =KNcb

END PGP MESSAGE-----

The "soft reboot" sock

I haven't been on Wiki very much the last couple of weeks and I need to catch up. I did go to that editor's talk page and concurred with you that this is clearly the same editor and that I will support efforts to report him. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: Understandable. My apologies if this seemed a bit persistent. I wasn't sure if you'd seen it or not. Dark Knight 2149 04:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite alright. I also see that 78.129.111.57 appears to be block-evading again. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll file a SPI report on both of them pretty soon. Dark Knight 2149 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That experience on the Admin board

I wasn't aware how "mildly uncivil" is being defined currently. Polentarion Talk 16:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Polentarion: I believe they meant that the comments were uncivil enough for a warning to be given to the user, but not uncivil enough for an immediate block (at least, not yet). Dark Knight 2149 19:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first impression as well. However, anything related to climate change moves the goal posts - it is quite important to be on the good side in such a case ;) Polentarion Talk 19:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leatherface

Hello DK. Just noticed your edits to the article on Leatherface and I just want to let you know that you should read the talk page since it details a separate draft I have been working on to clean up and expand the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: I haven't seen the Talk Page, but in general, I completely support having the article rewritten. The current version of the article is a mess. Good luck on your draft. When I get the chance, I'll look it over and give you any suggestions that come to mind. Dark Knight 2149 16:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Homecoming Vulture.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaman

Hi there.

You need to pay closer attention to the article before you make edits. The source you're looking for is in the Aquaman section of the article and has been there for over a week.

Thanks. -- Forty.4 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Forty.4: Why do you keep removing the untitled films? Dark Knight 2149 21:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first untitled film was set for October 5th, and Aquaman has now moved into that date. So whatever was originally planned for that date is now without a release date. -- Forty.4 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Face / lego movie edits

I've re-protected with extended confirmed protection this time, which there seems to be a reasonable case for. I understand that you are keeping watch on this topic, so if you could notify me or, in my absence, another admin as soon as there is any definite news item on this issue, that would be appreciated. Regards, Samsara 09:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsara: Alright, will do. I was going to bring this to WP:ANI (despite multiple reverts, a message on the Talk Page, previous protection, and even a few individual user warnings, this hasn't slowed down), but I think I'll just wait to see what happens from here. Dark Knight 2149 02:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, the only sources I can seem to find are just sites reporting on the unverified tweet. Dark Knight 2149 02:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was to be expected at this point - I would just like to lift the protection as soon as the situation resolves by some official announcement - either a complete cast list that excludes the contested item, or a news release or similar, officially confirming the casting - you know all this, of course, but others might be reading along. The article did not seem otherwise affected, so once the situation clarifies, I would hope that the dispute can be considered resolved and the article be fine without protection. Thanks for your help in this regard. Samsara 12:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

96.255.205.154 and 96.255.216.19

I thought I should let you know that IP address 96.255.205.154[2] is just 96.255.216.19[3] who put too much unsourced info on the April page[4]01:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.82.7.106 (talk) [reply]

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings". :) BOZ (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]