User talk:Darkknight2149/Archive 3

I didn't think you would have the balls to so blatantly violate WP:CANVASS

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, now

"Further proof that you haven't even read the deletion discussion."—come on, now. You can be more adult than that. The comment was on Darkwarriorblake's talk page, not any "deletion discussion", as anyone who clicks through will see. I'll give you the chance to delete that comment, unless you'd rather I bring it up there. It won't look good when the discussion is about your good faith.Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: I linked it in the second sentence of the first paragraph at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character). Dark Knight 2149 02:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah—now we know why you had to ping him. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you getting at? Dark Knight 2149 02:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. Stop moving my comments. Next step is WP:3RR. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey: Stop trying to influence the discussion with your unproven notes. At this rate, you're going to get yourself blocked. And by filing an WP:3RR report, you'd only be shooting yourself in the foot. Dark Knight 2149 05:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're aware of what you're doing? Technically, you could be sanctioned already at this point. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you know exactly what you are doing. You know damn well that you can't place lies as notes in front of a discussion in order to influence it. Just like the false WP:ANI report you filed, this is all about you retaliating because you didn't like the consensus. And even now, there are people who I never informed about the discussion that are supporting the deletion. And before the deletion was ever proposed, you were never civil at Talk:Joker (comics). I also noticed that you have been blocked for personal attacks and harassment multiple times in the past. If you keep up this disruptive behaviour, what do you think is going to happen? Dark Knight 2149 05:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"you know exactly what you are doing"—which was restoring my comments which you were in no position to touch. You've been told at ANI to leave them alone, too. I was never blocked for "harassment"—that's a canned edit summary (notice the "or"), and the supposed "personal attack" turned out to be nothing of the sort, which is why it was so quickly overturned. Yes, I know you'll ignore these facts. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to shed some enlightenment, but one person supporting you at WP:ANI does not equal consensus. Dark Knight 2149 16:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Conjuring RM

Hey, I started a move discussion at Talk:The Conjuring (film series) (citing your own words) before actually reviewing the discussion and realizing I may have jumped the gun, so you can just blank that section if you’d prefer to keep it to NCF talk for now. I thought a move discussion might get more visibility, but you can just delete it or {{hat}} it or something with my blessing and apologies if you want, since I used your words. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An innocent error. I don't think removing it or hatting it would be the best idea for now, since users have already cast their votes. Removing it would probably look suspicious on my part; like I'm trying to dictate the discussion. Dark Knight 2149 20:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up: I have just edited WP:NCF in a way that I imagine you disagree with as strongly as I do. But guidelines reflect practice, and if consensus insists on misusing the word apparently as a form of WIkipedian jargon, the guideline has to describe that misuse. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Begotten and Leatherface

