User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 5

Cosmic tesseract

Apologies, your edits made my additions better. My feelings on the subject are clouded by previous interactions on that article which left a bad taste; last year, there was great resistance to adding anything about the cosmic cube and no follow-up by the objectors when better sources became available. Anyway, it's in there now, and I'm satisfied - hopefully others won't try to remove it again. Dreadstar ☥ 00:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Might want to curb your edit warring, this edit is your fourth reversion in 24 hours and violates WP:3RR. You risk being blocked if you continue on this course. Dreadstar ☥ 23:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't finished reading 3RR yet but "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Undoing incorrect contributions does not constitute edit warring according to that article. Doing it repeatedly, in what might almost be considered a war of reverts, is considered edit warring. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Also according to the edit history it's my 2nd revert of the day, the rest were repairing the work of others and removing where necessary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually you accused me of edit warring after undoing 1 edit. Are you sure you understand what edit warring is? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I mentioned your edit warring on your second revert when you used Twinkle to revert my edit, the first revert is here. This is your third revert and this is your fourth within 24 hours. You may have no respect for me whatsover, but I still strongly suggest you carefully read through WP:EDITWAR, and specifically the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR. Dreadstar ☥ 23:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is me undoing your Easter Egg violation and moving your ref to the plot where it would be more applicable. It is not a revert as it does not remove the information of your edit (the non policy violating part), it makes it better while retaining it. You admitted as such above.
• this is the removal of incorrect and inapplicable information. It was wrong. I explained why it was wrong. It is not a revert and even if it was, my explanation is my claim of an exemption under 3RR.

Again, I ask if you actually understand the guideline you are attempting to use against me, because I'm on my 2nd revert and the other two fail to be classed as such.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no such exemption as you are claiming per WP:3RRNO, it is very clear that a "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." And, I'm sorry, but WP:EASTEREGG is not a policy and does not excuse one from 3RR, even if you are right in your reverts, that is no excuse for edit warring per WP:3RRNO. Dreadstar ☥ 23:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

For gods sake, "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption." I found that in 3 seconds, try reading the policy and get back to me when you know what you're enforcing. And just stop with the Edit Warring bullshit, this is the first sentence of the article "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". You want to claim I am abusing my reverts, you're entitled to be wrong about that, but I am not edit warring, you threw that out after 2 edits, you do not have a clue what you are talking about.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In the first place, you are now claiming an invalid exception, in the second, you didn't claim any exemption at the time of the edit. Just for the sake of argument, which exemption are you claiming? Did you revert your own action? No, you reverted mine. Was it a revert on your user pages? No, clearly not. Am I a banned user or sockpuppet? No. Was it obvious vandalism? Clearly not. Copyright violation? Nope. Illegal content? Of course not. Libelous, or a violation of WP:BLP? No. It was a content dispute, plain and simple. You and I were engaged in an edit war, there's no doubt about it. Then you continued on by reverting yet another time within the 24 hour period. And yeah, your second revert of my edits is a repeated override of my edits. Dreadstar ☥ 00:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you living in an alternate reality where negatively impacting an article is considered a contribution? I removed an inappropriately hidden link disguised as something else, moved your ref where it might actually serve some purpose here and then removed your completely inappropriate insertion of incorrect, unrelated information into the plot here. What the hell am I meant to be doing exactly? Are we meant to just stand by and let people insert incorrect information into articles because if we make an edit they don't agree with the first thing they will do is cry "edit war, edit war, they've all got it in for me"? These weren't unexplained changes, they were not edit wars, they were fixing your mistakes. Again, you admitted this above. You are completely abusing that guideline and you know damn well what you are doing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It's still edit warring, there's nothing in your list of excuses that falls under the 3RR exceptions. WP:3RR is a policy, not a guideline, one I've been enforcing as an administrator for over six years. In any case, you've been warned per Wikipedia:3RR#What to do if you see edit warring behavior and hopefully you'll not continue to edit war and find out the hard way that I was right. I've given you all the links and information, it's now up to you. Good luck! Dreadstar ☥ 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not still edit warring, it is making edits to the article. If I rewrite the plot is that an edit war? That I undid someones edit? You cannot have been doing this for 6 years and have no idea what you are doing. It's no wonder Wikipedia is losing editors, they're being warned off fixing problems by "administrators". You COULD always get an independent in here to check your work and inform you on your incorrect application of this rule. I am assuming you probably will not do that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

