User talk:Tenebrae/Archive 12

I need your opinion

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) 02:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A barnstar for you!

Thanks for the kind words. I know it can get little rough around here but you continue to be an exemplary editor.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks to you, Tenebrae are in order. It was great to have an editor there listening to my comments, and to calm the situation down several notches. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help on W.E. Film

Hi, we have users close to the article who will not let any reviews of the film be published I'm assuming because it has been panned and they are fans? Could you have a look please? Thanks. W.E (film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.119.134 (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sutton

Amazingly, that photo succeeds in capturing both his delicate side and his dark side. Pepso2 (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Thomas Curtis Magazines and a general hello

Hi Tenebrae,

While rooting through some of my old magazines for contemporaneous citations for the Roy Thomas article, I reread an excellent 1981 interview with Marv Wolfman wherein he reveals that Marvel used to "farm out" work on the Curtis Magazine line to Harry "A" Chesler's studio. Although Wolfman slips and calls it the "Harry Chester Studios". I haven't had as much time for hardcore research lately but I just had to share this.

=Just saw your message as I was writing this

Yep, I can add supporting quote from the sources. One last thing is that I'm thinking about creating an article for DC's 1980s preview comics. Between the DC Comics Year By Year A Visual Chronicle and Paul Levitz's book (also a must read) there's enough "real world" sources to support it. Since major title like the New Teen Titans and All-Star Squadron debuted in the format, I believe it would meet the notability standard. Let me know what you think. Hope all is well. Also, if there's anything you need assistance tracking down a cite for let me know.

Thanks again for your input.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As promised above, I've created the DC Comics insert previews article. As always, your feedback would be greatly appreciated.Mtminchi08 (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night Owls

You're in NYC? I don't recall you telling me that. Yeah, you know how it is. I got good at going to bed reasonably early, like midnight, but the Wikiaddiction still occasionaly rears its head. Probably not sleep because I slept this afternoon, as I tend to be drowsy and sleepy during rainy, cloudy, humid weather. (I hate this fucking rain). Thanks for the note on the Dynamo 5 article, which I wrote back when my article composing skills were still a bit formative. I'll hopefully get to it soon. There's also a wrinkle in the matter on its talk page that I haven't gotten to yet, but which I will soon. Btw, are you going to the NYCC? Nightscream (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers, again...

Hey man, Triiiplethreat wants your opinion. It's been a while since he asked, so I'm not sure if you realised, but yeah, here's a link for you. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thor

I think people are going off the dvd. Like you I remember a blackish, metal looking cube. In the DVD its glowing blue, I think they've edited it post theatrical release to match Captain America (though it didn't seem as bright in the version I have. But you're right to change the plot as it should represent the theatrical release ala Blade Runner, with any changes like that mentioned in the home media section. I might go try to find a theatrical copy to D/L and double check but I'd swear it was just a metal cube, the difference between that and the dvd is pretty big. In the DVD it's very obviously glowing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this is what I see in my DVD version, very blue and smooth where the version I recall from the cinema, admittedly only having seen it once, was just metallic with ridges and such. Will be a few hours until I can get hold of a theatrical cut to confirm. http://i55.tinypic.com/2s5xmow.jpg Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I really don't get it, I'm still downloading another copy but I looked up this on youtube which was posted 3 months ago, well before the DVD, and here its blue. Not as glowy as it is in Captain America but glowing. Not how I remember it at all, but I will still obtain this copy and see if there is any difference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPv12Lk7mYc Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be fun to edit the articles here, you know if someone says "I need to know something" they often turn to Wikipedia and s lots of people read this stuff. Just be nice if it was harder to vandalise. I'm really not sure what is going on with Thor, maybe it was just the less glow-iness of it, that you can see lines and such on it in Thor whereas in Cap it's just this really bright, glowing cube. It is visually different from THor's but maybe it was blue as it is in that video and I'm not recalling it accurately as every video I check on Youtube has the same blue cube. But obviously back when I was editing the plot, and you yourself know, I would have sworn it was a metallic cube. The copy I'm getting is the oldest i could find and it is in French, so if it is still blue here, we might just have been wrong or I had a dull cinema screen when I watched it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copy I obtained doesn't have the credits or after-credits so it seems all we have to go off is the DVD and the youtube videos. Perhaps we really were just mistaken? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in, but I remember it glowing blue... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not butting in at all. It's good to have more memories in here. Wow, how odd. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your message

I responded to a message you left on my talk page about 4 months ago, if you care. TJ Black (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla has once again refused to rescind his ban threat against me. Since you describe him as "one of the Project's best and wisest contributors", do you think you could intervene and get him to acknowledge his mistake? TJ Black (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It revolves around his claim that this comment was somehow an attack on Curly Turkey, and that I was "squabbling" with him, inspite of being totally uninvolved in the discussion. It's pretty absurd, since the history proves that to be untrue, but Doc refuses to back down, making it impossible for me to contribute anywhere on wikipedia. TJ Black (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been dormant since I've been too busy in real life to address it. I don't care particularly about the autobio comics discussion; I only suggested that Curly Turkey seek consensus before making major changes. The lingering issue is Doc's threats to ban me over something I never did. It's clear from looking at the discussion that I had no involvement after the first few responses, and the message that prompted the ban threat was clearly not an attempt to restart the argument. And on top of that, Curly's repeated attacks on me were totally ignored, so it seems more that a little hypocritical I'm getting 100% of the blame. Maybe I started to lose patience for his antics a bit (which was why I walked away from the discussion), but I'm the victim, not the aggressor. TJ Black (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be missing the fundamental point. There wasn't any disagreement with Curly. He disagreed with me, and took that to ridiculous heights. But I never told him he couldn't or shouldn't make the edits he wanted. He just couldn't deal with anything less than 100% agreement. That's why I left the discussion.

In light of that easily proven fact, can you really feel that Doc's ban threat had any justification? TJ Black (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel & Graphic novel

You just beat me to reverting this guy, I am inclined to agree with him on the graphic novel edit though, they have become very popular since that source was published. For instance, the walking dead has become a TV series. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered my two cents on TheRod's page. It's seems pretty straightforward, since the quotes don't say anything about "popularity" or "maturity", but was a musing on the neologism, and what he thought it implied. You can enable email under "my preferences" in the upper righthand menu. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real Steel

Thanks for making archive URLs for Real Steel! For the IMAX reference, there is a quote in it by Imax CEO Richard L. Gelfond: "The inclusion of two live-action DreamWorks titles in our 2011 slate enables us to expand the range of content available to Imax theatres and extend our brand deeper into our growing 18-34 audience segment." Maybe the passage in the Wikipedia article was not the best one. Do you think it's worth noting in any form? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point about it being insider trade-storyish. I misread it to mean something more useful. We don't need to include it; when the film is released, there are some demographic measurements that will be reported. Like for Contagion, it was 81% were 25 years old and up, and it was evenly divided male and female. We can wait! Erik (talk | contribs) 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That explains your interest in it! I'm not sure how much I want to see it. I think it was just one of these articles I wind up keeping updated (or trying to). It will depend on the reviews, I think. Otherwise, I'm pretty curious to see how it performs. I like to put together details about its release even though I never see it, like I did with Season of the Witch (2011 film). Anyway, feel free to help out with the article! I have a feeling there will be some useful visual effects coverage when the release gets closer. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A big reason I love editing, seeing readers pour in like here to read all the content we've contributed! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comic strips

Scroll down at User talk:J Milburn to see heading "Comic strip art". Pepso2 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The beat goes on at User talk:J Milburn. Pepso2 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DC Retroactive

Hi, Tenebrae, I started with DC Retroactive page today. It is incomplete so I have to add some information and sources, which will take some time. I would be glad if you could help me with it. For example, correcting any grammar mistakes (I'm not a native English speaker so mistakes may happen, of course) and any information or detail that you consider need to be added to the article. Cheers! :) Fma12 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Comic strip art

I have replied on my talk page. For what it's worth, while you find Pepso "a diligent and meticulous editor", I am by no means the first person to point out his abuse of non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Lee

Yes, I know an anon IP made those edits. I reverted back to your edit as the "last good version", which meant that your version of the page was the last version before the IP vandalised it. That's what the automated Twinkle script means when it says Reverted to revision 450165564 by Tenebrae Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:SinCityFamilyValues.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ILM revisit

I had an idea about referencing the Industrial Lights & Magic website in The Avengers (2012 film) that we talk about before. You can see it here and let me know what you think? Also I added some weak confirmations of actors to Thor (film)#Sequel that you might want to take a look at. Feel free to remove them if you think that they are not strong enough to support the claims.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:RingoKid16.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:RingoKid16.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TooMuchCoffeeMan21.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TooMuchCoffeeMan21.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:OurFightingForces71.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:OurFightingForces71.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the organization

It seems you have other priorities in the comics world at Wiki to tend to, thank you for the time it took to tend to the Shannon Wheeler and Too Much Coffee Man articles. I had asked for help on that from anonymous volunteers when I first started dabbling on here. You were able to clean up a lot of content that had bothered Shannon for years. And for what it's worth, the main thing that bothered him about the cover of issue #21 of the magazine being up on Wiki is that the credit of the image was given to him, not to Paul Guinan. More and more, we are seeing that interviewers and reporters are using Wikipedia as the main source of information. As Wheeler has six books (or seven, depending how it's counted) being released within the span of a year, I feel it's more important now to be accurate. I would still like to contribute to those pages and would really appreciate your help on this. I'd like to eventually fill out the information about issues of the minicomic, comic books (including JAB), and magazine. I would also like to start a page/section on Adhesive Press as an Indy Publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamdao22 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you! It took a lot of time to do what you did and it probably wasn't a priority for you to do in the first place... and I'll try to be more careful about signing and responding so it doesn't look like I'm having a conversation with myself. ;) Tamdao22 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Funnies

Nice work on the expansion of The Funnies! Such a seminal publication (well, two publications) needed the well-researched work you put into it. Kudos -- stoshmaster (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:VaultOfHorror35.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:VaultOfHorror35.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for File:WallyWoodBookCovers.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:WallyWoodBookCovers.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:FeatureFunnies7.jpg

I have tagged File:FeatureFunnies7.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

This is a neutral request for comments concerning the use of film reviews for early cuts at Red Dawn (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Comic strips stripped

Currently ongoing is a mass deletion by User talk:Melesse of the comic strips I restored and uploaded over the past six years. Apparently, only a few public domain strips will be left. As I see on my watchlist, there are so many tagged that there is no way I can respond to all of these within the week, so numerous pages will have no example of the artist's work. Pepso2 (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silly edit conflict at Galactus

I don't really see the edit as a big deal, as it is a trivial matter, but would you mind taking a decision about which version to keep (possibly even read the last two Thor issues to check what is correct), as this is starting to feel ridiculous again (my anal-retentive "right is right" patterning compulsion versus Mobb's frenetically vindictive pro-bias for the character)? Thank you for any help to get this quickly over with. Dave (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am apparently being censored from responding

User:Friginator seems to frenetically attempt to censor out my reply due to personal libertarian political affiliation... Or at least I don't see why else, unless he is in some way connected to Frank Miller. And as far as I can see he is not an admin, so that can't be the reason.

See here and here. I don't think that I was remotely out of line, and remained very polite, especially considering that I was called Rorschach in the Talk, and Frank then explicitly based a raving terrorist that he distorted and tortured to death on that, and named it after my internet handle. Is this apparently agenda-driven censoring something that you could help to prevent, or at least clear up? Thanks in advance. Dave (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your support

Wow! Much thanks. I tried to follow all the rules in doing Bob Smith (comics). Pepso2 (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Mullaney

Wow! Great new article on him. I've been hoping someone would create one for him for awhile, and when I read this article, I knew it had to be your work. Thorough, well-researched, altogether excellent! -- stoshmaster (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here! Nightscream (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa

It has nothing to do with an edit-war. That paragraph (that you insist on maintaining with its typos) sounds like a compilation of news tidbits added one after the other as developments came to be known (which it probably is with the "New York Times reported"). Since we're not anymore in that speculative time of whether Aguirre-Sacasa will replace Taymor or not, it's time to assess the information: he did rewrite it. The fact that Taymor said something or not on a forum is irrelevant to this article, which is about Sacasa. You can include the information on her article or the show's article. So, until you have a rationale for including the backstage politics of the show in Sacasa's article, leave it alone. Leocomix (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Marvel Comics

Okay. I've placed the article on my watchlist. If he/she persists, I'll act accordingly. Nightscream (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image loss

Many pages are being stripped of images. For instance, see Alex Kotzky. I'm not sure what to make of this, since I don't know how one can truly learn about a particular artist unless they can see what the artist has created. Pepso2 (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Rogers

Hello again Tenebrae,

I added a citation for "Strange" and "The Batman" porfolios to the Marshall Rogers article. If you can find a copy, I highly recommend Back Issue #46. It's an all-"Greatest Stories Never Told" issue and the article I cited details how Englehart and Rogers *almost* got DC to let them publish a Batman story in Mike Friedrich's Star Reach!
Also, I got the dates for Rogers run on the Batman newspaper strip from the three issues of Comics Revue (the only issues I own of that title). Not sure if I should cite directly to those mags, so let me know what you recommend. The Grand Comics Database only has skeleton data for Comics Revue so that's a bit of a dead end. I'll keep looking and post something when I find it.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenebrae,

I have a question regarding citation formatting. Please see my talk page when you have a spare moment. Thanks again. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Tenebrae! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Box-office edits

Why is "phenomenal" considered non-neutral? You can even find it in Box Office Mojo articles sometimes. And it just means that it is remarkable and doesn't happen so often, something rare, unique or something like that. As for "generated a total gross of more than $10 million", that part actually existed before I ever edited that article. And in Real Steel, I was evidently going to leave it there since it wasn't probably ever going to reach first place again. And instead of saying that these are unnecessary detail maybe you should consider adding such details to other articles as well, as I have already done -more excessively I would say- to non-Disney films like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Kung Fu Panda 2 among others.

