User talk:ProfessorKilroy
Welcome (A little late is better than not at all!)
[edit]
|
Removing material
[edit]On this edit of yours: If you think that this material should be removed, explain why at Talk:List of highest-grossing films, and wait several days to get agreement. Other removal will be treated as vandalism. -- Hoary (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that you wrote:
- Whilst I believe that they are high-grossing series/franchises and deserve to be in the table, I don't believe they can be in the same table, which is why I am proposing that we use two seperate tables. Rather than having one table for series and franchises, have two tables (one for series and one for franchises- or whatever you wish to call them) to make it clearer.
So now you wait for replies. If there are none, or if they seem unthinking, then bring up the matter here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Re: A: EMH, again...
[edit]Just reword or clarify the paragraph. Breakout is the pilot episode.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- It is not his opinion, it is fact as it was the first episode to air. When he said "first five episodes" he was referring to the production number.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- A few things, episode lists are presented in the order they are aired regardless of the order they are produced. Breakout is the first episode of Season 1 there are many sources stating stating as such. The paragraph can easily be reworded to reflect the actual order the episodes were presented. Lastly this discussion should not take on user talk pages but rather the article talk page in case if anyone else wishes to participate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Production codes are not the same thing as episode numbers, companies often shoot television episodes out of order due locations and budgetary reasons. Which is why we routinely list episodes by air date rather than production code or in-universe chronological order. Furthermore channels do not arbitrarily choose the order episodes are aired. If you have sources that an episode aired in a different country before the date that is currently listed then we will change the order. Also do not say such things as "actual order" or "proper order" as these terms are subject to opinion. Thank you pointing out the mistake in the current table, I will change it accordingly and feel free to post our discussion on the talk page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Both of you - the edit war has gone more than far enough. It stops now. Use the talk page to discuss the issues and see where consensus is.
- With an eye to WP:BRD the page has been locked at the state prior to the bold edit (ProfessorKilroy's) that started this.
- Discussion and consensus means you to have work with other editors and respect their input. Not actively edit as though nothing has been said or that only you are right and only your version of the article has a right to exist.
- Original research has been mentioned on the talk page. This is a policy on Wikipedia, like it or not.
- This is not an invitation to discuss the locking the article, this post, indulge in personal attacks or disparagement of others, or bide time for the page protection to go down.
- J Greb (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The article is now protected for a week because of your action.
- Do not edit to prove a point, to re-start an edit war (and yes that is exactly what you did), or in spite of an on going discussion. Each of those is enough to get you blocked.
- This is your second warning.
- - J Greb (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]Sorry, I don't get involved in discussions/disagreements/arguments any more.-5- (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I need your opinion
[edit]Hi. I have a question for which I need objective opinions. Can you offer your viewpoint here? I really need it in order to proceed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Half Barnstar |
| As in countless examples in literature, I award this to you and the other half to TriiipleThreat for your world-class efforts to reach common ground and achieve effective results at List of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes episodes. May your powers be greater together! Excelsior! -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC) |
You will be need more help...
[edit]wrote previously...
Wikipedia List of superpowers article, need more superpowers
[edit]I have a real article that i work any moment and everyday with any pals... you have rights for use it for your convenence (except erase it or modify it) to show how many super powers exist in your article. Super Power List behind Wikipedia from Spanish Leanguage to english leanguage I work so much, and any pals too, dont destroy own article but almost try to add more super powers to your super power list. If my wikipedia in Spanish article is not without faults of orthography, you could read it without so much problems, Greetings. (This for your List of Superpowers. --Georgy (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Two Towers country
[edit]Hello. I'm not sure what exactly the "country" parameter means in the film infobox but there are a few issues to consider. Here's the text:
Fill in the nationality of the film as identified in the lead of the article. The nationality of the film should be backed up with a reliable source. The source must clearly identify the nationality in a descriptive capacity, as in describing it as an American or a French film/movie etc, or in a contextual capacity such as the BFI's list of top 100 "British films" or as an example in a published work on German film etc. Sources that simply identify the country of origin as France, or the production country as U.S. etc such as is the case with resources like Allmovie and IMDb is not sufficient identification of the film's nationality. If there is a conflict between nationalities, then the nationality should not be stated and the country field should not be filled in.
1) It does not state that "country" means where the film was made. If it meant that then it would have be very easy to state that plainly.
2) It might mean the country of origin for the studio who produced the film. In this case it would be New Line which is in the US.
3) All that said the parameter does require the information to be in the lead section of the article and to be backed up with reliable sources. Neither of these criteria are met with respect to the Two Towers article.
4) I see you've added it back anyway claiming "consistency". The problem with this is that there is a lot on Wikipedia that's wrong but consistent. In general we'd rather be correct 1% of the time than 99% consistent but wrong.
Film articles are not my specialty so I don't really know how that parameter is usually interpreted. If we take the discussion to the talk page then maybe other people will be able to help out. SQGibbon (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, definitely copy my stuff and your stuff over and let's get other opinions. As I mentioned I'm not really involved in film articles so I won't be able to contribute any more than I have but I am curious to see how it all works out. It appears that based on what you said about the studio that the "blank" option is technically best but I can see how it would end up with NZ as well. Who knows. SQGibbon (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Avengers Debate
[edit]ProfessorKilroy - Sorry I ignored your invitation to discuss the issues. I honestly didn't read your invite until today. But I went back today and put my two cents in, even found a reference that might help my argument. I do think Tenebre (sp) thought we were the same person. At least I learned how to sign posts from this, never really looked at that box on the top of the page that asks us to sign before.--Psion20 (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)psion20
Re: Scepanveliki's edits
[edit]If you wish, you can submit the case to WP:SPI. BTW I wanted compliment you on the Template:Marvel Comics films discussions, you have provide well reasoned and written arguments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is also WP:SPB, to block the website.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Franchises
[edit]Hi Prof, I wanted to run something by you since I think I have found an inconsistency with how Box Office Mojo handle franchise crossovers.