PS, what I admitted above what that you made my additions better by removing some inadvertent spacing on my part and by making a nice copyedit to the content I added. Actually, I was trying to take the high road and be nice. As for your own personal definition of editwarring, I hope you discontinue that thinking and don't find out the hard way that I'm right. Dreadstar ☥ 00:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well those who can't, fake compliment those who can. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it was genuine, even in the face of your continued vitriolic comments I continue to take the high road, and still thank you for the improvements you did make. Anyway, I'd done with this particular discussion, it's wearing on my soul. Dreadstar ☥ 00:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And I've been doing this for 6 years, obviously I'm doing something right. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing vitriolic, it's disbelief that someone can be given access to the administrator panel when they don't understand the most basic fundamentals of policy and threaten users with learning the "hard way". I have fairly and tactically maintained and integrated user edits for years, only when I changed one of yours did it suddenly become an issue. You have not explained why fixing edits is edit warring or a revert. This is what is causing me serious harm, the level of twisting I am having to do to comprehend how (Undo hidden link, move ref note) == (edit warring/revert). That is complete bullshit and you know it is, (even scarier, maybe you don't know it is) and you are unwilling to admit it. God knows how many other users you have threatened over the years with your misunderstanding of 3RR and Edit Warring. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I mean is this it? Is this the hard way? You make stuff up and then threaten users for making sense? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, 'the hard way' is if you continue to revert edits as you have done, get noticed and blocked by another admin. I personally can't block you because I'm WP:INVOLVED. You haven't been 'harmed', you've been fairly warned. Dreadstar ☥ 01:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

ScreenRant etc.

I would like to hear your opinion on here on if these sources are reliable/unreliable. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

CA:TFA

Theres seems to be a dispute regarding the notability of a body double as a stand alone role and the use of reliable sources.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus

"net word count now reduced so that can't be used as an excuse for deleting constructive contributions"

It was not an excuse, it is an unnecessary detail. Unless you have some ulterior motive for him doing it, he does it because they don't have the equipment or staff to deal with a pregnancy especially an alien one. The only important part is she finds out it is inside her, she gets it removed. Don't be bitchy in edit summaries, it's tedious.

Given Weyland's instructions to infect somebody (whether David picked Holloway because he patronised him, or whether Weyland picked him, is unclear) at the cost of their own life to get hold of Engineer genetics, "an ulterior motive" - that they are more interested in the alien than in her, and that they don't share her Ripley-ish instincts that the alien just needs to be killed - is a pretty clear inference. Or alternatively she might just be worried that Vickers will kill her with a flamethrower when she finds out Shaw is also "infected". Either way, I suspect other people may feel the same - and indeed it's the sort of plot point which somebody whose attention has drifted or who has nipped out for a pee could miss at first viewing. Being a barnstarred editor of film articles does not mean that your humble opinion of which plot point is important is correct and everybody else's isn't, although I'm glad to see that it's been left in. And please don't leave bitchy messages on the talk pages of constructive contributors - to coin a phrase, it's tedious.MissingMia (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Where was this instruction given? Considering only you added it, who is calling it essential but yourself? It's bullshit nonsense but I can't be bothered getting into an edit war with you over it. I don't care about your theories on why people did whatever, I care about what is presented, and what he says is they don't have the equipment to get it out of her so he is putting her in stasis. He doesn't knock her out then drag her down to stasis to make sure it's done or done in secret, an instruction is passed to the medical professional to do it. Darkwarriorblake (talk)

Box office

First of all, even if the data is updated, it still won't be a record, nor is it now. Also, the 2nd highest opening in France for 2012 doesn't concern the English Wikipedia. Also, why should the article mention that the film earned 3.39M in the UK? The sources don't say it's a record. Spinc5 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Everything mentioned in Pirates 4 and Avengers that concerns non English-speaking territories are records (except for the three highest-grossing territories which should be mentioned for any film). And note that they are not records for 2011 or 2012 but all-time records. In contrast, Prometheus's earnings were not records, not even for 2012. And I never said that we shouldn't write anything in Prometheus's BO section. But why should we include anything about non English-speaking territories beyond the opening weekend and total grosses (that's why I left Russia and France). The 2nd highest-grossing opening day/weekend for 2012 in France may become 10th by the end of the year. Do you think that this piece of information should still be included and updated? For the UK, on the other hand, it could include the opening day; I think you're probably right on that. Spinc5 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you also made a comment about the "Prometheus vs Madagascar 3" paragraph that I added. I tried to be as neutral as possible and tried not to included any personal comments. It was evident that most analysts were not sure which movie would lead so I thought it would be a good idea to mention the different opinions. If you think that some improvements can be made, I would be very interested to see them. Thank you in advance. Spinc5 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Kevinklee/Ray222mond

Holy smokes that's a lot of sockpuppets. Looks like we were right. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making the report! FYI, the case has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian dalee. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless maintenance of the Prometheus article. Good work! The Wookieepedian (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Wookie, it's taken years off my life :P Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Just saw Prometheus