Finally, just expressing a thought, isn't it strange that whenever someone criticizes the excessiveness (which -by the way- I don't believe that it is excessiveness) of box-office records that I add to films, they only refer to Dinsey films when there are many other examples of non-Disney films where this occurs? And I would like to point out that the guidelines given by Wikipedia for box-office section are, in my opinion, insufficient. So, I believe what we should do instead of continuously adding and deleting from box-office sections is to decide at last what should be and should not be included in a box-office section and write it down in a more specific way. Thank you. Spinc5 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "I've noted my concerns to user User:Spinc5 — and I'm sure it's just coincidence, but "spin"? Really?" in the Real Steel discussion page. What coincidence were you talking about because I, sincerely, didn't understand that point. Besides that, some of the words or phrases I use, that you call promotional or whatever, come from the articles I read in Box Office Mojo, THR etc. I really never thought that they give a non-neutral tone to the article since they can be found in articles from these sources. Spinc5 (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your significant contributions that helped promote Captain America: The First Avenger to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your significant contributions that helped promote Thor (film) to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comics Notability

Hi. Is what patsw is saying here true? I thought notability only required coverage in reliable sources, but patsw is saying that the book in question has to have won awards. That seems a bit restrictive. I mean, what about books that were nominated but didn't win? Or books published before certain awards were founded? Is this true? Is there a Comic Project notability guideline? Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there!

You might want to drop in at Project Accessory when you get a minute. Guess who's at it there, with his/her sock, not edit summaries and the whole routine. The entire article is two tables and some headings because he/she can't be bothered to write text. Thoughts? Drmargi (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the battlelines, comrade! Drmargi (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just started a talk topic and put a notice on Worstcook's talk page warning her that if she and the other fangirls don't get off the pot and actually write an article for Project Accessory, I'm going to AfD the article. As it is now, it's garbage, just used for minimal episode descriptions and their damned elimination tables. What's the point? If you get a minute, go take a peek, and see what you think. I'd value your opinion. Drmargi (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Film IMDb refimprove

Template:Film IMDb refimprove has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Man / Prince of Orphans

I think it's very interesting how this character has been appearing in recent Marvel comics. I think the Amazing-Man (Centaur Publications) could use some work; do you have anything to make it better? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I would also say the same thing for John Steele (comics), although perhaps not as much. :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain America: The First Avenger

The issue of the cosmic cube as come up again, your opinion on is welcomed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by way of response

You're very welcome. I've been in your shoes as far as dealing with... well, weird, users before has gone. Keeping your cool, saying what needs said, then asking for help and backing off was the right way to handle it. Keep up the fine work. - Vianello (Talk) 04:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While a rangeblock might be a bit excessive unless this escalates, I'll definitely go ahead and handle semiprotection as you suggested. Thanks for getting hold of me on this, and my apologies for not being available to act sooner. - Vianello (Talk) 03:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks by IP editor

Hi. Following this message left at Talk:The Poor Kid by User:86.177.60.155, I removed that message, and left a warning on that talk page stating that they would be blocked if they did so again. In response, the editor in question restored that message to the article talk page, and left this one my own talk page. The author of this personal message to me claims to have a dynamic IP that "someone else" was using on that article talk page, but is clearly a lie, since both messages make the same complaint about my upholding policy, and even use the same turns of phrase ("overbearing"). Since I'm involved, can you intervene in the way you feel most appropriate? Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Righetti

I am at my limit here. Can you please review the content added by 70.140.151.31 (talk). I have left several warnings on the user's talk page that went unheeded. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:PhoebeZeit-Geist.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PhoebeZeit-Geist.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Hi Tenebrae,

I thought that you might want to take a look at two new articles which I recently created: Janice Race and Greg Potter.
Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Miller (comics)

Hello again Tenebrae,

I've done quite a bit of work on the Frank Miller (comics) article today. This is one of the more vexing articles on Wikipedia due to all the uncited information on it. I've found citations for some of the flagged statements and deleted a few others. Let me know what you think... Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shave

It is a magazine. I am not really sure why the print is in question. I happen to be a regular reader. Here is a source for you http://www.shavemagazine.com/about/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasmanine (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection on Rango (2011 film)

Just to let you know Tenebrae, the page Rango (2011 film) has been protected due to edit wars and content disputes. Regards, Tyranitar Man (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome

Just doin' my job (although that guy was a slam-dunk block if I've ever seen one. And I have a feeling we haven't seen the last of him). Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good faith efforts :-)

Thank you very much for your very good efforts at compromise at the Demi Moore article. I thought you came up with a wise and fair solution. Unfortunately, another editor seems determined to have only his/her own point of view shown instead of a comprehensive and accurate article and has taken out your edits. I don't have the time or energy to follow up on this, so the innacurate info will probably stay there. But it was a good effort and I thank you. 68.125.160.90 (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moore

Hi - please leave the previous version and discuss rather that than reverting - we have threads at the BLPN and the RSN - please comment on the talkpage thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am discussing on the talkpage - also please - http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/end-of-the-bruce-and-demi-show-1167545.html you added this external , to support Demetria, please where does it support that? I will say, have you accessed these external? it is disappointing that such an experienced user as yourself will add such disputed content to the lede of a BLP. Youreallycan (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That source, as I noted in my talk-page post, spells it Demitria, with an "i". --Tenebrae (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full text: "His was a blue-collar upbringing, hers was an itinerant one. It was perfectly understandable that they should wish to flout their success as a family in the world's face. His father was a welder who divorced when Willis was 16. Her father was a man who later turned out not to be. A travelling adman, he committed suicide when Demi (nee Demitria) was 17, two years after he was...." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such an edit warring disputed addition from an experienced editor to a WP:BLP is very disappointing. Youreallycan (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm genuinely sorry you believe so. I believe the likes of Time Inc., Reuters and The Independent, which are all major, venerable newsgathering organizations, are credible. I'm sure you must, too.

The compromise I proposed is that Wikipedia is not giving the name Demetria with the sort of undisputed proof that a birth certificate would entail, but simply saying, accurately, that these particular, reputable news organizations have given this as her name. That seems like a balanced way to present it to a reader. It would be slanted and to deliberately ignore the fact that places such as People and Reuters researched, edited and vetted "Demetria". --Tenebrae (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide externals to support your claims so I can investigate, I can't find anything in the article externals to support Time reported this, and a link to the reuters as well as I can't find that also - thanks - Which externals have you accessed? Youreallycan (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People is a Time Inc. publication.

The print-publication cite for the Reuters news service is the one for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It does not appear to be available for free online, but a pay version is here. Wikipedia citation guidelines do not necessitate that print sources be immediately accessible; only that they are reasonably accessible via libraries, etc. One cannot summarily remove a print citation simply because it does not appear on the web. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More disappointment - You have not accessed these sources. You are edit warring to keep a silly, non educational , disputed and denied by a living subject, first name in a WP:BLP when you have not accessed any of the sources. Youreallycan (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not say falsely that I "have not accessed these sources." I accessed and confirmed the two of the four sources that were online. I think if an admin were to examine your suggestion that the other two print sources are unuseable, he or she would disagree and would in fact point out the same policy, WP:SOURCEACCESS, that such a position violates. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had not accessed some of the sources you were using to support your edit warring. The sources you had accessed are clearly resulting from the People celebrity magazine, the People have been repeating this disputed first name for the last decade. The WP:BLP policy is in place to remove such worthless disputed trivia repeated in celebrity magazines and as I said =- I expect more from an experienced editor. We are not here to publish exposes , her totally official first birth name is of no value at all educationally and clearly she is disputing it today as we speak. Youreallycan (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are perfectly accessible to anyone.Here is one: "Her father was a man who later turned out not to be. A travelling adman, he committed suicide when Demi (nee Demitria) was 17, two years after he was separated from Demi's alcoholic mother." - What is the objection here? I'm getting the sense that Youreallycan has created a dispute where none exists. Is this another instance of this user ignoring secondary sources? If so, we may need to make another trip back to ANI. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Youreallycan: You are being out of line and not behaving civilly. All you are espousing is your personal POV. Time Inc.'s People is a major reliable source, and I believe any admin would agree. I have no seen no evidence other than your opinion to suggest it is incorrect, and for you to suggest that a venerable worldwide news agency such as Reuters "clearly" (your word) cannot do its own fact-checking and research and must copy another source, is insulting to the journalistic profession, of which I am a part.

Additionally, anyone's personal claim is a primary source; Wikipedia relies on secondary sourcing. Giving her statement primacy is balanced; making it the end-all and be-all is not — particularly in the case of entertainment personalities, who frequently lie about their ages and other details. Her tweet is simply one source among many.

Please read the policy at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Summarily removing print citations as you have done is a violation — and one of policy and not of guideline at that.

If you'd like to call for an RfC at this point, I would more than happy to support it. In the meantime, I'd sure an admin would take a dim view of your false accusations toward me, your violation of the aforesaid policy, and the POV tone you injected in your edit. If you believe you are correct despite these and other points, then please put your position up for wide comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forget responding. He won't admit his mistakes and he refuses to change his behavior. I've called for his immediate indefinite block here. He's consistently ignored reliable sources in multiple articles and he's made numerous false accusations against good faith editors in his effort to hide his mess. We're dealing with a user who has serious competency issues and is unable to continue editing without disrupting the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Youreallycan: You are entitled to your opinion, as long as you realize your opinion is hardly fact. Your opinion that People magazine — with its scores of researchers, editors and fact-checkers, all operating to keep up the credibility and reputation of Time Inc. — is not a reliable source is simply remarkable, and not one shared by any reasonable observer. Also, read WP:SOURCEACCESS, please.

Speaking of journalism, I see by your past identity you had some issues with "British" and "Jewish" being mutually exclusive. Rest assured that my British-Jewish friend who is an editor at the UK's The Jewish Chronicle would take issue with you there as well.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not complicate and move content discussion to issues that are uninvolved, thanks - ::::::::::Speaking of journalism, I see by your past identity you had some issues with "British" and "Jewish" being mutually exclusive. Rest assured that my British-Jewish friend who is an editor at the UK's The Jewish Chronicle would take issue with you there as well.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC) - I have moved that part of your discussion here - Youreallycan (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have replaced your post that I moved here and explained in good faith - I have deleted it again from my talkpage and as such please don't replace such posts again to my talkpage - thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posts not showing up

You added it to the wrong section about Yogurt, under the hat note.[1] Try adding it to the section called "User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan" instead. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demi and Demetria

With all due respect, a purported consensus among a few contributors is no defense against shoddy, incorrect work. That Demi Moore's birth name is Demetria is extremely well sourced, at least back to 1991, with far more reliable sources than Demi's revisionistic claims now, as the good efforts of several editors show. Her revisionism belongs in a footnote, which is why I put it there. But hey, what do I know about how Wikipedia works? --The Cunctator (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again with all due respect, the version you keep is not "neutral." It falsely states, repeatedly, that Demi Moore's birth name is not Demetria. There should be no "compromise" on obvious facts. I'm sure that by acting pleasant and gently bringing people over to the concept that it would be a good idea for Wikipedia to have clear, concise, and accurate information, I could eventually work to a consensus that we can state that Demi Moore's birth name is Demetria. But I have turned over the reins of this fine little site to the next generation, and I have bigger and better battles to fight in this world than whether we should let Demi Moore's tweetic revisionism rule over evident reality. --The Cunctator (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:FantasticFour49.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FantasticFour49.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:FantasticFour49.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FantasticFour49.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could use some extra eyes on something...

If you get a chance could you take a look at Chemo (comics), ites edit history, and this editors contribution history.

I'm going to tap a few other old hands at Comics since there is something odd here and I want to make sure it isn't just me. I'm also approaching a few Arbs since this may impact an old ArbCom case.

- J Greb (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

210.50.42.209

...was issed a short block, and its target subject was semi'd for 3 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments. And apologies for personal attacks, real and/or perceived. One thing about many of the wikipedia "regulars" - we might argue with each other, but we also watch out for each other. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Ya know, if I had a penny for every time I had done something stupid, I would have drowned in copper by now. Which would also be right much stupid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption or hope at this point is that he'll get bored and go away. Wow, a Nazi swastika. How original and clever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in furtherance of that cause, I have had your talk page and mine semi'd. My guess is that the range is too wide for a lengthy block of that idiot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not just any old raise. I plan to ask for my salary here to be doubled. Or maybe even tripled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Ken Bald (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Avenel

Neal Adams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Avenel

Pierce Askegren (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Hulk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Protocol

I'm aware of the word limit for plot synopses. However, I think some of your edits to the plot outline of Ghost Protocol have cut out a few too many key details.