Hello DK2149. Just wanted to thank you on your edits to the Leatherface film article. There are a couple of things that still need to be worked on such as fixing some broken citations and expanding the release section (I will be working on expanding that section myself when I have the time so don't you worry about that). I was also wanting to ask you if you are still interested in expanding the article on the film Begotten with me? I am currently having issues with trying to merge it with the short sequel Din of Celestial Birds since there was no feedback on whether or not the merge should happen and, according to this site we can merge it. Any help with this would be appreciated (other tasks for this article are on the talk page of the userspace). I have a separate space that I created for edits and expansions as I do with all articles I do this for. Please let me know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: Yes, I am very sorry about the wait. I am still planning to assist with the Begotten article. The reason for my absence can be chalked up to sheer busy-ness both on-and-off Wiki (even now, I have to open an SPI on a troll sock puppeteer that keeps creating accounts mimicking my username specifically to spam my notifications and vandalise articles). I can push back some of what I am doing to go ahead and help with the merger. By the way, let me know if you have anything specific in mind for improving Chatterer. I know that is another one you mentioned. As far as the draft Leatherface article goes, I expanded the "Characterisation". I think we just need to add Texas Chainsaw 3D and the two Platinum Dunes remake films to that section (also more character information pertaining to Leatherface 2017, when that film is released). Dark Knight 2149 00:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, can you please link me to the merger discussion? Dark Knight 2149 00:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here it is Talk:Din of Celestial Birds. As far as the Leatherface userspace, I have been putting that off for a while now since it took so much out of me the last time I worked on it. I will try to get back to that when I can since I have a ton of information that I still need to add to the article. As far as that is concerned, I also think we need to add a little background on each actor who portrayed the character, although that's not major. Thanks for the help man! ;)--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally fixed a major issue in my revision draft for Begotten. Still trying to get enough information to expand the Themes and Legacy sections. It's starting to look pretty good although it still needs some major additions. As for you being busy, I get it, I was very busy most this summer so take your time.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: I'm reading over the Begotten draft and its Talk Page as we speak, to see what all needs to be done. I've also started scouting for sources to finish the Characterisation section at the Leatherface draft. Regarding Begotten, have their been any other home media releases besides what's listed? I saw the "Expand" template and, after researching it, I could only find information pertaining to the DVD, VHS, and upcoming Blu-Ray (which are already listed). I may be missing something. Dark Knight 2149 18:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet anyway. The reason for the update tag on that particular section is in regards to Merhige's announcement of its Blue-Ray release. For that we will need to keep a close eye out for more information on that. In regards to Leatherface, I've been meaning to get back to working on that since I've amassed a good amount of information saved into multiple documents that I haven't gotten around to adding yet since I was taking a break from working on that article. My mistake was to take on that article by myself with little in regards to help (although I thank Bignole for some major additions), and the fact that I've never really worked on a character article before. I will probably start working on that again as soon as I feel up for it so thanks for the help.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paleface Jack: I'm doing some more work on the Leatherface draft right now. This might prove useful later (designs from Mortal Kombat X, including an unused Texas Chainsaw 3D skin). Dark Knight 2149 22:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I also had a couple of ideas for the Texas Chainsaw 3d one since they released some unused concept art of the character as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on an edit of the Userspace Leatherface article at the moment. Will post the edit soon.

Leatherface

You're misconstruing a game that gives a character a backstory from their films with a game that is based on that franchise. Those are not the same thing. Dead by Daylight is a game that features those characters, NOT a game that is about those characters. THe same with Mortal Kombat. It isn't a TCM game. It's a game that features Leatherface. THe fact that they write backstories from the films doesn't change the fact that it isn't about the franchise, it's about that character. That's why it is relevant on the character page and not the franchise page. You're making it seem like those are officially licensed TCM games, and they aren't. They are games that secured the license to use Leatherface in their series. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bignole: No, you are misconstruing the unrelated base game with the specific downloadable expansion packs to said game, which are indeed officially licensed adaptations of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise. As has already been pointed out, the base games themselves may not be notable, but that is not what is being added to the article. Only the pertinent information from that specific downloadable content is what is being added. If you ask around, I'm sure most other users will testify to its notability. If WP:HORROR wasn't a semi-active project, we could take this there. But all civil disagreements aside, I echo Paleface Jack's words below that any assistance would be appreciated. Dark Knight 2149 00:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns Bignole. Maybe you could help us out with expanding this and the revision draft of the character. It would make the process run a lot faster given that it's only me and DarkKnight2149 here working on the revision draft (I still need to get around to helping with the other articles as well).--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark, could you show me where it says that it is an officially licensed game of the TCM franchise? I can tell you for a fact that you won't find that for Mortal Kombat, which is just a character pack. So, you must be referring to Dead by Daylight, in which case I would ask for a reliable source confirming it as an officially licensed game of the franchise and not simply a game featured a character from the franchise (i.e., more suitable to Leatherface's article than the TCM franchise page). 06:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record, this is not a comment on the character but rather on the 2017 film. In regards to the film, i think that it's ready for GA status. In regards to the character, there are some information that needs to be added to the development section such as the character's development in the TC3D and the latest film. I am still working on the remake timeline, and any information that you come across during your search for the 3D and Leatherface timelines please let me know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]