Really good. Ridley Scott at 75 or whatever -- totally still got it. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, people seem to be complaining that the plot isn't great but I found myself captivated and even cringing at some stuff. I could do with rewatching it though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I just saw it too. Really good. I can definitely see why people insist that it's an Alien prequel, but as a well-versed Alien fan I saw enough differences to feel comfortable saying it doesn't/can't directly set up Alien. Really enjoyed it in 3D, might see it again in Imax 3D if I get a chance. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, it definitely takes place in the same universe but it's so removed from Alien that I don't think you'd ever need to see Alien to understand anything. The problem a lot of peple seem to have (and this is the fault of the marketing) is that they expect it to be a literal Alien prequel, like a prequel to the events of Alien that leads into Alien and so everyone is like "Wha? How can the engineer die over there when he dies in the ship, and that must be the Alien queen!". When it takes place before those events but is telling an entirely different story that gives context to why the Engineer in Alien is there and what it was doing with those Eggs. I only watched it in 2D but even then the visuals were amazing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Because of the film's genesis as an Alien prequel, there are lots of deliberate, direct references to Alien in the form of the Engineers/space jockeys, the ship, the Weyland corp, etc. But there are enough differences that it doesn't serve as a literal prequel: jars containing black goo rather than eggs containing facehuggers, engineer dead in lifeboat rather than dead in pilot seat, whatever that thing is at the end doesn't follow the same life cycle as the Alien, etc. If it were a direct prequel to Alien then it would explain where the eggs in Alien came from and what their purpose was; instead it uses black liquid as the plot device. So while it may answer the question of who the space jockey is, it doesn't do much to explain the eggs or the Aliens. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The question is how old the Engineer in Alien is. If it's 2,000 years old as well then the Xenomorph has been around a lot longer than that, I mean it has to be since htey have a cathedral where it's basically posed like Christ on the crucifix.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed the first two acts but Scott has definitely lost touch with the minimalism of Alien's plot; the everything-but-the-kitchen-sink final act just lost it for me. That and the fact that a film with those production values somehow thought it would be a good idea to stick a youngish man in a Bo' Selecta! mask rather than hire an actual old man (like, I don't know, Lance Henriksen). For what it's worth, I think that liquid is meant to have been engineered from the Alien (like pulling poison out of frogs) for easier dispersal as a weapon. GRAPPLE X 17:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hrrm...I enjoyed the final act, a bit, I was kinda stunned that some of my preconceptions proved wrong. I totally was expecting Theron (who was getting the least marketing push) to end up being Ripley and Rapace to end up being Dallas, but then splat. Obviously the hardest part is the tease for sequels and not as much David as I would have liked. Part of the problem was probably Lindelof rewriting a finished script, it's hard enough keeping track of an entire wiki article sometimes let alone if you've lost a thread somewhere in a 150 page screenplay. Good theory on the liquid, that cathedral did seem in worship of it, it is either the purest creation from the goo or the goo comes from it. Scott considers the Engineers as fallen angels so I guess that would make Xeno's demons. Agree with Pearce's makeup, was a bit habberdasher. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Also it looks like there may have been some last-minute changes, as there are images of Fifield with a much different mutation where he has a long, clawed arm kind of like a Xenomorph. Maybe it was once much more closely aligned with Alien and they decided to distance it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

If it was me, I'd have stuck with the Fifield mutant longer, and gone with some The Thing/Ghosts of Mars mash-up focussed on body horror and (sort-of) human antagonists; the whole squid-baby, wait-there's-an-engineer-alive-now, Independence Day-FX finale just seemed far too hollow. Then again, I'm not a millionaire filmmaker who's to say minimalism works. Also I;m glad the focus ended up on Rapace, she's a better actress and it's nice to see her given an (English-language) star vehicle. GRAPPLE X 23:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering how much of that was in the trailers I did expect Mutant Fifield to go on longer. I think a lot of stuff got cut, possibly because they DID rewrite his role and it would be too much to reshoot all the scenes he was in (all theory obviously). Also seemed like there was a human form monster with the Snake's skin in one of the trailers, where it attacks Shaw. But the scenes flash by so fast I probably remember wrong. There will probably be a longer Director's Cut, which I'll be fine with if its like 3 hours long. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So thinking about it, I believe that the Engineer that woke up was pissed because he expected humans to be dead, and that the ship from Alien was the one sent to kill us all. Two major containment fuck ups seems unlikely for such an advanced species. Theory obviously since I dont know how long the Alien ship had been there, but it would explain why he went on a personal extermination mission the moment he woke up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Where do you live that they have worms like that?" Hilarious!!!! --Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to know, I don't want to ever accidentally go there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Daredevil franchise

What do you think. Daredevil and Elektra a "Daredevil" franchise? Sounds subjective without a source to me but I respect your opinion. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Check here. Avoid me sounding like a hothead though. The user does get in my nerves a wee bit but it happens on Wikipedia pages. He seems like a his way or the highway kind of editor is basically the reason why. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I mostly meant check here for the reason why I asked. I wasn't forcing you to go on there and J Greb mostly probably read it that way while pointing this section to me. Still my biggest concern is "Daredevil" franchise. I don't have problem with them together that much except that it doesn't seem important either way...but except for the fact that is that really a official name for a maybe franchise? Is daredevil supposed to be a titular character of it too. So many questions that it could have been avoided just like the MCU being divided because it seems more similiar to that. The navbox doesn't make it clear that it is franchise or character that it's organizing...and I have a weakness for being reverted sometimes. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so...but Elektra being about Elektra mostly with no Daredevil is still the worst problem. But with Wolverine having his own film without being titled X-Men and a maybe Venom and Deadpool movie in the horizon I guess a reason like that will stick for now. Thanks for the talk. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Deacon/Prometheus on Alien Creature article