And while I'm aware that your statement about how "everybody wants their favorite film to have a longer plot section" was addressed to all editors, I'm also the one who wrote most of the outline — and I thought the film was absolute rubbish. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TAS

Hey I have been doing a lot of work to the article The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) to the point of hoping that it could be a possible GA in the future. I was wondering if you could proofread it and give your thoughts about it since I respect your opinion so much. On other note since I have been absent for a long time I decided to ask how you, my respectable colleague, how you've been doing? You seem to be doing a good job with helping out the article Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and I appreciate that. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know when you are done with editing so we can avoid edit conflict again. My edits were time consuming as well. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind fixing citation 46. Looks like an error happened with you trying to archiving it. By the way all I was doing was avoiding overlink but it did took a while. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can make it go faster if I know which sections you were meaning to edit on. Did you just do everything that was on the development section or did you more than that. I am not sure of what you were doing on the first edit because it reverted mine. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I don't mind starting over I will just do it more one of a time next time. Silly me to think that I can do all that in the one section on the same edit. I would have used this if I knew it would take long but it did take longer than I thought it would be. If you are busy in Wikipedia normally in Sunday that can be a good time. Because I am not very busy in Sundays. But seriously don't stop contribution on the article just because of me. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Weekly

It seems Entertainment Weekly does the same problem as the Hollywood Reporter does. I was just wondering if you can an you help dig to the archives of citation# 48 and #58 if you can? And due to suggestion on the peer review you could check to see if all the sources are reliable sources. I think so but I don't mind another editor's opinion. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that deleting website's names and saying "some writer's" will be sort of make it sound more like a weasel words. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I was asking. TriiipleThreat had a different view then. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks for fixing citation #48. Are you going to fix the other one? :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source #58 is Entertainment Weekly as well. You missed one. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what you are talking about on the article talk page. Has that been improved? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your compliments. :) I confess I was responsible for the the mess. I wanted to prove notability for the inclusion. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contributions. Though I am a bit surprised that the producers notes shouldn't count as notable. I thought they could count as a crucial inclusion. I was just wondering though how do you think the article is doing right now at having the change of being a good article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing William Dafoe personally. That's cool. You a reporter? I haven't been involved with Wikipedia like I used to but I might just come back if there are no distractions. If you won't mind I might just nominate X-Men: First Class as a GA some time since I was involved with creating it as it is today. And I appreciate you taking care of it while I was having my semi-retirement. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you got something to relate to with Clark Kent then, don't you. If you can, tell Dafoe I appreciate his acting definitely as Norman Osborn. I liked his voice and portrayal from the film even though I wasn't a big fan of the suit. And as always I appreciate the nice things that you say. As long as you're being honest about it. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the fictional character? I would assume so since you linked it to him. Also I noticed slashfilm considered itself a blog. While it is a blog it can still be a reliable source right? I was wondering because I used it as source on the article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So to use one of those blogger's veiwpoints on a trailer/prologue screening like I just did on the article is acceptable for inclusion? Correct. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a no then. Although you know that wasn't a review of the film right. It was intended to be reception of the prologue and trailer. And ain't internet a common link. I will change it if you think it isn't. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source it is the eight minute trailer that was released. Obviously the article came before it was leaked but it's obvious that he is talking about the same trailer. Most of the sources state that the trailer that was leaked was part of the prologue along with a certain cast/crew hosting the particular prologue depending on what city it was. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might need to correct myself. I am guessing he meant the whole prologue was eight minutes on the title because the trailer is just two minutes judging by Youtube. I am anticipating all three of the big superhero films (Avengers,Spider-Man,Batman) while I am unsure of the other superhero films (Ghost Rider,Judge Dredd). I also want to see the Hobbit but that seems like a long wait. I will be surprised if The Amazing Spider-Man gets a positive reaction compared to the batman and the avengers film though. But you never know, X-Men: First Class surprised me. That was my favorite superhero film of last year. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I put it back then how would this sound.

While attending the screening event, Peter Sciretta of /Film had positive things to say about the trailer stating, "I left the theater more impressed with what I had seen than I did with the reveal of Christopher Nolan's prologue for The Dark Knight Rises." He felt that while Raimi actually captured the comic book essence of Spider-Man, the footage that he saw captured a real and natural look sort of what Webb did with (500) Days of Summer that made it so great. He even noted that while the trailer made the film feel more darker and more realistic it still seemed to nail Spider-Man wise-cracking jokes that he had in the comics.

Feel free to change it to your own words. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this change more of what you had in mind. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha I am starting to figure it out .Judging by this source there was two trailers. The trailer that was leaked online and an extended trailer that that was eight and a half minutes. Watson I feel that I am unraveling this case. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol. By the way I do like the way you worded it. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regarding on what you said on the article discussion page. What about the Dark Knight Rises marketing section showing viral campaigns on it's marketing section. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might make a small mention like "The trailer was revealed leads to a viral marketing site." I agree that it's not important but I still think it's a little constructive for the subject. If that's ok. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's obvious that you didn't notice my request on the article talk page I will say it here. I was wanting a archive link for this source. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have a error on this link. Could it be possible to find what it used to say. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's citation #24 on The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film). Also here's half of what it looks like on a mirror site. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind Tenebrae. I think I have a solution...this MTV link shares the same information and thank goodness it's already on the article. It does look the Vancouver sun was the main source though judging by it.:) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you about it...but I can't help but appreciate the fact that there is an editor willing to help out another editor...which is rare. I thank you for that. So if don't mind if I can use the batsignal whenever I need you. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment before this was before your reply. Yep that seems to be the link. Thank you. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found another broken link. Citation #73 on the particular article. (It was put way before you warned me what Hollywood Reporter did.) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that citation #43 of the Amazing Spider-Man article that you fixed once before with a different url says it doesn't work again. If you are able to find it I am archiving it for good. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant #23. The Vancouver Sun link. I knew this because I was trying to archive the urls for the Emma Stone portion. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kirkman

Are you sure that listing reprints is purely promotional? It seems to be a very reasonable bit of information. It also may be an indicator of notability, vis a vis the creators' success, since works are generally only collected when the original work is successful. It may also help WP:V, since collections may be the primary work sold at vendors like Amazon, where the individual works collected are usually indicated. Nightscream (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting including links to Amazon for promotional purposes, but in regards to WP:V. I was unaware of WP:DISCRIMINATE, but I appreciate you pointing it out. But in addition to being an essay, the standard it suggests could seen as vague and subjective. "List of reprints of Jack Kirby" could easily be seen as "a collection of information gathered with care and thought in making distinctions". It certainly seems to be closer to the positive examples given on that page (U.S. Presidents, elements of the Periodic Table, cast members of The Brady Bunch), rather than the negative ones. Heck, there's an article on the Jack Kirby bibliography. Wouldn't reprints be a reasonable part of that article? Nightscream (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally do not think listing collections (which are not statistics, though I supposed some might see this as hair-splitting if they think that WP:INDISCRIMINATE was intended more broadly) is unreasonable, for reasons I mentioned above. Nightscream (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I was trying to say with the first point was that it seemed obvious reprints should be included, but you do make a valid point this is probably an aesthetic-based statement rather than a reason-based one, and possibly circular.

As far as the notability thing, it's not that one "ceases" to be notable without it, it's that illustrating why a subject is notable is what articles are for; your argument could just as well be used to keep out any new information other than what's already in there, since anyone who sees material on his post-2011 work being added to the article could ask the same question. I would say that reprints can be an indicator of the success of his works, which is reasonable because most articles don't currently include things like sales figures. I think this it the most relevant argument I have in favor of including them.

As far as helping Amazon, I already addressed that above. Nightscream (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure I follow the argument about not including additional material once notability has been determined." I was responding to your statement "Isn't Kirkman notable even without listing the reprint editions? Does not having them listed mean Kirkman is no longer notable enough to have an article?". My point was that you could make that argument about anything that one wishes to add to the article. For example:

An editor adds material about upcoming projects in 2012/2012/the future/whatever.
Another editor comes by and removes it.
The first editor says it should be included, because it goes to his notability.
The second editor responds, "Isn't Kirkman notable even without listing the material you wish to add? Does not having that mentioned mean Kirkman is no longer notable enough to have an article?"

My point is that I wasn't favoring material because he would otherwise be "no longer notable". But the reprints help illustrate his notability, just as any other material in the article that is salient. Should we not include the salaries of movie stars? The box office gross of films? Awards won? Of course we do. Those things help explain to a reader the things for which a person is successful. Although some comics article mention sales figures of books, most do not. Reprints are a good indicator of the success of a creator's books, since only successful books get collected, as I mentioned above.

Sorry I missed your original point of bibliographies. Just because those articles do not include information on reprints, does not mean that they can't, as many other articles indeed contain such information. The articles on all five of Dan Brown's novels contain the foreign language reprints/translations, and the Lead section of the Dan Brown article itself mentions this, as well as sales figures. There's also an entire article devoted to foreign language translations of the Harry Potter novels. Information on reprints is just as legitimate, because it goes to the works' success. Arguing "these other articles don't have this, therefore they can't" sounds circular. Keep in mind that the Keyes and Matheson articles do have sections on other things that are indicators of their success, like "Influence" and "Awards". Reprints would seem to be just as valid as these other indicators of the success of a creator's works.

If we can't agree, then yeah, getting others' opinions would be a good idea. Nightscream (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:PopeJohnPaul2nd-comic.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PopeJohnPaul2nd-comic.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I should have remembered to integrate that new info into the body of the Charlize Theron article. Thanks for cleaning up after my non-optimal edit. Yworo (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

This is a neutral request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The Hobbit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with an image

Hi. You offered to help me with images before, so I'm hoping you can help fix the royal mess I've made of File:YummyFur4-03-03.jpeg. I took the image I had originally uploaded, resized it and improved its contrast, and tried to replace the original. I seem to have added it to the page, but all my attempts at having the new image replace the old one have resulted in I've copies of three versions of the same file on the same page, and the default is not the new, improved one. Please, let me know what it is I did wrong! (And, no, I didn't just keep uploading it, so I don't understand why there are three copies of the one file I uploaded.) CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like User:Skier Dude went and removed the extra four images. Unfortunately, he left the one I was trying to replace (I was trying to put up one where the background was made white). I don't quite understand how to replace an image. Could you point me to the right instructions? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to you!

Honestly, just because I disagree with you on one point doesn't mean I want to tangle with you. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, as are you. I wish you happy holidays as well. Yworo (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Moore

Hi Tenebrae. I removed the Arbitration case request that you made per the direction of the Committee. For a next step, I would recommend coordinating with Dweller on his talk page if you haven't already. NW (Talk) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bachelor Kacie

It should be Kacie B. according to ABC website to avoid confusion with Casey and same pronunciation. ABC profile of Kacie B. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"critical acclaim"

I realized that critical acclaim is a term you try to eschew. However, many featured and good articles use it. There is a on-going discussion of the Harry Potter 8 talk page. I know you would demur my proposals but I want to see your POV. Anyhow, do you approve of the word "critical approval" instead of" critical acclaim" although I find them somewhat similar.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

You may want to add your comments to the discussion about the Rango vandal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a filter request at WP:EF/R. I'd appreciate it if you had a look, in case I missed anything. causa sui (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Moore

Tenebrae, If you have a personal issue with me then there are other forums for that WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U or you could come to me personally. Needless to say I refute every allegation you make on the Talk Page, but I'm not going to answer them individually unless you want me to. I also have issues with your repeated non-neutral posts to WT:RFC, and would ask politely that you let the RFC run it's course before neutrally asking for a close rather than tryiny to influence how the admin should close it - Andy warned you about this behaviour when you opened it non neutrally. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC of post on his page: It was never non-neutral. It may seem that way to anyone who supports one side or the other, but it's clear from all my work that I've been supporting a middle position that respects both views. To say otherwise is simply false. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have now twice on WT:RFC asked that an Admin close by looking at the wording you approve of and decide if it constitutes a consensus. However policy dictates that if there is any disagreement a neutral party (doesn't have to be an admin) weighs up all the viewpoints and provides a consensus position that takes them all into account. Asking the admin to specifically look at the wording you agree to is not a neutral way of asking and as far as I'm concerned the RFC is still in progress so shouldn't be stopped short. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC of post on his page: I don't know what to say. It's not wording I approve of. It's wording three editors out of four in the discussion found consensus on among themselves, and now asking an admin to give his opinion on it. That's what we're supposed to do, rather than insist on having our own way, which is what you've been doing. I know you can't see that. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC of post on his page: In fact, I even say, accurately, "Here again is Andy's wording." I don't believe you intend to be dishonest, but I do believe you're willfully blinding yourself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9 editors have commented on the RFC and you want the Admin to only sum up on the opinions of 3 of them? That's not how an RFC works, nor is it how consensus is formed - All of those 9 editors contributions should be included in the summary wherever possible. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC of post on his page: Of course as many editors as possible should comment. Some made the conscious choice to drop out of the discussion — and neither you nor I can say whether their views may have remained etched in stone or, perhaps, like Andy and others, they would have tried to achieve compromise.

May we please stop and wait for an admin to weigh in?--Tenebrae (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At debates like RFC or AFD people don't drop out of the discussion - Their point may need no further discussion but still needs to be weighed up by the closing admin. Take for instance Yworo and Taylornate who stated that there was no need to mention Demetria at all or to have a footnote (A position I held until being convinced that a footnote would be better, and a position I'm bordering on returning to). Why should they be expected to continue to debate what wording should be in a footnote that they have already stated they don't think should exist?

Why do you feel the need to stop the discussion because you are happy with a particular position? Generally these discussions run until everyone agrees, the time limit runs out (30 days), or there is nothing left to say. None of them are the case here so I see no reason to stop the debate prematurely though you are welcome to drop out if you are happy with your current position the admin will take that into account when he sums up. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC of post on his page: Who's stopping the discussion? An impasse has been reached after some editors have reached a good-faith compromise. and I've asked a disinterested, outside admin to weight in — it's an American colloquialism (I get the impression you may be British?) that means "to render an opinion on" not "stop." I can't imagine how someone can object to an admin giving an opinion when an impasse has been reached.

Do you and I need to keep going back and forth? I have work to do; perhaps you don't. The world won't end if we wait for an outside opinion. Your preoccupation with me is getting a little concerning. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC of post on his page: And you mention two editors who haven't been much lately in the discussion who don't believe Demetria is her birth name. I could name you four besides me who believe with good reason that it is. You can find them on the page yourself. Really? A pissing contest? Really? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae , No impasse has been reached and there is still room for comment as discussion is still ongoing. However you have asked that an admin comment as to whether this wording constitutes the Consensus for the RFC not to give an opinion on the wording it's self (which actually makes your request look like canvassing). Per WP:RFD the finding of consensus is the aim of the RFC so a disinterested editor should only sum up when the RFC is naturally over.