You are familiar with how they handle the Marvel franchises right? There is the Iron Man franchise, the Hulk franchise etc, and then there is the MCU which includes all the films within that particular continuity. As a consequence, Ang Lee's Hulk doesn't get included in the MCU, and The Avengers isn't included in the Iron Man franchise.
However, I have noticed this is inconsistent with how they handle the Alien and Predator franchises. The first way of looking at it is that the Alien v. Predator movies constitute a "cinematic universe", representing a cross-franchise series. If that is the case, both the cross-over films should be excluded from the Alien and Predator franchises on the same basis that The Avengers is excluded from the Iron Man and Hulk franchises, but this isn't the case (see Alien and Predator. The second way of looking at is that Alien and Predator have been merged into a "super-franchise", in which case all the Alien and Predator movies form a 10-film franchise, but again, BOM doesn't bear it out.
There is a huge inconsistency here in how BOM handles crossovers: BOM exlcudes the Marvel crossover film from the individual Marvel franchises, but it doesn't exclude the Alien v. Predator crossover films from the individual Alien and Predator franchises.
Do you see this as an inconsistency too, or am I missing something? Betty Logan (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks pretty inconsistent to me, which kinda sucks. We can't choose ourselves as to what counts as a franchise, so we need an alternate source, right? I had a look on The Numbers website, but they do the same thing, except without counting the MCU as a franchise, and plus, they're missing a fair bit of data. Are there any other sources like BOM or Numbers?
- Either way, it looks like it's not going to be totally consistent unless we say that either the Alien/Predator universe is a franchise, and count that in the table, or get rid of the MCU, and count the Avengers in the Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America franchises. But we can't really do either of those things, unless there's a source that defines the Alien/Predator universe as a franchise or the MCU as not a franchise. But it's probably original research to say, "Well, this website says these films make a franchise, and this other website has the box office data for them", right?
- What else could we do about it? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. It's definitely an inconsistency. Even if another source were available it still doesn't invalidate the inconsistency at BOM; we can't pick and choose which franchises the source is "correct" for. I might email them about it, since I think only BOM can address the problem. If they don't we're kind of stuck with it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, excellent plan. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Age of Ultron talk page
[edit]
this is a warning. Further readding of unconstructive comments will result in a block. Rusted AutoParts 05:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Rusted AutoParts, I apologise for reverting your revert twice. But what gives you the right to ask me to stop? I asked you to stop as well, and you didn't. In fact, you've reverted the edit three times now, so perhaps I should be warning you about being blocked. Also, if you're directing me to WP:BRD, you should have another look at the details yourself. In particular, these points (which I encourage you to read, as they are elaborated upon):
- Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can
- A revert of your revert may mean your edit broke an established consensus
- Revert-wars do not help build consensus
- Discuss on a talk page
- Do not edit war
- Locke Cole's comment is constructive. It provides feedback and an invitation for discussion on how the page handles sources. Which I happen to think is necessary, as I found the way the editors handled the sources to be quite shocking. Yes, the comment contains some whinging and frustration, but there's nothing offensive, and nothing that resembles vandalism. What's more, it's not that different from my own comment (I even thought it more tame). I fail to see why you reverted it in the first place. However, I think with all of your talk of other editors being unconstructive (carried out with, ironically, unconstructive actions), the most constructive thing to do, would be to allow Locke Cole to make his comment, and discuss things there, rather than edit warring. It's just a comment after all. If you disagree with it, just reply instead. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Scarlett Johansson
[edit]Just a heads up, you might want to keep an eye on Scarlett Johansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I hadn't been keeping up on the Age of Ultron talk page discussion (I notice it flared up again a week after the initial debate), but noticed one of the sources pretty much got Kevin Feige to "confirm" her pregnancy. I mean, if the producer of a currently filming movie starring the actress is able to say he basically congratulated her, I think that's proof right there.
FWIW, as it regards the Age of Ultron article, I do think the Collider source (one of the ones I'm using at Scarlett Johansson) is relevant enough for a statement saying her pregnancy isn't having a major impact on production of the film. I might bring that up again over there as well. Anyways, take care. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 17:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
[edit]The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Scarlett Johansson". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 April 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
[edit]The request for formal mediation concerning Scarlett Johansson, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
privacy rights
[edit]You've been asked [[1]] about your age. Please be aware that per Wikipedia's privacy policy you are not required to answer, and editors repeatedly questioning and/or speculating about that could be considered harassment. NE Ent 15:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Redirect
[edit]Hey Professor, because you don't have a user page, when you sign your comments it creates a red link. I just wanted to tell you that I don't have a user page either, so I redirected it to my talk page, therefore, no red link. It is totally up to you whether you want to do this or not, but I just thought I would let you know in case you wanted to do it. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, but I am aware. I kind of like it this way though, as I can easily discern my comments from others. I realise I could change the colour of the signature, but I can't be bothered doing that. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's cool, just thought I'd let you know. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Huh?
[edit]Why did you revert me?[2] Your edit summary didn't really make sense; all I was doing was extending Feige's producer credit to the full column of movies. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry about that. I must've reverted the wrong edit. I was trying to keep Ant-Man in Phase 3, where it was previously confirmed to be, until we had reliable sources stating it would be in Phase 2. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- No worries, today's been a hell of a day for that article. I was legitimately surprised that I didn't get an edit conflict while making that tweak. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, ProfessorKilroy. 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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, ProfessorKilroy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, ProfessorKilroy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)