Hi - I'm sure you've noticed that this has been added - I feel it's a good compromise. I'm not sure if you noticed I included a sentence at the end mentioning that some do not think the Deacon is a xenomorph. I had a cite for this but it's from a source that's banned for spam for some reason, and I can't seem to locate another. Since you are one of the editors that hold the viewpoint that it's not an 'Alien', I was wondering if you have a reference to use so we can include that part. I've asked contributors to keep it for now, but I've already reverted thrice, and therefore I need to leave it alone for now. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

At this point a third person has reverted it without bothering to check the summaries/history, so I'm just going to leave it... that said, the original reference can be found in my initial proposal on the talk page, so if you can find a way to include it I think it would add to the article. Up to you at this point.--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

MCU poster

What do you think about using the box cover image?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Zeta Reticuli Star System

He specfically mentioned the Zeta Reticuli Star System as being the setting for Prometheus... It HAPPENS TO BE WHERE ALIEN IS ALSO SET.

He didn't need to explicitly state "it's set in the same star system as alien" to make that point, as it was made by association naturally.

Do some proper research, as eventually it WILL go in there with reference to Scott's explicit comment.

Colliric (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the Ridley Scott's Prometheus philosophically more serious than "Star Trek"?

Darkwarriorblake wrote: "How or why he (i.e. David) can communicate doesn't matter anymore than it does in Star Trek." This is part of the problem. It seems that this movie of Ridley Scott is substantially more serious than Star Trek and its subject is one cut above (no offense intended for Star Trek directors!) Let's forget language details that are peripheral (not important if it is Sanskrit or Aramaic), but

• Interaction of humans and Engineers
• David's capabilities that are revealed through his actions

are still important themes in the film. Recall that Holloway and Shaw not only asked David if he can verbally talk to them, but they also asked him if he can read the Alien writings on the walls, it is shown how he figured out to read the instructions to open the doors and use the alien computers, etc. So the fact that David promises Holloway and Shaw that he can communicate with aliens provided that the aliens interacted with humans, is something connected with the director's idea that the aliens and humans interacted culturally. This is one cut above Star Trek.

(But I must admit that you are doing a very good job in maintaining Wikipedia articles, and without your diligence the article would be very chaotic. Are you a professional writer hired by the movie companies to maintain these Wikipedia articles? There is nothing wrong with this kind of professional intervention, and I approve if this is the case, since it would be very chaotic and even damaging to the film companies if too many unprofessional people edit the article in a hurry!) FormalLogician (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No I am not a professional writer nor am I hired to maintain articles. You have put a lot of thought into this stuff, but it is thought. Any alien media where the aliens do not speak English features some attempt at communication whether it is through music, sound, numbers or images. David figuring out A dialect, which we have no confirmation was understood (and your interpretation of how the Engineer reacted is not proof), is not an important detail and unless other information comes forward it would remain an unimportant detail. It requires too much emphasis in the plot to explain a single, untranslated line of dialog that we have no understanding of what was said or if it was understood. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, but as you know I had already agreed that the dialogue between David and the Engineer is not absolutely necessary to add to the plot and I had stopped a long time ago developing further that part of the plot at Wikipedia. But my new point was the dialogue between David and Holloway (and Shaw) at the beginning, where David promises that he is confident that he can communicate with aliens provided that there was cultural interaction between humans and these alien beings. So this time I am covering something totally different, no proof is needed here, it's just what David said he can do, but more importantly, it's also one of the main ideas of the director, and also an illustration of the capabilities of David who is shown to be both mentally and physically superior to humans. Thus philosophical ideas can also (briefly) be emphasized in the plot, especially in a film that is aiming in this direction.

But otherwise the script of this movie itself is very poorly written. Even the plot itself is actually compromised in order to fit the main ideas and visual/emotional grandeur of the movie. For example, when Shaw recovers the remains of David in the Engineer's spaceship that crashed, she immediately asks David: "Where is my cross?" Then David answers: "It's in the utility pouch of my belt." This is of course ridiculous because David had taken this cross (necklace) of Shaw in order to inspect/quarantine it to make sure it is not infected, and this cross was supposed to be either in a medical laboratory on Prometheus or if the cross were already examined and found to be free of infection, David would have already given back Shaw the cross long before going to the underground structure with Weyland's team to awaken the Engineer, it is ridiculous for David to carry the cross in his pocket on the way to this important mission outside Prometheus, to talk to the Engineer. So as you see, the plot summary at Wikipedia does not have to be a collection of the most simple facts, but concrete events of visual/literary meaning can also be included (in moderation.) For example we did finally include at least the fact that Vickers called Weyland "father", and this was a brief but meaningful part of the story.FormalLogician (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't take the cross because it is contaminated, he takes it because he wants it. He likes Shaw, he watches her dreams. I don't have a link to the interview at hand but Lindelof stated that he is basically in love with her, as much as a robot can be.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Like me, you are specualting! Now you were caught of the same crime. Maybe David loves Shaw, but would he do irrational things to steal something that is not part of his programming to serve Weyland? Remember at this point his master is still alive. While David can still plays games (basketball, watching movies), he is not supposed to offend humans who are his superiors, unless his master Weyland orders him to do so. Watching Shaw's dreams was borderline OK, but stealing an object is going far. (Still possible, but we shall see in the sequel to the film.) His contaminating Weyland was due to Weyland who insisted that David should find the secret of immortality at any cost, and so it is logical for David to improvise and do unorthodox things. But even though David is deeply interested in Shaw, using this (true) fact to speculate that David actually stole the cross for himself, is going even far beyond my excessive interpretation of the Engineer's facial expressions.