It's late at night here, so no I don't have work to do at this time - I spend the time doing hobbies I enjoy; like editing Wikipedia. I'm not preoccupied with you - I'm responding to your points if you don't want me to reply then don't raise points for me to reply to.

This isn't a pissing contest the point of consensus is to weigh in everyone's arguments - it's enshrined in policy and in the RFC process yet you still keep arguing as though it's something irrelevant. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC of post on his page: Yours is not the only interpretation of things, be it the reliability of The New York Times or of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unless you consider yourself infallible and omniscient, I'm sure you'll agree others' interpretations may, in fact, be correct. I don't think there's any question that you've misinterpreted WP:CANVASS; I did no such thing, and I'm getting rather tired of your unfounded accusations. I ask you not to contact me on my talk page until tomorrow, let's say. Let's just take a breather. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Dear Tenebrae:

I see you are following me around on Wikipedia. This is disturbing... and against the Wiki "Hounding" Policy. Wikipedia:Wikistalking#Wikihounding Please consider this a formal request to stop.

Albabe (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Here is my history: [2]. Show me where I've been that you have been, other than your own Al Gordon (comics), which you attempt to use as self-promotion, and Frank Miller (comics), which has been on my watchlist for years. You, sir, are not only attempting to exploit Wikipedia for your own self-promotion, but are now telling me I cannot comment on a page I've edited several times? And you make baseless accusations without evidence? I should be reporting you. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are throwing around self promotion far too easily --Guerillero | My Talk 02:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernstein

Plus pic! Pepso2 (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at CA:TFA

An edit war seems to have started at Captain America: The First Avenger, the article could use additional eyes and moderation. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlunderBroad web.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BlunderBroad web.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Handcuffed (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia blackout and upcoming Meetup

Yeah, I heard about that. Is this voluntary or compulsory on the part of editors? That is to say, is the Foundation going to shut the site down for that day? How will blocking the site stop passage of the bill? Nightscream (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, are you going to the Meetup on January 28? Nightscream (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going? Awesome! I'll see you there! Nightscream (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something just occurred to me: Don't forget to indicate to them that you're coming! Nightscream (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

Do you mind reconsidering your opinion here? X.One ^SOS 04:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tb

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick (2012 film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I think I have a decent solution. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The way I see it, WP:CBALL does not mean we cannot discuss anticipated events, only that we be quite careful in how and where and when and in what context we do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:PowerhousePepper 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PowerhousePepper 3.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:PowerhousePepper2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PowerhousePepper2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

I understand why you're upset about it, but I think removing his comment is also not in the spirit of things, for increasing the temperature. Removing other people's talk page comments is a highly inflammatory thing to do in the best of circumstances - which this isn't. I'll drop him a line. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage

Since a particularly nasty vandal was targeting your userpage, I've just semi-protected it indefinitely. If you no longer want it protected, feel free to ping me and I'll be glad to unprotect. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 01:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The Rango stalker is back again. Please see WP:ANI under "Urgent". They've been trying to rev-del, but maybe we've overlooked some? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main question at this point is whether he's hit any other articles (aside from user pages) that I've forgotten about. Hard to tell if he's a true stalker or just a garden-variety troll. Some of them will latch onto some particular thing and just keep after it until they finally get bored, or elementary school semester ends, or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine von Drachenberg or Katherine Drachenberg

This is the required warning to alert you that you are approaching WP:3RR at Kat Von D. In your edit-warring, you have made three reverts and several reverting edits within 24 hours. Apart from that your history shows that you are constantly reverting edits of other users, what seems to suggest that you think you own that article. To prevent further edit-warring, I am requesting an WP:RfC. Please do not edit the article in question while the RfC is in progress.--IIIraute (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you have gone over 3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a look at the Talk:KatvonD an read her autobiography! - ISBN: 978-0-06-168438-8 - (and better revert your unqualified edits)--IIIraute (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to do it, or should I?

Kat Von D did write the following in her autobiography: Von D, Kat (2009). High Voltage Tattoo - The Autobiography of Kat Von D. HarperCollins, ISBN 9780061684388.:

page 55: "Portrait of my father: Black-and-gray portrait of my father, Rene Von Drachenberg, in a high-school photo taken in Argentina in the 1960s."

page 57: "Portrait of my beautiful mother: This black-and-gray portrait of my mother, Silvia von Drachenberg, is based on a photo taken by my dad just before they got married."

page 73: "My full last name, von Drachenberg. Von Drachenberg means "dragon of the mountain" or ""dragon mountain"."--IIIraute (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine... thank you for your edits. In her bio (http://www.katvond.net/_html/bio.htm) her birthday is given as "March 8th, 1982"; in her autobiography it only says "March 1982" on page 15.--IIIraute (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Only the result matters. Without your persistence I wouldn't have put in that effort. I am sorry for behaving a bit gruff sometimes, but I think you are right and we did improve the article... so, thank you for your help. All the best for you & take care... --IIIraute (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your "new section"

Please do not replace it - we don't use sub-sections on AN/3RR page (it often f's up archiving, and there is zero requirement for it) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotected your talk page, per your request

I have semi-protected your talk page, per your request. Your main userpage is already indefinitely semi-protected. Please create a subpage so that legitimate IP users may contact you if they need to. Thanks. --Jayron32 18:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just asked for indefinite semi-protection, and they gave me 3 months worth, which should help. Actually, the Nazi flag thing was kind of funny the first time, but it doesn't hold up with repeated viewings. Speaking of Nazis, here's one of the funnier scenes from The Blues Brothers.[3] My German friends tell me that when the film came out in that country, which of course is very sensitive to the issue of the Twisted Cross, this scene was met with huge laughter and applause. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Comics artists

Hi. I removed the Comics artists category because they're already in the American comics artists category. The tag placed on the comics artists cat says the articles should be moved to subcats. And thanks for thinking I'm using a bot, but it's all old-fashioned manual work!--Cattus ^talk 16:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cake is a lie...

Thank you very much for your feedback at WT:FILM; please enjoy a pie of questionable contents! I'd become rather demoralized by the direction the thread was going in, and I don't have the words to express how much I appreciate other editors speaking up who understand where I'm coming from. If there's ever a situation where you feel my input can be of use, please don't hesitate to ask. Doniago (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Kelly

So you removed that addition because Mount Jerome Crematorium is not the same place as Mount Jerome Cemetery, yes? What does "archived link" mean? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sure you know it's the responsibility of each editor to verify his or her own edits." Don't you mean: ".. it's the responsibility of each editor to verify their own and other people's edits"? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you rather the article said "Kelly was cremated at Mount Jerome Crematorium", or possibly, "After the funeral the body of David Kelly was taken to Mount Jerome Crematorium"? That's all that the sources support, isn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that the source(s) that claim that Kelly died on 13 February will eventually admit that they were wrong? Or, if they don't, should we have conflicting dates everafter? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

um, refs: ".. from the original on February 19, 2012. Retrieved 14 February 2012." ?? how does that work? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see how it works now. It's obviously a very good idea to archive the links as you have done. Is that wiki policy? But I just can't get the last ref (13) to open? Any ideas? Many thanks for your poilte and fulsome replies at my Talk Page. I assume that the euphemism "Resting place" in the info box is indeed meant to include those who are cremated. But what do you think about conflicting sources, as per date of death here? I think that most editirs would make an informed choice. I found this ongoing discussion quite interesting. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. That all makes perfect sense to me. I was also thinking about the before/after midnight dilemma, which must be relatively common? Your diligence is quite remarkable. I must say. Date of birth can be tricky, I know, even when supposedly given first hand - W. H. Davies, for examlpe, for the whole of his life, celebrated a birthday that did not match the one on his birth certificate.. I suppose one could always have a check of Kelly's? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a change of name for Mount Jerome's, to something like this Beckenham Crematorium and Cemetery might be useful? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Templesmith, again

I apologize for asking, but can you offer your opinion on the latest round of the Ben Templesmith Photo Saga? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned

Thanks! RossPatterson (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing on back the love

Ditto, brother. Remember also that you can message me on Facebook, or by email. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

This a neutral request for comment at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#UK Title & release date and also a request to help monitor the page. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument with Stuart

I have removed it from the talk page for being off-topic. You're both very close to at least a cooling-off block. I advise you to drop it - it's achieving nothing at all, other than enraging one another. --Dweller (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks for Your Help Formatting that Ref in Golden Age Comics-

Tenebrae, many thanks for this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Age_of_Comic_Books&diff=next&oldid=479351513 I couldn't figure out how the hell to format the ref, because although Comics Journal is indeed a magazine, that review may have been online only? I saw that uncited mention of Carl Banks importance in the period and had to jump in with that recent quote from TCJ, as Banks is justly and finally being recognized as one of the greats of the period who was working in the mainstream of comic books, but definitely out of the superhero genre. Cheers. (Sintauro (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

You're welcome Tenebrae. Your vigilance and work's appreciated and thanks for the encouragement as well. I've seen several of the articles you've created, real good well-written stuff by the way. I have to confess my first convention was in the late '80s in New York, so it's good to hear Barks has been recognized for yet a while before that. A salute to you Tenebrae.(Sintauro (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

thanks!

thanks for the inspiration! it is super important to me that people, celebrities or otherwise, are represented accurately, especially on a source most internet users turn to first.

i know what you're thinking -- "is this guy up for hire?" the answer is yes. yes, i am.

-itsashaunparty

ps: i know; i know. i'm no fool. in reviewing the article, there are a number of minor grammatical mistakes and formatting errors that i'll have to fix later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsashaunparty (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the head's up

While I did oppose the proposal, I do think that it was something worth being discussed. You brought out something which isn't covered in naming conventions, which probably should be. Nice job! : ) - jc37 03:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puss in Boots box office

Did you even look at the references??? Both the second weekend was mentioned in analysis and the grosses from Russia and Ukraine. Also Cinemascore was not given twice. Then, this was the first time I added data. The term "American and Canadian box office" was already there so I am not taking any responsibility for that. Finally, is the opening weekend outside North America a detail? Because your new, less wild and without thin parsing section doesn't mention it at all. --Spinc5 (talk) 11:21, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Look, first of all thank you for the compliment (although I don't really find your other comments consistent with it) and I believe the appreciation is mutual. Secondly, I am also assuming good faith. That was never a question. However, I frankly don't understand what the problem is. Erik said By reporting observations explicitly made elsewhere, we can at least say, "They said it, not us" in regard to significance and neutrality concerns among other things here. Since you agreed, what is the problem? Excluding the $10 million barrier which is arbitrary (I agree - so I'll delete any remaining ones that I know of), everything else is mentioned in box office analysis. I haven't ever called for RfC and I don't think the issue concerns a certain article. It is general to the box-office section. So I'll leave it to you. I'll support any discussion on the subject. Thank you. --Spinc5 (talk) 21:58, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you again for your compliments. I agree with the parameters. They are reasonable as long as they are cited. Concerning the last parameter, in my opinion, if we included the top-grossing countries (3 or 5, I don't know - still quite arbitrary) it would contribute to the complete picture, as well. And as for the week-by-week analysis, I think we should just give info for the North American and the overseas opening but still we should at least mention the number of weekends that a film remained at number one, again as a contiribution to the complete picture. I agree we should get other editors involved. Of course we've done this already, here (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Box office revision), and yet few editors were involved (about 10 - including us). If there is a bigger place for such discussions then we could start one there (is there?). We could also propose a change in this section (so that it is more specific and it includes some of the additional parameters that we're discussing). Thank you, again. --Spinc5 (talk) 16:07, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

In turn, I am very pleased we reached an agreement. I believe the most important thing is that we respected each other and that we had a discussion in a civilized way. I apologize if anything I said was offensive at the beginning; it was just a misunderstanding. So again thank you and I hope we cooperate (and/or discuss) again in the future. My best regards. --Spinc5 (talk) 19:42, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Comic Book Resources

Hi Tenebrae, Sorry I couldn't back you up on the move proposal but I appreciate being asked for the input. Hope all has been well with you. Mtminchi08 (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It was a neutral request on a subject we both work on. I knew going in some fellow editors I contacted would variously agree, disagree or have no comment. That's the proper way. But your note is very considerate and much-appreciated! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at Stuart.Jamieson's talk page.
Message added 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Avengers Assemble

Thanks for correcting the citation, however there seems to be some conflict of RSs regarding the UK title. I would like your hear opinion at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film)#UK Title & release date.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by chance going to get to see a press screening for this film before the rest of the world? If so I was wondering if you would write the plot. You did an amazing job on CA:TFA, and I really think it helped keep the section inline with WP:FILMPLOT as I am sure this film will receive even greater attention.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toonopedia

I've had that same concern. I will help. However, at the moment I'm completely overwhelmed. Will check back soon. Pepso2 (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how do you use Web Citation? Pepso2 (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a webcite in Boody Rogers for Babe, Darling of the Hills, so take a look and see if I left anything out. Pepso2 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redesigned Toonopedia arrives tomorrow. Pepso2 (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Toonopedia to see the new look. Then scroll down to see clock counting down to new launch. Pepso2 (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

birthplace of Kat Von D

Hi Tenebrae, Kat's birthplace is written in her autobiography "High Voltage Tattoo".BaukeHusken (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack C. Harris

Hi Tenebrae,

Just wanted to let you know about my newest article. Jack C. Harris was a writer and editor for DC back in the 1970s and 80s. I found a few online interviews which were great sources of information about his career. Looking forward as always to hearing your opinion. Thanks! Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marvel Super Heroes title.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marvel Super Heroes title.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

The is a neutral request for comments at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe#FeatureFilmCasting. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fandalism

With regard to this edit I have to congratulate you, and say that "fandalism" is the one of the best word creations I've ever seen. I certainly will be using it from now on... Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.0.87 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Tenebrae. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overdetail response

You're right about one thing about my recent edits to Hulk. I left a comment about current events and info on possible section for Hulk's other incarnations on it's talk pages. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:30, April 11 2012 (UTC)

Marvel reference

Just saw this, lots of info on the whole Marvel line up including filming dates for IM3 and Thor 2 and story details. I don't know if you'd be interested in using it, I'd update it myself but just don't have much time right now.

http://collider.com/kevin-feige-thor-2-iron-man-3-avengers-sequel-interview/158942/

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, congratulations. I didn't realise you worked for an outfit, that's quite a solid get there. More Cobie than Joss though ;). I just finished reading the Feige interview, lot of good info there for all 4 flagship characters and their respective futures; Cap, IM, Thor, and Hulk. Shame Warner Bros can't get it's act together on anything but Batman (but then again Batman, his family, and his rogues are really the only characters I like from DC.) On the flipside, WB is killing it with games and Marvel can't sort itself out there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm nearing 28, I'm not super young, I had a Spectrum ZX with a Ghostbusters game that took like 20 minutes to load. I agree with Superman Returns, I'm not a fan of super kids at all anyway, I don't know why, but a super son? Pass. The old world aesthetic with the 70s campiness just didn't work, and tbh the older films never really clicked with me anyway. As a kid maybe but not today. It's just a shame that Marvel will probably not see teh Spider-Man rights returned for another decade at least. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you heard her voice, that's closer than most people make it. Thanks for adding that info too. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, if it comes back I would be willing to help try and archive some segments of it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do, I will take a look at D. Where are you storing the links though? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting them here for now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Frid

Well, if some editors are violating policy by introducing clearly unsourced or poorly sourced material, then that's not an edit war. I've left a warning on the page of the last editor who changed the info to the incorrect date; if this continues, I'll intervene further. Nightscream (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any time, brother. :-) Nightscream (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Housewives of Atlanta

You got it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. The discussion is here.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Avengers Assessment

That's great! I can't wait, already got my midnight ticket. Do you think you can handle the plot write up like before? Like CA:TFA, if we can start the section with a good base, it will be easier to keep section in line with WP:FILMPLOT and check all the fan cruft, we know will come. I'll help with maintenance after the 3rd.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York

Thanks!

See the WikiProject Comics talk page for a thought I just hard regarding NYCC. [4] Doczilla _STOMP! 07:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I'd like to thank you very much for the compliments. However, I really don't have the time to check on other people's edits, although I don't doubt that you're doing excellent work, as well. Best regards, Spinc5 (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Frid

I just wanted to thank you for citing the sources on Jonathan Frid's page. It was a big help!! swinquest (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanos

Is this so called Thanos (which I am pretty sure that's who he is) portrayed by anybody? If the particular actor or a creator of the film said that's who he is I would be ok with it. Unfortunately he is in the post credits (I do believe) which means that he probably isn't in the end credits. That complicates things a little bit. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I soon realized that he was CGI and there was no voice so...that does complicate things. IMO I wish they could let it be known who that is...in case someone who's not familiar with comics to wonder about it. What in your opinion is a reliable source just to link the character? Also since you have been so helpful finding broken links even though this one could be much harder. There was links of a while back on the Wizard magazine's main web site that I used to explore on the web...until it was broken. If you could find older links of those pages that would be awesome. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I didn't tell you what the links when I really did mean you. It is the top 200 comic book characters links. It is worth noting that there is more than one link of that list they used to have of it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where to find it...because I am having a hard time just finding out where the url titles are. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found the forum that shows all of the links. I knew there was one. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But as I said they are broken so I might need your help but please don't let that interfere with your deadline. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's going good until I go to this link because (unlike the others) it doesn't link to the next one it uses a link to go back in the end. So I can't really figure what those links are titled. I hope you understood me. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! I think all of it might work...but it frustrates that I can't get to the other links. The url titles don't work on the internet archive. How did you figure out what the first countdown link was anyways. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boy was I persistent. I kept trying to figure out how to go beyond #150-#141 but I can't figure what the url of the next ones are. It doesn't help that there is no url on that last particular page I could get to. I should of known that was going to happen because it happened when the page was working. I remember it took that forum to see the rest of it when the page was working and strangely enough those forum urls never are working on the archive site. So my brain is more scrambled than yours is. If I were to get the rest of it I need your help (but I know you're busy with the Tom Hiddeleston and the Avengers film article) because I am bushed at figuring it out. I didn't really get the last answer too, sorry about that. I also feel like I am bothering you a lot when I don't mean to. :/ Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Storing? I am just trying to find all the links for the list but I haven't found them all it...and then my plans are to put them as sources for the particular fictional character articles on Wikipedia. Whoever is on there that is. So far I am using that link that you put on my talk page as the closest thing to find my way to some of those links. You might need to check out the majority of that list to know what I am talking about. Personally it's not a really agreeable list for me (definitely when it comes to the ordering) but it's a reliable one just the same when it comes to character reception. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back on Thanos, a little fact for you. The orginal source "Empireonline.com" originally posted thanos as a spoiler on the article but then removed it. That probably means that Feige proclaiming Thanos being on the film might be in the magazine though. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually comicbookmovie (even though not reliable) said it. It linked a [soundcloud.http://www.markofthespider-man.com/events/1com/empiremagazine/empire-podcast-the-avengers of him saying it in a interview.] Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the irony of timing...but is a podcast reliable? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. You answered the question. We are basically commenting on the same time. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast is definitely legit...but that is definitely me just saying that. Really interesting interview to listen to. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he broke that rule because none of those were reverts just different edits...and make sure he knows about the history button just in case he doesn't know he can check that. Although if he adds that again I will help you out. If I don't notice it right away TriiipleThreat will help (I am sure) since he is common on that page. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made this Thanos reveal with the producer a footnote. I hope that's a better compromise for now. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may be my opinion...but the complainers probably just didn't notice the footnote and just looked ONLY at the plot section and assumed it isn't resolved. That's why I say a hidden comment might come in handy from the future. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that has been taken care of. You know I always thought that was a good idea on the "who said X-Men: First Class as sequel or reboot argument debate" since some of the creator's words didn't go together. Just a suggestion. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Avengers

Heh, and I didn't know you were the one adding it back. Bascially because the third-party sources state Paramount has no actual involvement in the film despite what first-party sources might say. This is copy-vio from my comments on the talk page, Marvel was always the sole production company and had a deal with Paramount to distribute their films. After Disney purchased Marvel they bought the rights to distribute the film from Paramount for $115 million and agreed to give them 8% of the box office and allowed them to retain their name. However, Paramount is no longer affiliated with this film. hope this helps, --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually detailed in the pre-production section, we added the footnote for extra clairification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those were my half-illiterate mispunctuation and misspelling of Feige's words! :) TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I know my spelling and punctuation is atrocious.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look at it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I am somewhat aware of the situation (damn edit summaries), I'm trying to refrain from plot issues until I see the film. In the mean time, I suggest contacting an admin like J Greb (talk).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Probably have it as Frid died on April 14, 2012 (though there is some speculation his deathdate was the 13th). Probably look for a family statement. Or track down a Wikipedian in Hamilton, Ontario and check out his tombstone. RAP 2:53 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	I award this half barnstar to you and the other half to GDallimore for working together and addressing the title confusion at The Avengers (2012 film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers

Looking off the page is generally not a huge issue, but one possible solution would be to save the image on a computer (you or me could do it) and then invert the image so that it is facing in the opposite direction. The main problem is the way the cast section is set up it does not lend itself to changing the side of the image alignment. Technically, that image should be on the left since the infobox is on the right. But, the layout doesn't lend itself to that. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I did the flipping in PAINT already, but I think you have to upload the image from WikiCommons, as there is not an option to do it on this site. That said, should we upload over the old image, or just create a secondary image with the same license, only inverted for those instances where he's facing the other direction? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at Talk:Rango_(2011_film)#Priscilla_again.
Message added 21:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

webcitation.org

What is going on with webcitation.org. I keep getting errors when I go there. That's not good. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still not working with me..and it's working with you? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It finally worked after a whole lot of tries for me as well. By the way you don't have to worry about spoiling the film for me. I just watched the Avengers today. It was awesome. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to compliment

Thank you so much :) That's very kind of you. I'm really trying to get better about references and citing, and adding some good, interesting details to that page. :) Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks and yea it was time consuming but I like doing it :) I appreciate you acknowledging the effort I try to put into it :) Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk • contribs) 11:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref on Avengers

I'm a little confused... are you aware that the current reference leads to the Box Office Mojo, which as far as I know doesn't contain interviews or links to interviews...--Williamsburgland (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? I mixed up Ref# 3, which is BOM, with Footnote #3, which is as you say. My mistake. --Williamsburgland (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could help cleaning up the citations, I left a comment about it on the talk page. It would be a shame to let it go now after all we put into it.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, also don't think I ignored the dilemma at The Dictator, it seemed to be under control by time I saw it. Do let me know if any further problems develop.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you are!

Jc! It's been ages since I've seen your edits in WikiProject Comics! Thanks for protecting The Avengers (2012 film). I hadn't known you'd become an admin — congrats! Hope to see you around the Project again soon. With regards from a fellow WPC old-timer, Tenebrae (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37 - 2 : )

And I'm around. If you see something you think I'd be interested in, feel free to drop me a note. - jc37 07:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Waht's your problem, again?

Add a translation if your really need one so much, and voila. --Niemti (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google: "The film 'The Dictator', the comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, who was filmed partially in Fuerteventura, ready for release around the world. In the first trailer, which you can see, one can see some footage shot on the island of Fuerteventura, in particular an air plane with tanks and military scenes doing some martial arts exercises.

In the movie, Sacha Baron Cohen ridicules a dictator halfway between Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

The shoot also included scenes in Seville, specifically in the plaza in Spain." --Niemti (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the problem under control now? I went to check it out but it seems like it's stable now and you're taking care of it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DO you mean the Growing Pains girl? I didn't remove the director although I think the user gave too much space to a cameo role. Now if he'd been the director of Moonlighting the TV show, I would have let the user write more. I loved that show. I know what you mean with The Avengers, that is hwy I've largely stayed on the plot alone rather than get drawn into managing the whole article. Too much hassle, at least at this point in time. I'm content over at Prometheus, very little activity there despite its popularity. Just lets me get stuff done. Not interested in reverting people all day or the debates over every little thing. Got other things to take care of. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good thing that the same people tend to gravitate towards the same articles, if I see one of those names I trust I can just leave it be and expect that they're probably taking care of business.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a notice that an incident has brewed at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) with an editor accusing me of bad faith and OWN.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck me funny

This diff

Enjoy : ) - jc37 18:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson's script

Not a big deal, but I think the printer that was used must have kept a digital image of the script in its memory after it was copied or scanned. I'm not saying this needs to be mentioned at all just explaining how it might of happened.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its mentioned in the same source as his quotes, but again I'm not sure how relevant it is, if at all.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus

I don't know how to do a neutral notice thing, but there is an ongoing discussion at the above concerning a user who believes much of the article is fancruft and should be split off. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, dude you need to archive some of your posts, lol. I made a coffee while I was scrolling down. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your time is appreciated. And I'll move those barnstars off my page, dunno why they always do that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how reliable The Hollywood Reporter is? I normally use it and they;'ve released an updated story on the film which has lots of info, but a good chunk of it seems to be contradicting the stuff I already have in place from other sources, like it says that filming started in England, the source at the moment says it started in Canada then moved to England. The story is about Scott and the film history but it doesn't specify who provided that particular info.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very confusing. This new THR one says it filmed March 21, to Jun something, but this one says it was filming in Canada from at least March 8. So they might only be officially classing filming dates from when the actors were actually filming story? It seems really bad at the minute, the EW interview with Lindelof has him moving things back to 2009 tied to the end of Lost which is impossible since it finished in 2010, the THR one says Spaihts was hired in 2008 and worked for two years while Forbes says he was hired in 2009, and a 2009 Variety one says the same. Just have to try and make do with what I can, hard to keep track of what source says what. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know how to reconcile the filming dates, but I think the author has made a mistake with Spaihts hiring date, and then has offset everything by that mistake so that he spent two years writing 5 drafts instead of one. Gonna leave the filming dates alone and wait to see if other sources pop up to back things up. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm starting to think that THR of March 2011, mixed up Pinewood England with Pinewood Toronoto as this reports it used 7 stages and this from the Pinewood site for England, says it used 7 stages. Bloody journalists! It'd probably reconcile the start date if I'm right, just not the end date. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, with these comic ones especially where the characters and cast have articles, it just looks really messy now and we don't need 4 instances of Chris Evans on a page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

magic trick.

I just decided to show you a new magic trick that I created that could be quite useful in the future. They would never notice your mention of Richard Norton describing the movie as a 220$ million dollar movie and instead would still put the budget on where it don't belong. But now there is no way they can't notice now. Woohahahah. I know my compromises. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally it sounds like you didn't care much of that compromise. One editor didn't either. Any other ideas on that? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: First Class

I am going to have to leave for something for tonight. But I suggest you take it easy and stay calm judging on what's going on this articles talk page. Calling someone names because you feel like you are being threatened is not helping the case. I will see if I can contribute tomorrow ok. Just please calm down. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my position diverges from yours in terms of your perception (and possibly JGreb's) of Stuart's words. But in my opinion, you shouldn't be raising mentions of COI unless you can demonstrate how the COI is real and not just presumptive, and how it colors the other editor's edits or their position, especially when you have presumptive or apparent conflicts with articles you have edited (something that admittedly many editors could be accused of, myself included). It is one reason why I believe certain edits, such as the ones you and I discussed previously within the past year, should not be allowed, or at least discouraged on Wikipedia. It's just asking for trouble, especially when you get involved in an editorial dispute. I hope this doesn't strain our friendship. :-) Nightscream (talk) 04:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that was his intent, then yeah, we'd need to react accordingly; But how do we know that it wasn't simply an instance of the Tu quoque argument? It may be a fallacy, but it's somewhat understandable when one is accused of something that he/she feels the accuser is himself guilty of. Nightscream (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that it was not clear that he was threatening you; the more obvious thing it appeared to be was a person being accused of something he felt his accuser as guilty of, and acted in an understandable manner, albeit with a common logical fallacy. But yeah, agree to disagree. Nightscream (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:SherryShowgirl1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SherryShowgirl1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:SterankoHistoryV1&2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SterankoHistoryV1&2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TalesToAstonish64splash.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TalesToAstonish64splash.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

~~Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Notice of discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reliable source.