In any case, the main point was that in my last contribution, the emphasis was not on the possible success of David in communicating with aliens, but his promise to Holloway and Shaw that he can, if there was historical interaction between the two races.FormalLogician (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not speculating, there is a Lindelof interview where he states it but I can't find it in my references. He specifically says that he is infatuated with her. And he does things against Weyland's wishes because he doesn't like Weyland, this is made clear in the film, he says he wants his parent dead so he can be free. He is built to replicate human emotions and develops his own feelings and thoughts while alone on the ship, this is sourced in his character entry in the article. Actually I found the interview, read the grey box here. As for him contaminating Holloway that is up to interpretation, we have no idea what is said to David, we do know that David does not seem fond of Holloway at all. There is no definitive answer. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• I had already agreed that David is very interested in Shaw, and he might even love her, but still, Lindelof never said that David went as far as stealing her cross before his mission is over. This is still speculative, although it's very possible.
• David did not say that he personally wants Weyland dead. David said to Shaw: "Isn't it true that all humans want their parents to die?". This was most likely based on David's detailed knowledge of the relationship between Vickers and Weyland.
• Although there is no proof about what exactly Weyland said to David (when David was reading the thoughts of Weyland with the dream helmet while he was still in the stasis chamber), we know that Weyland was most likely insisting that David should do whatever he can to gain the secret of immortality from the Engineers.(This became clear after Weyland explained his goals after he was finally awakened.) But as you said, it is possible that David chose Holloway as the first guinea pig for experimentation in part because Holloway offended him from the beginning. But then, David almost certainly knew that Shaw and David were very intimate and that as soon as Holloway gets infected, Shaw would also be at serious risk of infection. So David did put Shaw at great risk because David was still serving the interests of Weyland. Furthermore, recall that when Shaw asked David to remove the fetus from her body, even though David was surely aware that the automatic surgery machine that belonged to Weyland could have been used, he said that the only solution is to put Shaw in the cryogenic stasis chamber to freeze her so that she could be brought back to Earth later for the medical procedure to remove the fetus, mostly likely because David did not want to offend Weyland by letting another person use his surgery machine. FormalLogician (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

prometheus (film) edit

Dear Darkwarriorblake

I would like to know why you removed my edit to the Prometheus article from 14 June which consisted of the following statement regarding David:

"and studies linguistics such as Schleicher's fable"

You removed it on 20:36, 17 June 2012‎ saying this:

"Removed other random item of info"

I am not finding any sort of Wikipedia policy regarding "random items". I also can find academic linguistic discussion forums at universities discussing this topic so I considered it notable and referencable by secondary sources (though i dont think i had any refs in at the time as it seemed superfluous, considering that the rest of the plot is described in large without any references). The word count i also checked, and this phrase did not bump it over the recommended limit.

Decora (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The film is a primary source regarding the plot and should discuss the major elements of t he story to give a greater understanding. Whatever fable he was studying does not do that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You might want to keep an eye on Prometheus (film). There seems to be disagreement over calling the Engineer "he"/"him". --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Be glad to.

Holiday? Vacation? I think I remember what those things were....  : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Batman

Cool! I'll take a look at it. Nice of you to think of me! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Glen's corpse

unsourced and outtake so uncanon - I'm sorry for adding the outtake, i was trying to support the Elm Street wiki fans, that's why i add it as an outtake for Glen Lantz's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.203.52.2 (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

filming images

I am trying to find a image that you can use the licence such as the one you used on File:Ridley Scott Prometheus Set.jpg. I tried to upload the image on this this source but there seems to be a rule against it. The reason is the filming images that are used right now are just filming images of a commercial. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

I didn't add that image, but there should be an option during upload for a license that says Non-Free Content or NFC. Might be called Fair Use. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Check this out before it gets deleted. I uploaded that but I got this while I got it. What is the image that was uploaded doing right? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a summary and license as you HAVE to have that on images, especially NFC. The deletor seems to be arguing that the image can be replaced by a free image of Marc Webb. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A free image of Marc Webb yes..but a free image of him on the set. I haven't noticed one yet. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So what do you think on the commentary. I was thinking somewhere on the lines "Marc Webb behind the scenes of the filming of The Amazing Spider-Man. Webb was first hesitant on taking over the role of the film but he felt that it was a great opportunity to direct a film about what he called an iconic character." or something about him wanting to create a more grounded Spider-Man. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I thought of a better use for it. Looking more on the image I am pretty sure that's a RED epic camera also on the pic. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There probably won't be a free image of Webb on set, but they shouldn't be deleting it automatically without giving you a chance to justify it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The user has tagged it again. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You could try following the insutrctions on the template and submitting your reasoning for why it is justified. Then the user cannot continue to do it if your reasoning is accepted. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok what would be your response on submitting it? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What you said before, you're using it to illustrate the directoron set using red epic cameras. I'm not saying it will pass because it doesn't show a whole lot but you can try. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)‎