You think ScreenRant and Cinema Blend are reliable sources don't you. If so you can probably explain why much more than I can on the X-Men: First Class article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but GA homework not easy (if you know what I mean). I think when you have the time it would be better to hopefully work together on this. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah all those questionable sources were removed...but it still makes me concerned due to using sources like that in The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film). I feel that Screen Rant has been very helpful on explaining writer's point of views personally. I want to know officially if Bleeding Cool, Cinema Blend and Screen Rant are unreliable/reliable. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with Cinema Blend here's citation #10, citation #31 (which both seem to be original interviews) and citation #121 for them on the Spider-Man film article. These can't count as reliable? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I answered "sure" on my talk page if you haven't noticed. It's your turn. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:StartlingComics2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:StartlingComics2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:WerewolfByNight9splash.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WerewolfByNight9splash.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CA:TFA

There 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) 07:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see Kasper has created Leander Deeny, and am not sure if the page can be salvaged with editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks for helping to achieve neutral compromises here and at Thor (film).TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hemsworth

Thanks for having a look at it, I started earlier with getting it into something resembling English and I was going to go through and cull the stuff that wasnt needed later, but it seems you got there first. Take a look at the version before mine. I nearly cried when I saw the language. Cheers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears the fans want stuff in the lede that I am not sure should be there, but I dont care enough about him to argue about it. I have reworked whats currently there (someone made some changes after yourself) to be more accurate and scan better. Cant be real fans though ;) they got his Starfleet rank wrong! Not to mention 'starred in' is a bit much given his screen time is approx ten mins. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

jump off the page

It definitely is just a fancy term to "be the character you are portraying" Could we just write it in our own words like that? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or "bring the charcter in the script to life". That's how I read it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let me stop you on the copyediting. Even if I happen to jump in on it. You are doing a good job on that. On other note it's cool that you are going to see the movie. I guess reporters can do that. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like you need need to let me know when you are doing it. You can do it whenever you feel like doing it. Just you copy editing the article makes me more confidant it's reliable and worded better. So when today are you seeing it. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ignore that Sony is involved and try to realize who is the director and actors etc. of the film. That makes it seem that it might be a better film. But then again I don't want to keep my hopes up. The weakest thing about the film for me seems to be how the suit looks...but the Lizard look is growing on me. The Goomba comparisons from another film are getting old. BTW I also give you permission to trim or copyedit the viral marketing section as you see fit. Decide what you think is mostly notable or significant on there. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the source specifically said "Laura Ziskind" but I think that might be a typo on their part.. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quit saying things in better form then how I say it!!! Just kidding BTW. I can see how you are are a reporter though. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing you liked the movie more than you thought you did. Which (kind of) surprises me. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I heard you say "ok". A ok movie IMO is Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. Is it in these movies level or worse. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I have felt that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has done a moderately good job with their films when compared to the first and last adaption they have done on being great comic book movies. Overall a cool universe though. :) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't like it better than the third one this movie is probably doomed with a negative reaction. Oh well! :/Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing my detective work I just found out there is a news embargo with the press release. But each and every people that have spilled the beans have created a positive word of mouth so far. When I do my research I do my research. BTW You are still free to edit that article again because I appreciated the help...and since you have edited on that article you are always free to request help for your own contributions to of course. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ManyGhostsGraves29.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ManyGhostsGraves29.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you alright?

you seem flustered lately, a lot of your explanations on revisions are intense and end with a (!), you're usually so calm lol ;) Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations

Well, now you stepped over the line. I've had it with your false accusations. One revert is not an edit war. So stop suggesting that I have "edit warred". False accusations can be considered personal attacks. Consider this your first warning. I must say, before you came along, I have never encountered a Wikipedia editor who took a simple disagreement and blew it incredibly out of proportion with false attribution of motives and false accusations. I suggest that you and I stay away from each other. Cresix (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you edit-warred. In writing "Please do not edit war, but open a discussion, per Wikipedia protocol," I was trying to head off an edit war. So your characterizing my statement as a "false accusation" is, ironically, itself a "false accusation." --Tenebrae (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aidny and Chris Hemsworth

By now, of course, someone else has blocked him. But for future reference, don't forget to link to the specific talk page or ANI discussion. While I was able to intuit which discussion it was by searching for your name at the ANI board, you may not always be referring to a discussion in which you have posted, or on a board in which there are not posts by you in other, unrelated discussions. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

TDKR

Thought you might like this new Batman trailer, obviously don't watch if you want to remain completely spoiler free. Looks amazing though, have watched it about 20 times (mostly for the music) - Link Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note TB, though I've long since given up on dealing with the plot. I did want to ask you a favor in that regard. I am going on holiday on July 3 until like the 14th. The article is a lot more stable now but i wthought I would let you know so if possible you can keep an eye on it in my stead. I'm going to ask Illazilla to do the same if he can. When I get back I'm going to request a copy edit and then submit it for GA as I think it is in a pretty good position to pass. I didn't want to ask for one before I go away because they'll make sweeping changes and it will be easier for me to monitor and make sure nothing important is lost and/or answer questions if I'm around. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I barely remember what they are either, not been abroad in about 4-5 years. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Regarding the Black Widow movie

Thanks for responding, I also responded to DingleMr on his talk page. Also this has gotten me thinking that The Avengers 2 should be removed from the films list and there should be a higher threshold to included future films than mere announcements. What do you think?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is from THR and comment was made by Bob Iger, still I think there should be signs that the film is in active development before adding it to the list (i.e. screen writer(s) working on script, director has been hired, etc.).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Returning compliment

Thank you kindly! I've taken it as a challenge to see if it's possible to use only FA level sources and keep the article coherent. It's always... interesting work. And you're doing a great job keeping up on the links. Not a lot of editors around doing that kind of thing. Wikipedia could certainly use more editors like you too! ^^ I try to add more webcite links right away these days, learned the hard way how many links end up dying. Cheers, Siawase (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:WorldsUnknown4.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WorldsUnknown4.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Spyman1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Spyman1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:The screemies.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The screemies.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men: First Class Ga

You might want to keep this in your watchlist if you haven't already. ;) Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have the pointed out comments been rectified? I cannot keep reviewing the article to check whether it has been done, so it would be best if you keep updating the status of the review from your side. I shall continue once the problems have been rectified; that's the way I review. Thanks. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, its just a formal notice since many nominators tend to be used to full-article reviews at one go. And thank you for the compliment :). Good luck! ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 15:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^_^

I am not lying about having dyslexia, nor am I lying about it being gone 4am...it most certainly is. I am not lying about anything. Of course, don't take my word for it, and I don't care if you don't. However I will apologies to you for my template warning which was uncalled for, and my crappy edit summary. ^____^ I am sincerely apologising for that, the template warning was nothing personal. --Τασουλα (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you did, and so did I, like I said it's 4am here and the sun is up already -___-. If I'm being a total bitch, I'll usually own up to it pretty fast. And really, I do have trouble with my grammar and spelling and it's not because I'm poorly educated or choose not to spell correctly. I'll tell you what's interesting - I'm a a good reader. I read well, and always have done. And I don't like reading spelling-mistakes or poor punctuation/grammar in what I read, it really distracts me! I hate my own writing sometimes! I also hate having a temper and falling out with fellow Wikipedians. Unless that is, I'm reporting them for serious stuff. --Τασουλα (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I wish you the same :> --Τασουλα (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Tenebrae. I wanted to say thanks for all the great editing you do. You have a keen eye, and I've learned a lot from watching your edits. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Safehaven86 (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Paradis

I'm down the shore and won't be back until Wednesday night. I can attend to it then, unless you'd rather someone else do so more expedititously. You should also know that my most of my previous extended interactions with Wearformewesique were rather heated editorial conflicts in which others at ANI disagreed with some aspects of my position, so an uninvolved editor would be better for that reason. (I'd recommend Jc37 ). However, the sock puppetry issue doesn't require an admin; just go to WP:Sockpuppety Investigations to open an investigation. If the two are one and the same, they will take care of it. If this new account is someone else, again, I'll just take care of it when I get home. Nightscream (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky bastard. Lemme know if you score an extra ticket. I haven't been to a press screening for a Marvel film since the last Hulk film.

As for the edits, I checked them out, and couldn't find what you described. You said Libby made the "same edit", but Hearfurmewesique's added info to the Personal life section, while Libby uncommented out an unsourced portion of the Early life section.

Also, a portion of the personal life info, specifically her relationship with Lenny Kravitz, was not unsourced; the two citations at the end of that passage both support it, so I restored it. The cites did not, however, support the year mentioned or the fact that it was "brief", so I omitted that. Nightscream (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... that's enough. Prove the sockpuppetry bull$#!+ wrong and get off my case, get a checkuser if you're really itching for it. Also, if you keep calling clearly cited material "uncited" just because you didn't want to bother reading the sources that I worked hard to insert, and use that as an excuse to keep your tendentious edit war, I will report you for trolling the article. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your conflict here. Nightscream (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

whatcha think?

hello dear :) saw your edit on chris hemsworth page about not adding pics for decoration, was wondering if youd mind popping over to Natalie Portmans page and seeing if youd agree that some of her pics on there are decoration? if you do or dont, either way I'm good just wanted to get your opinion. happy editing. xx Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank ya kindly love :) i got rid of one of the 3 you mentioned on the talk page, the one i felt was more unnecessary than the others :) thanks so much for your assistance xx Xpinkxcasualtyx (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Avengers Academy

This is a neutral notice requesting your comments at Talk:Avengers Academy#Characters. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TASM:plot too big

I am trying to stay away from that department because I haven't seen the film but you have seen it and I think the plot might look too big. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention I think we are going to have a Thanos situation with Norman Osborn. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:WowComics6.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WowComics6.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Wheatena 1930sAd.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Wheatena 1930sAd.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

plot

I wake up in the morning and the the plot seems huge again. This article probably needs semi-protection just because of this. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I already knew that guideline. I didn't know the actors name made the plot go over 700. Honest mistake. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that actors names should not be included in the word count, after all they are in parenthesis. The're not directly plot-related but they do help clarifying who is who in the sequence of the story--Eddyghazaley (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting hard to figure out how to trim that plot section when it's gone too far. After all I don't want to spoil the movie for me. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

Hey check this out. Not notable? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Number five I meant. It's not really the ranking (to me) it's actually the what makes it great/stand out scene about it that is interesting on a comic book website. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

When I say number five I meant the ranking. They all seem to be the same link name. So you got to click the #five button. TASM is on number five already with them explaining why they thought it should be there. I am already going to include The Avengers in Films considered the best ever on the comic book section. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

Ok which one? We either put that Michael Massee is the man in the shadows on the cast or the Footnote section. One or the other. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷

I was iffy with that too. Now if that was critical reception for a character of course it's useful to add the commentary but the reason why I said "testing" is it's something I wasn't sure of the addition. I don't care it's on there or not, it seems like a harmless addition though. I hope I ain't rambling too much today. P.S. Aren't you happy that X-Men: First Class is a good article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting read. This article claims that Ifans said it is not Norman Osborn. The site doesn't look reliable enough to add though. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The plot looks terrible again. Why did all the links disappear even. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 19:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should probably be protected.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We tried and failed... :(Thanks, Your work is great(after all your a journalist) and often times your edits are based on a strong rationale. I would love to see some of your articles outside of Wikipedia.-- Eddyghazaley (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Just tried again. Hopefully the outcome will be different.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response

I am trying to get a consensus of what negative review to use. We have so many choices I am not sure which one would be best. I am letting you decide that because you didn't care of the Reelview addition. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a formal conversation here. Did you like TDKR. I bet you did. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am sure you liked it better than TASM. I wished it was better even though I enjoyed it. The Avengers is hard to beat. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:SterankoCaptAm-page.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SterankoCaptAm-page.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel's The Avengers

This is false. Ain't it? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the particular article seems to use what the article title of the film is. For example: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone instead of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. But I will not be bothered on it if you are not. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 23:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thank you for helping keep an eye on Prometheus (film)! Although it looks like I was concerned for nothing :P Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FILMPLOT culling

Thanks for your adherence to WP:FILMPLOT in culling the 6th Day. I've done good myself with that of The A-Team . What do you think of the Plot section of Con Air? I've restored a previous version worked over by Masem last year, but Bzuk claims his restored version is supposedly "superior" and challenges other people to take it to the talk page. Want to take a crack at it? Some people claiming superiority and ignoring the Plot rules, that is rich. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Hi Tenebrae,

Don't believe I've spoken to you in awhile, Here are a few articles which I've created since March: Gary Cohn (comics), Cary Burkett. and Ron Randall. Hope that all is well with you and that you're having an enjoyable summer.

Best regards,

Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Con Air

What happened to discussion? Wasn't BRD in effect? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Critical response 2

Apparently the critical reaction of TASM seems to look like a POV slant to some people. I want to hear your opinions. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was editing before I noticed your discussion. What do you think of the ordering. My edit summary explained how I put the pieces together. You like that or do you still prefer the suggestion that you put in the discussion page? Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 18:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:TowerOfShadow1 JS.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TowerOfShadow1 JS.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Cole

Hello, I hope this isn't too forward - but I noticed your interest in birthdates and that general area. I wonder what your take would be on Lily Cole, a page I'm currently involved in a "dispute" about of sorts. Sites like the IMDB and Fashion Model Directory list her birthdate as May 19, 1988. British Birth Records at ancestry.com list Lily Luahana Cole, and there is only one of course, as having had her birth registered in February 1988 (which means she could have been born that month or one or two prior, but not three months later). The Observer, a newspaper, stated on January 6, 2008, that Lily Luahana Cole had "just turned 20" (implying a birthday around January 1988). This reference is used as a source for her middle name in the article, which no one has questioned. Link here. The Evening Standard, dated February 26, 2004, states that Cole is 16 at that time. Link here. Lily Cole also has a verified Twitter account. On December 27, 2011, she twitted "24" with a picture of a birthday cake (implying a December 27, 1987 birth date). Link here. That was a bit vague, I admit. However, the night following, someone twitted her wishing her a happy birthday, and she replied "thank you Palak!". Link here. I'd say that is an open-and-shut case given that last bit of information, as well as The Observer, birth records, and the unreliability of IMDB and the like. Thoughts? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I don't have a problem with "circa December 1987 or January 1988". That sounds reasonable to me. I twitted Lily Cole asking her to confirm her birthday last night. Maybe she will reply and we can get the exact one. But I can support Dec 1987/Jan 1988. Just not May! All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:WhyIHateSaturn.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WhyIHateSaturn.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:SteveRoperMikeNomad Matera.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SteveRoperMikeNomad Matera.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

I'm in great need of your advice/opinion. Peta Wilsons page stated her height in the infobox, which I removed because height is only stated for athletes, dancers, etc when it's relevant. Right? Another editor keep reverting it back saying it is relevant and he personally thinks actors should apply. Am I wrong or what should I do? Lady Lotus (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you dear :) If she was a model, I see how that would apply but not if it was brief or if she wasnt known for it yea? I dont know, I trust whatever you decide. xx Lady Lotus (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into it and weighing in. I appreciate it :) Lady Lotus (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at MarnetteD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MarnetteD | Talk 00:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any celebrity or well-known person

Hi. I have some questions just for my edification and future reference. What is the difference between the detail in a "Personal life" section on a person that is ok to post and will stay, and trivia or fan-type information that supposedly isn't? Just curious on how WP defines it, if the difference can be definable in some way. I see many details on the "Personal life" on any famous person on WP that could easily be categorized as unimportant trivia/fan-type information that shouldn't be there. So, is there some well-defined line on one side that WP says is ok to post, but not ok to post on the other side of the amorphous, arbitrary, undefined line? How important does some information have to be before it is labeled important compared to trivia and needs to be removed? What is the difference an encyclopedia (that WP says is what it is) and other sources of information on a person that makes a difference on what is allowed to stay or not? Are you a higher-level admin. or just another editor with no connection to WP except as an editor, since we never know if the change/deletion should be challenged and reverted if it is only a matter of opinion between two (or more) ordinary editors? Thanks. Katydidit (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Lemire

Don't edit on TASM now because a Guild of copy-editor is working on it but I am on a hunt to find Christy Lemire's review of the film. I haven't seemed to find it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The copy-editor is done. So can you find the actual source for Christy Lemire's review? Also it is worth noting he has recommendations for the page that I would like to see more opinions on the matter of.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to summarize the viral campaign section some how. How good are you on making a section smaller. Also what do you think on the Theme section and comment of the article being too big. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was hoping for a theme section (they are great for FA's) but I didn't know it had to be more than a creator's perspective on the subject. Researching the critic's analysis would be much tougher. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roswell/Sunrise

Hi Tenebrae, Please see my latest on the Roswell Talk Page. I fear we are in for a "edit war" with a rather strange organisation. Be glad of your views and could you please support protection for the Roswell page? Best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help.David J Johnson (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tenebrae, Please see my latest contribution to this problem on Dennis Brown's Talkpage. It appears from the SUNRISE website that they are planning to edit the Roswell UFO page as soon as it becomes available for unregistered IP addresses on 31 August, no doubt they will also start the personal, unsigned comments on individual Talk Pages. Whilst it may be advisable to wait and see, if this happens - then more action may be required? Regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wolverine

Hey, I know your busy but I was wondering if you might be willing to help archive the references at The Wolverine (film). Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:X-Files comic 5.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:X-Files comic 5.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:StrangeAdv207.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:StrangeAdv207.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the justification for use is there. I noticed that we have a duplicate file, File:Strangeadventures207.jpg, which is a smaller file and better quality image. I think we can switch this file in for the others use. I think you uploaded both files some years ago, and im guessing you hadnt noticed it was uploaded twice. PS, thanks so much for the uploads, love Neal's work, i found this when i created Category:Comics covers by Neal Adams.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About IP trolls

Don't feed them. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lion eyes

Already added All-Negro, & I've seen Lion Man described as "superhero" in a putatively RS. (If the source is wrong, I'm happy to see Falc resto'd in his place.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, where I saw it was an online history of All-Negro, but that was by somebody I'm not sure was qualified to know the diff. (Neither do I have the web address...) As said, I'm happy to leave it, absent better sourcing. I do hope, tho, you don't object if better sources turn up supporting Lion Man. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nuf. I'll also confess I may have overstepped a trifle taking Falc out, but that was as much to avoid a contradiction as anything. (I've always thought Panther was first, myself... ;p ) Also, as the edit summary says, IMO the claim needs citing on the page where it's made (& that's been my experience), if only to avoid driveby fact-taggers; so, I resto'd the cite. Ciao. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined this because you are at 3RR, you haven't exceeded it. Of course if you revert again within the next few hours you will have exceeded it, but I think you know that. Try to work it out on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on notability

Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but I didn't want to get into a discussion on the talk page. Please comment on my notability request on the talk page for list of African Americans. Do you feel that the judgment of Wikipedians is more significant than general notoriety? thanks Mcusa (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are different people - not sure how to prove it! Mcusa (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC) - My point is that we can come up with lists or criteria of what we think is notable - but if notability is established outside of these criteria we should include it. I realize this only works in general for contemporary achievements. If we come up with a predetermined criteria, we are ignoring this. That might be okay, but please address this issue. Thanks! Mcusa (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dude!

I just saw this and seeing that nobody has picked up on it yet, I thought I'd give you the honors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned at AN/I

Your name has come up in a conversation at WP:AN/I. The section is titled "User:Malik_Shabazz repeatedly deleting my talk page comments". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley

Hi Tenebrae, thanks for the heads up about Stanley Tucci. I should have discussed before changing the birthdate–I didn't realize it was a tricky issue. I'll see if I can dig anything up and I'll add it to the talk page. Thanks! Safehaven86 (talk) 01:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

76.189.114.163

I warned them (and Floquenbeam did at the same time as I was...). But, you need to not push their buttons or taunt them either.

Step back. Hopefully they will as well, and both of you can reengage on the content without the interpersonal conflict etc.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some progress made today, but a bone to pick

Hi Tenebrae. I realize now may not be the best time to approach you considering what you and the IP user are going through, but at the risk of beign untimely, I thought I would drop by and leave you a note that I hope you will take to heart. I care about my reputation and contributions to WP very much -- it is why I have decided to stay above the fray throughout all the drama unleashed on the article's talk page and even my own. I appreciate the fact you and the IP user have sought out the solicitation for intervention in regards to the comments you and the IP user have been having over the last several days on the article's talk page, which at times, has drifted over to my talk page as well. While I respect any decisions you may make for remediation between you two, I do feel you were lumping my actions in with the actions displayed by you and the IP when you made your requests for admin intervention. I don't believe it is fair for a user like me to have my "walls of text" equated to barbs traded by both of you. Furthermore, upon your asking for spacing between my paragraphs, I agreed that I would do such upon your first request. Just like when both you and the IP user recommended I sign each of the paragraphs with my user handle so as not to confuse readers who might've written the material, I complied with both of you on your first request. Additionally, the way in which you wrote to the admins made it sound like you and I have never agreed on anything, when in fact if you look at the talk page, we agree on much. There are even a few items that you, the IP user, and myself agree on. Yet you wrote to them expressing I desire a "major overhaul," when in fact what I've asked for equate to lead improvements and inclusion criteria. Secondarily there is poor writing contained within some of the listings and some of the listings themselves are weak when it comes to "notable and historic" and like you, have called for some of the listings to be removed or added to an entirely different article. As I stated on the talk page, I think you have strengths which the article could use, namely your writing skills. I hope whatever stress has resulted from the back-and-forth between you and the IP user will not lead to your leaving of the article. Zepppep (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to revert the edit made today by Docurate until I noticed 4 of the first 11 listings were all religious. I then thought it would be cherry picking on my part. I think you might want to leave something on the talk page explaining it a bit more, or at least why that one was reverted while the other religious ones remain. Zepppep (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes...I've seen experienced editors move talk page content when the comments added might be better served under a new or different thread. I've had this done to me and done it to others, in both instances we've always been OK with it because experienced editors assume good faith -- and it does keep a consistent layout. The words and tone in which you reacted showed that is lacking a bit between we two and that WP's fourth pillar is not being observed. You mentioned how moving talk page comments were a breach of etiquette and protocol, but interestingly enough the first item listed on WP:etiquette is assume good faith and both it and the WP:Talk page guidelines articles are purposefully ambiguous about moving comments (it is, however, quite clear on not editing comments) because I suppose when editors got together and formulated a bullet point list, they knew assuming good faith and looking at an editor's intentions would better serve than a long list of specifics which may never be specific enough. I (simply) moved your paragraph beginning "on a different note" to a new thread. I didn't alter or delete any portion of your comments. You can check the article's talk page and see I've proffered apologies (specifically mentioned in the etiquette guideline) if I admittedly made a mistake or if another editor brought it to my attention -- they do exist because no matter how experienced the editor, I've yet to see a perfect one yet. Assuming good faith and being quick to apologize is a step in the right direction, however. Zepppep (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your opinion

Which is the better table; this or this? Feel free to comment on the articles talk page. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, Shoxee1214 has proposed another change.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Man of Steel

Hey, would you mind taking a look at the Man of Steel article and adding/removing anything that could help bring it to the standard of other superhero-related articles such as The Avengers? Rusted AutoParts 14:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Kubert

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but the so called "anonymously sourced tweet" was actually from Dave Gibbons - a notable artist. – Connormah (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Connormah. Certainly I (and hopefully any comics reader of taste!) knows Dave Gibbons' work. It was his phrase "Reliable source confirms" that I was referring to as "anonymously sourced." No editor of anything but a gossip magazine would take that as credible, let alone editors of an encyclopedia. But as you'd mentioned, we agree on the principle and it's good to have discussed. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on How I Met Your Mother (season 8)

Hi there. Please explain this recent edit of yours. There is no reason for me or any other editor (like User:AussieLegend who cleaned up that link) to understand why this should be considered "linkspam" and you failed to explain it in your edit summary or the talk page, so further clarification is required in order to assess this edit correctly (since you removed valid apparently sourced information). Regards So Why 08:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CC of reply at Talk:How I Met Your Mother (season 8)

I can see why there's confusion, but that's not how it went. The actor I removed here was the only actor in a list headed "Guest stars". Not Cast, not Recurring, just Guest stars. Secondly, the only cite for it was BreakingNewsBuzz.com, which is a non-notable, non-RS site. Obviously it wouldn't look like linkspam unless you had also looked at all the other pages where the same editor was adding links to BreakingNewsBuzz.com — his own site, and one so marginal it was speedily deleted. So, yes, it was linkspam — and as far as I can tell, that linkspam cite remains removed, so I'm not quite sure what the problem, if any, is? Confusedly yours, Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Auctions

Hi Tenebrae. I've been speaking with James Halperin and have skimmed through the edit history on the articles on himself and Heritage Auctions. I understand the frustration and he seemed apologetic. I was wondering if we could start fresh.

This is me. I have no connection to prior edits and my approach to WP:COI is to work primarily through Talk pages. You can see examples of my work at Honeywell Aerospace, Eze Castle Integration and Hubspot. In each of these examples, I offered quality content and discussion on the Talk page, as suggested by WP:COI and allowed impartial editors to make final content decisions. I also added information about layoffs and legal controversies to articles I had a COI with.

My charter in this case is to improve the quality - not the balance - of the articles. This includes cleaning up prior V/NPOV violations. I hope prior editing behavior will not lead to assumptions on my objectives or my content contributions.

I don't have a specific request or discussion point at the moment, except to introduce myself under the hopes we may collaborate in good faith in the future from the Talk page and to let you know you shouldn't see problematic editing in the article-space anymore.

Best regards Corporate 02:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Claflin

The birth registration says "Registration district: Ipswich" and "Inferred County: Norfolk, Hertfordshire, Suffolk". So should we just say he was born in the town of Ipswich? Norfolk, Hertfordshire, and Suffolk are counties in that area, not towns. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine, thank you. :-) I see that without a subscription, the town itself is not visible on the ancestry.com record (nor is the date of registration), so I can understand the confusion. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Strange Tales 68.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Strange Tales 68.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Wow3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Wow3.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Face Off

There is no need to provide a citation to an online source just because Castro is not included on the official website (for reasons either because of his elimination in the first episode or his disqualification). The first episode has aired and he was featured within it. That should be enough. Also we don't need to single him out for not being included on the official website in our materials.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was also no reason for you to remove the list of guest judges from the lede. It's reliably sourced and not "promotional" or "describing things that haven't happened yet". The season's already been filmed in full, so therefore these events have happened, even if they have not been broadcast yet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:WingsComics45 WingTips.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WingsComics45 WingTips.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:SgtBarneyBarker1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SgtBarneyBarker1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews?