Would appreciate your input at Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)‎#Images, if you have a few minutes to express your opinion on the matter. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 02:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

effects

Is it possible for there to make a smaller, silent ovg version of this on Wikipedia. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Not the whole thing, there;d be no way to justify it from a copyright point, you'd have to pick the part you want that illustrates what you need and keep it as short as possible. It can be longer, there is one at American Beauty (film), Terminator 2: Judgement Day, and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know. That's why I said a shorter version. But I don't know really how to do that. Do you? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Well I could get it off Youtube, I could edit it down, remove the sound, put it in a correct format and such, but my upload is crap so it'd have to be a relatively short sequence. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting so would you rather do it or teach me how do video edit? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's easier if you just tell me which time-span you want from it. UNless you already have video editing software it won't do you much good for me to teach you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The last shown battle scene starting at 3:04 should do just fine. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Also if you could add the CGI rendering of those particular action scenes along with it that would probably help make it even more constructive. But if you can't that's ok. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and do it as soon as possible Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks I appreciate it.  :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I admit I was wondering if you changed you're mind or something. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it should do fine. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So when will you download it? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thor

I have reverted your revert :). My reasons are as follows:

• Nowhere is it stated, in this continuity at least, that Mjolnir is the source of Thor's power, and it is improper to state so.
• As noted, it is not known if Thor's exile played a hand on Odin falling into the Odinsleep or not, so it is improper to state this as well. The rest, it wasn't just Loki finding out, it was him snapping and yelling at Odin that did it. Odin's reasons for taking Loki being (seemingly) for political reasons is part of why Loki has such "'Well Done, Son' Guy" issues, to use the TV Tropes term.
• The climax, I simply moved about the order of events - Loki reveals his plan after Thor arrives, not before, so it was an incorrect sequence of given events. The elaboration of why he lets himself fall is perhaps not needed, I know Wikipedia dislikes excessive detail in film summaries, but I felt it was important to understanding the plot and Loki's character, which should be the purpose of a summary, to illustrate the subject - Loki being rejected is part of his character as Thor's romance with Jane is to his.

If you have any further desire to question me on these matters, feel free. 184.144.31.62 (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking my corrections into account in the new summary, I didn't notice this as first and am sorry, but have altered/removed my additions accordingly. 184.144.31.62 (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbiotes

Okay. But I think at least the Symbiote article should mention all the hosts from the comics. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable point, but I worry about the fuzzy nature of that dividing line, and how we might have to end up dealing with a host of (no pun intended) anonymous IP one-off newbie editors perpetually adding those characters back in. But if you insist, I won't pursue that further. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The outline in your sandbox is easy to follow, I don't see it confusing readers.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Honesty, I don't see much of a problem as it is but I don't have a problem with the proposed merge either. And if it resolves a legitimate issues as you say then by all means go for it. You may however want to get the opinion of someone more familiar with those articles, perhaps WP:WikiProject Comics/Spider-Man work group.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Symbiote

So can you give me a short and simple version on what you want to do on the symbiote related articles. Since I am a Spidey work task force member. It isn't that clear to me yet. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

TDKR

I am sorry you were disappointed. I listened to the plot and there is some things that sounds disappointing like how Talia al Ghul is somehow depicted and how Bruce Wayne stops being Batman. But I will try to enjoy the movie anyway. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

Didn't realise you hadn't seen it, otherwise I would go into more detail. People obviously like it, it has good reviews, but I was not impressed at all and they didn't learn the Spider-Man 3 lesson of trying to shoehorn two main female characters/love interests plus a bunch of new characters. Also you can download the video here. Please let me know when you've done so, so I can hide hte link, don't want people eating up my bandwidth. Then go here [1] to upload it, use the details at [2] to give you an idea what to add. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks as you can see I figured it out. I am already noticing you're work on The Watch (2012 film). Good job man. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I started the Watch and was looking forward to it and now its getting 9% approval O_O. Ihave really bad luck picking articles. Picked Tower Heist because it looked good, got ok reviews and pretty much forgotten. Picked A Good Old Fashioned Orgy because it looked fun, still awaiting wide release. Picked The Watch, looked really good, absolutely bombing critically. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Following on from a report at WP:AN3, I just looked into the edit history of this article. What a mess. I'm afraid one of the things I found is that you (and probably others) seem to have been violating 3RR multiple times over. If the editing is so chaotic that the article can't be kept in shape without reverting permanently, then you really should apply for protection instead, don't you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lana Wachowski

Larry Wachowski no longer goes by that name. Their legal name is Lana. Why are you reverting it back to incorrect information? Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.130.38 (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, I will happily comply with you if you can provide proof that it is in fact what she was credited as. I have a hard time believing that considering the fact that their name was changed well before the movie came out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.130.38 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. You have new messages at WikiPuppies's talk page.
Message added 18:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

P.S.: For your information, the IP has filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. WikiPuppies! (bark) 18:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have NO idea how 2 send U a message, so here goes, DarkWarriorBlake: I CORRECTED Hal Jordan's page!!! His name is NOT Harold. is is in fact Howard "High Ball" Jordan!!! Please stop being an ass & look it up ANYWHERE else for verifacation on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.9.0 (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Ghostface (Scream)

Hi, Darkwarriorblake. I was reading through the above article, and I noticed it's pretty comprehensive. That said, I am a major Scream fan, and would love to help take this article to GA status, and maybe even FA. I am writing to you, because I noticed you are the top contributor to the article. I would love to collaborate with you on this article, to try to take it to GA/FA. If you are interested, I think we should make a list of all the issues with the article. Hope to hear back from you, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done some major copyediting and cleanup, and am currently searching for more information to include in "impact". Hopefully it can be nominated for GA soon! TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Bias

Use more Fassbender. Not enough Belfast-rared moviemen on wikipedia. GRAPPLE X 19:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

:( Belfast will not take Prometheus! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't make him protest again, it isn't pretty. GRAPPLE X 20:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of others reading the article, too much Fassbender Belfastishness might cause too much joy. I do it only for the good of others. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises (novel) and List of The Dark Knight Trilogy characters

Thanks for the advices. Another thing, think you can create a page of list of characters of The Dark Knight Trilogy as you did on the Scream franchise?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus (film)

Hi, Darkwarriorblake, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested for the above article.Feel free to contact me, or to correct or revert me if I'm doing something I shouldn't be. You rightly point out that it's a long article so it'll take me a few days to complete the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi again; in the second paragraph of 'Development', I found "The studio was pleased because it had contested Scott's proposed budget of $150–160 million and found Lindelof's screenplay to be more budget-conscious;". I've removed the tagged part of the sentence, but the previous sentence "In October 2010, Lindelof submitted his rewritten screenplay to Fox." might need checking too is covered by ref 57. I'll see whether the following ref covers this. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In the first paragraph of 'Sets and vehicles', there's a citation missing from the final sentence, which is a direct quotation and must be attributed to a source per WP:BLP. I've marked this with a {{citation}} tag. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Done - please feel free to contact me about any ongoing issues with the copy-edit. Wishing you good luck with your future GA nomination. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The last resort of the incorrect

The fact that you want to cry to AN/I basically confirms how wrong you are. AN/I doesn't mediate content disputes. Kultgen isn't notable. - Balph Eubank ✉ 16:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Read WP:VANDNOT. Also, do not template the regulars. - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, in response to your vulgarities on my talk page, please read WP:CIVIL. - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be a template, but I guess I could give it a shot. - Balph Eubank ✉ 17:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I think both of you could have acted better in this dispute I do need to point out that Balph Eubank is correct when he says his edits were not vandalism. Quoting from the policy "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Now they may have been mistaken in their understanding of policy but it was obvious they were still acting in good faith and so not vandalism. Dpmuk (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification question

I do think you should have notified Balph Eubank. I'm curious to know why you did not, but I'll emphasize that this is not an attempt to assess blame.

Please see Wikipedia:VPPR#Proposal_to_improve_reporting_to_notification_boards, a proposal I put some work into, but is going nowhere. One response was that this is already possible in Twinkle. Are you a Twinkle user? If so, did you use Twinkle to post at ANI? Do you think it would be helpful to make is easier to notify, or is it not worth the effort?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It would depend on where I'm looking. The only option I have ever seen to notify Administrators is the ARV option, I had to search for the noticeboard myself. I would certainly support a measure to make it easier to report to the Intervention and notice areas like the ANI, Dispute Resolution and 3RR as I admit the hassle of finding and then reading how to make an entry often makes it more hassle than its worth when you might have to do it several times. As for why I didn't notify him, partly because he said don't template him (so I took it literally, dick move I know but I wasn't happy with him), but also because Ive never really used that service before and I thought the admin would come to the talk page and intervene like with ARV, I didn't think we would be having the discussion at the actual ANI. So that was a misunderstanding on my part. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In general, our processes are too complicated, and I'd like to improve them; the first step to improving is a better understanding of the problems. You said "ARV" Did you mean AIV?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, on Twinkle the first option is labeled "ARV" but this apparently takes you to AIV. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You were right ARV. Not sure what it is short for. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for keeping an eye out on the Silent Hill: Revelation 3D wiki page. It seems it's quite a frequent target. Good work! QValintyne (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

RoboCop

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. Regarding this revert of yours, which I only came across recently, yes, RoboCop does have a rape scene. It's near the start of the film - two men attempt to rape a woman, and RoboCop shoots one of the would-be rapists right in the genitals. I would have thought the scene would be hard to forget for anyone who has seen the film. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I knew what scene you were talking about, but it seemed like a loose interpretation of rape in film. I assumed the category is for something like the one where there is an extensive rape scene on a pinball machine, not a mugging with a brief threat of sexual assault before Robocop shows up. I may be wrong on the usage of categories, but the film doesn't actually contain rape. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World

I just saw your recent edit and there is currently a discussion at WT:FILM that could help, you deal with these situations and point out to offenders their mistakes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus Music Section

Hi, it was a good movie wasn't it! I was just wondering what your thoughts are on the music section of the Prometheus article. I agree that some of what I wrote today might fit in the soundtrack article. From what I read about the soundtrack, the Chopin was important to a lot of listeners - though I suppose it depends who is listening.

I certainly thought it should be mentioned because there are three composers used in the film, and at the moment only two are referred to. From a musical point of view, it seemed like there was a missing character in the description in the article. I'm sure the director had some idea about it when he put it in the cinema release. Would be interesting to know your ideas, Helmhholtz (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have moved my discussion to the article talk page Helmhholtz (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive

Hey, since you said you went through and archived 200 refs in one go (that must have been terrible, haha), I figured you could answer this for me: the reference I just archived in the GotG incubator doesn't have the page's formatting translated over properly. Is it cool to leave it like that, since all of the actual interview text shows up properly? Thanks -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Iron Man 2 assessment

Hey, I know you're a good editor and you don't seem to have been involved in the Iron Man 2 article, so I was wondering if you had some time and wouldn't mind giving it a once-over, and checking if it qualifies for B-list status? And maybe giving some thoughts on what it needs before nominating it for good article status. I've made some significant additions to in the past few weeks. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I went ahead and put in the request for copy editing. And you're doing great work with the copy editing of your own. Cheers. -Fandraltastic (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The Cabin in the Woods

Hi, Darkwarriorblake. I am interested in taking The Cabin in the Woods to GA status. Today, I have started a major expansion of the article, including the reception section and started a discussion at Talk:The Cabin in the Woods#GA push to see if others can assist in this process. If you don't mind, would you like to help collaborate with me on this project? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If I see an opportunity to help I will, but I've got a lot on at the minute. I will see what I can do. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I'll keep an eye out on the article in the meantime. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Expendables 2

I don't see why the segregation is "totally unnecessary". It is basically the very same segregation applied in the The Expendables article and it includes the entire main cast, which the previous cast doens't. And if the headlines bother you that much they can be done with a semicolon so that they don't appear in the table of contents.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, even if it's a rule violation, it's no reason to get unpolite and you obviously lack any manners. Be glad if I don't report you. Secondly, the segregation has nothing to do with fandom but with order and lucidity. And last but not least, your reverts still don't do anything about the lack of main cast characters.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Uhm, have you even seen the movie? They are billed as main cast in the credits. I have evidence while you do not and I will keep reverting your edits as long as you don't prove me wrong. Just because you have done a lot for this article it is not "yours", Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia and you have no right to arbitrarly revert other people's edits just because they do not fit in your system. The one violating the 3RR rule is obvioulsy you since you are the one who is wrong here and if you want to report me, do it, I'm pretty confident the admin will tell you exactly the same. I have not even reverted you, I just added the cast to your cast system, which you comport as a rule followed by each and every person doing movie articles, although it is just the system you use in "your" articles.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with fandom but with the following: if you exclude what you perceive main actors in a special list you have to include all of them. What you are doing is dividing this list by your personal liking and ommiting actors you either do not know or do not accept as known enough. This has nothing to do with logical choice, it would be logical to take the entire main cast instead of picking the raisins. And I don't see your argument with space, four lines more or less don't destroy the article.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh no my friend, you just cannot accept anyone else doing constructive work on your articles because your big ego cannot admit that I am the one one who is right and not you. A billed cast list at the end of a movie and a production list is always more reliable than an advertisement with the intent of luring people with big names and insulting me or trying to make me look like some kind of Expendables Belieber is not going to change that. Your entire discussion list only shows that you cannot accept critism or other people working on your articles. And if the other two people (who are not billed as main cast) bother you that much, include them. If you cannot accept my changes on the article don't fit your ego you can ask the arbitration commitee for a third and binding opinion on this matter, since discussing with you is like discussing with a n angry child.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your "explanations" just center around "I am right because I did the article" and insulting others while I tried several times to point at a source much more valid and reliable than yours. The one who is warring and reverting all the time is you because you cannot accept critism and other people being right. And I will talk to a commitee now because I am sick and tired of your infantile behaviour.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me or are just trying to influence the admin who will be responsible for the dispute? Their names as well in the credits as in the production notes (beginning, credits which are not listed here and ending credits) are pretty much on top of the list.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

How about you try reading the comment above? They are at top positions in both parts of the notes (cast list/ending credits) AND in the film credits.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Because, as I have told you for like 200 times now, I orientate myself at the credits of the film and not some movie poster intended to lure people into cinemas.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should learn the difference between credits and ending credits: credits come directly /beforeafter or within the beginning/end of a film and only focus on main cast and main crew (producers etc.). What you mean are the ending credits which list everyone. So don't try to mirror your cherry picking on me again. And for your ad argument: Alice in Wonderland (and a ton of other films) only lists Johnny Depp in their marketing because he is the most known actor. Does that mean he is the only main cast member? Certainly not. And that is exactly why your argument is simply BS and by no means a reliable tool to create cast lists.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)