Do you offer peer reviews of articles? Zepppep (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Doby was made a GA today. After it did, I thought of having it get a peer review to help it to get to FA one day, and the first editor I thought of to do this was you. I'm not sure if it interests you or not but if you'd like to give any look its way, it'd be much appreciated. I also see you may have some experience in working with non-free images. There is a photo of Doby and a former teammate, Steve Gromek, that would be great to add to the article. I was told by the GA reviewer the photo met non-free image criteria for inclusion. I don't know much about that whole process but if you have any advice to share, that'd also be much appreciated! Cheers! Zepppep (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your PR and corrections of the Larry Doby article are much appreciated, Tenebrae! Thank you very much for your advice, detailed edit summaries, and attentive eye that let nothing pass through the cracks! Your help will likely allow for the article to become a FA one day. Please let me know if I can return the favor in any way. Cheers! Zepppep (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:SupernaturalThrillers n1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SupernaturalThrillers n1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mila Kunis, questions to you have gone unanswered

I've tried to communicate with you, but to no avail for reasons I'm puzzled on why. The following is from my talk page in response to your post:

I have some questions. What does RfC signify or mean? Many editors don't know all those inside knowledge or detailed wiki abbreviations and there was no link on it. Secondly, why does the page for her to be set in stone as it was while this reassement GA idea is being considered for changing? I tried to make it better to address the concerns addressed by others, and was promptly reverted. That doesn't seem to be the correct thing to do. Is there only one administrator/editor who makes the decision on the GA notation or more than one? When is it going to be made and if so, can it be offered up for re-consideration as a GA with future edits by ordinary editors, or only by admins? This whole thing seems to be something similar to a witch hunt because of a couple of lines in one bad section, as noted by others. Third question: I posted the now-deleted section showing her guest television appearances because I saw it on another celebrity web page and didn't know it was going to be considered 'fannish' compared to the Film and Television series that can also be very long with an established star, and nobody deletes those long sections. So there's a lot of hypocrisy and crocodile tears about the overall length of a web page, but it's all subjective to the admins who just love to quickly revert someone's sincere updates. I went to a lot of effort to do that to make sure it was accurate over many hours of research. Editors (none of them on a wiki-page 'View History' tab listing) aren't identified as admins and seem to be more privileged than others in having their edits/reverts stand, while other ordinary editors' updates are reverted quickly. I wish someone would have told me before I got to 2010 or earlier, that it was going to be reverted. Thank you, if you could please address my concerns so I don't waste my time doing future updates to any wiki page, because it feels like a kick in the stomach. --(orig.) Katydidit (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC) --Katydidit (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:TalesToAstonish67.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TalesToAstonish67.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Auctions

Hi Tenebrae. I wanted to get your opinion on a few things:

What do you think about us creating a summary with a "See Main Article" and creating a separate article on Notable Auctions by Heritage Auctions? The reason being that the Notable Auctions section will be so long, it would otherwise just take over the article and make anything else hard to find.

In many cases reliable secondary sources publish speculative "expected" prices for upcoming auctions. I feel this falls under our rules for crystal ball and that those prices are likely fed to them by HA to raise bidding expectations. Are you comfortable with us using primary sources at HA.com to verify final auction prices?

We're also discussing the controversies. I find that the dinosaur controversy needs substantial expansion as it was a major event involving senior officials of Mongolia, where substantial sourcing exists. The lawsuit on the other hand. It probably seemed newsworthy when it was first reported, but knowing the outcome of the ruling and the lack of sources of the level of the Associated Press as can be found throughout other areas of the article, I believe it was a trivial matter. In a BLP case, we would probably remove it, but I am unsure how we would handle it for companies. Is it an undue problem? Of course an inquiry about whether we should remove controversial material from a COI puts a strain on AGF, but I'm asking honestly, seeing that it seems it was dismissed and followed up by a restraining order.

User:King4057 21:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members

Can you please look into a situation at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe cast members, regarding the inclusions of young roles. I am at my three-revert limit. I have warned the IP and engaged discussion on the talk page to no avail. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:WeirdTerror1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WeirdTerror1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:UncannyTales48.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:UncannyTales48.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obtaining images

Do you have any advice (or know of any editors who might specialize) in obtaining free-use images? I have tried dozens of the sites here but still no luck in finding an image of the subject free for use. I am also filtering results in Google Images and see one of the photos not allowed to be used freely is the pictured used in the lead of an article; is the editor who posted the picture simply obtaining it from a different source, or...? Zepppep (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Spectre3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Spectre3.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:WorldOfFantasy17.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:WorldOfFantasy17.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:TalesToAstonish40interior.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TalesToAstonish40interior.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hemsworth

Hello you :) I went to Part of me 2 talk page to discuss their continuous unnecessary edits on Hemworth's page and noticed you already had, thanks for that :) I know you're just doing your job but as always, I appreciate it. At this point I had to undo another edit making it the 4th revert (I thought it was only 3) and from no response what so ever from them, I'm at a loss. Ideas? Lady Lotus (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Moore

Your edit summary alone made me laugh out loud :P I had no idea I was diving into the middle of that kind of debate, I just saw the million references contradicting each other and figured 'oh quick fix' just to simplify it. Ohh dear so wrong. I surrender lol Thanks for the heads up love, and I won't run away...just quickly walk away in the other direction ;) xx Lady Lotus (talk)

Kermode IP

Can you please assume some good faith and drop the stick about the IP editor maybe being Mark Kermode trying to promote himself? The user has clearly said that "my only connection to Kermode is to listen to his weekly BBC podcast" - if you think they are outright lying, then by all means seek some dispute resolution on that, but snide comments like "How fannish (or self-promoting) can one get?" really don't make for a collegiate editing environment. Enthusiastic fans can become incredibly useful editors if they stick around long enough to appreciate relevant policies - simply dismissing their suggestions as "fannish" and moving on isn't a very helpful way to build an article. --McGeddon (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 100% with you on defending Wikipedia against COI problems (I delete a lot of spam, and watch quite a few articles where IP addresses are oddly keen to talk the subject up or erase unsavoury truths), but to be honest, beyond the minor three-revert edit war over you removing the top ten, I can't see that the IP has been at all antagonistic here. His or her edit summaries are perfectly neutral, and the worst that can be said is that he or she makes one snip of high-handedness when taking the matter to the talk page ("I am happy to do what Tenebrae should have done").

It's a danger with IPs on biography articles, but you seem to have seen a bit of a WP:MASTODON here - as well as skimming over "my only connection to Kermode is to listen to his weekly BBC podcast" and continuing to attack the editor for COI suspicions, you also seem to have overlooked the user agreeing that "the majority of [Tenebrae's edits] I would consider to be clear improvements" and - as far as I can tell - have continued to operate under the assumption that the editor not only remains in favour of all the "fannish" content, but wrote every word personally. When the IP took the top ten to the talk page as you suggested, your response was to briefly say that the list was trivia (which is fine) and then to suggest at length that the IP could well be Mark Kermode himself trying to "elevate" himself above other critics (which doesn't help if what we actually have is a long-term IP editor who made some naïvely fannish edits a year ago but understands Wikipedia better now).

The approach I aim for is always just to carry WP:AGF in one hand, and a clear 2x4 section of whatever precise policy makes their edit inappropriate in the other. Going on the offensive might scare away a genuine COI, but it's just as likely to anger them into sockpuppeting or legal threats. And it never helps against an innocent editor. --McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:TalesOfSuspense58.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TalesOfSuspense58.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot not providing notice

Hi, Carnildo: Your bot appears to be deleting images without first asking the uploader to provide a FUR, as it usual and as image-copyright checker User:Sfan00 IMG, for example, does. Many images are appropriate that may lack full FUR information that can be readily added, as other editors specializing in copyright issues note. I believe your bot, as Wikipedia bots sometimes do, is operating over-aggressively and may need a tweak, as bot operators often will do. I hope we can discuss this, since giving unloaders notice is the generally accepted practice. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to ImageRemovalBot when you say "your bot": I've running two of them right now, and have run others in the past. By the time ImageRemovalBot gets involved with an image, it's already been deleted. The bot does not delete images or flag them for deletion, it simply carries out some cleanup actions related to the deletion.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to ImageTaggingBot, it should be giving notice when it tags an image for deletion, and failure to do so usually indicates a bug in the bot. If that's the case, then please give examples so I can fix the problem.

On the unlikely chance that you're referring to FairuseBot or OrphanBot, keep in mind that they haven't run in years; however, they both should have given notice, although in both cases the rules for deciding who to notify are complex, and the bot may have picked another user as the best person to notify. Again, examples would help in figuring out what happened. --Carnildo (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Don Heck.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italics vs quote marks in comic titles

May I draw to your attention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles indicates that italics should be used both for comics themselves AND also for comic strips within comics. So for example the strip Judge Dredd appears in the comic 2000 AD. Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Comic strip: "A comic strip is a sequence of drawings arranged in interrelated panels to display brief humor or form a narrative, often serialized, with text in balloons and captions." That is precisely what Judge Dredd is, and there is no reason to treat it differently because it is published in an anthology. Richard75 (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Responded at User talk:Richard75#Judge Dredd] --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:TalesToAstonish70.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TalesToAstonish70.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Anthony

Was not sure if you had WT:ACTOR on your watchlist, but it looks like the anonymous IP who edited Tony Anthony (actor) started a discussion about your recent exchange here. You may want to articulate the reasons for your article edits at that discussion and help this editor learn the ropes. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Avengers

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at TriiipleThreat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dredd

I may be wrong but in a world where people are called Zwirmer, Freel, Madelaine and Japhet, why can the guys name not be Clan Techie? Even if it isn't his birth name. It seems unlikely that a minor opening character like Zwirmer has a name and a more prominent one does not. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kirkman

Thanks. But which edit? This one or this one? Nightscream (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

When it comes to infoboxes, and children/relatives aren't notable, is it still acceptable to list them and their birth dates? I thought it wasn't, only if it they were noted like Rumer Willis to Bruce Willis, or is it just based off consensus? Lady Lotus (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks love :) Lady Lotus (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the {{Infobox person}} documentation, it says: "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless the children are independently notable." Therefore, if the children are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article, I only list the number of children in that field. Now that's standard practice for the infobox. For the article text, it's a different story. Elizium23 (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea thats what I do, i'll do the number of children they have then whatever child is notable, (ex: Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, etc.) I tried doing that on the Mitt Romney page, seeing as how none of his sons are notable so i just put "5" and it was heavily argued that all 5 of them should be listed with their birth years next to it. So now its up for discussion on the talk page, would you be willing to add your two cents to that? Lady Lotus (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RS listing

Could you possibly list all the sources that WP considers unreliable, so we can all know what they are and avoid referencing them? Or conversely, could you possibly list all the sources that WP *does* consider reliable so we know that referencing them will make the statement (whatever it might be) stick as a RS? Otherwise, how will we know in advance which ones are which, and it would be hit-or-miss which sources are ok to use, so we can avoid possible reverting for that specific un-RS reasoning? Thanks in advance! --Katydidit (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: United Bates of America

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at Lady Lotus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lady Lotus (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don McGregor

Tenebrae, I noticed yesterday that McGregor was credited as writing one of the last episodes of Ben 10: Ultimate Alien (see List of Ben 10: Ultimate Alien episodes no49 - "Night of the Living Nightmare") but it's not mentioned in his biography. I wondered as you've written most of McGregor's biography whether you thought it was relevant and should be added or not? In his obituary of Dwayne McDuffie here McGregor seems to attach some significance to his writing of the episode but that could just be down to his connection with McDuffie. So what's your point of view? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was in seeing the episode myself that I caught the credit and investigated whether it was the same McGregor or not. Though I have to say due to poor scheduling in the UK I've missed most of that particular series and it was just down luck I happened to see it that time. I'll keep looking for a third party source, and raise it on the talkpage if I fail. I note that IMDB is missing the credit highlighting why it's so unreliable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	for being such a lovely editor and good teacher. :) Lady Lotus (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck-It Ralph

Hey, and thanks for your comment on my sandbox. You are more than welcome to make any changes you want, and yes, I completely agree it's way too long (last count I had was 1020+ words). The reason I posted it was to get other ideas of what to cut out to get it down to the proper size. I opened a discussion about it here if you'd like to chime in. --McDoob AU 93 04:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got it down to 691 words, before wikilinking. I removed a lot of the tiny details that would require excessive linking, but kept some of the major ones, notably the in-joke involving the film's climax (I know you've seen it, but in case other readers of your talk page haven't). I plan on posting it at or after 00:00 UTC (8:00pm EDT) tonight. If you have other thoughts, tweaks, etc., please feel free to make them! --McDoob AU 93 17:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Marvel Studios#Request for comment

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Marvel Studios#Request for comment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Deconstruction Red (2012)

Hello Tenebrae. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Deconstruction Red (2012) to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journey into Mystery

Hello. Can you clarify which bit of the MOS you are citing here? Thanks, Morwen - Talk 12:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm safely away on a different continent, thanks. I hope you, your friends and family are well.

I don't see the bit you quoted - beyond the sourcing requirement - applies to the very limited amount of text I added to Journey into Mystery, which was hardly even a plot summary, compared to say, your example citation at Spider-Man#Fictional_character_biography which is far more detailed. Certainly, I should have sourced it. If I cite satisfactory secondary sources for it (which certainly exist!), would it be permitted to stay? Gillen's run has been critically acclaimed, and has attracted lots of critical commentary, which would be odd to include without the barebones outline of plot that I included. For example, the article currently doesn't mention Leah, a major character in Gillen's run, and that he created, at all: is any mention of her at all impermissible?

You point out that plenty of comics articles fail to make the required standards. You give as examples two articles about comic book characters Spider-Man and Superman. But neither of them are about books (there have been books by those name but they have articles at Peter Parker: Spider-Man and Superman (comic book)), so they cannot exactly act as guides for Journey into Mystery. Are there any articles about titles that you think are good examples? If I understand your position properly, you would say that for example Avengers vs. X-Men is mostly blow-by-blow summaries of the type that should be removed? (which I happen to agree with) Morwen - Talk 22:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your statement of your position. I'll have a look at that and see what I can do. Morwen - Talk 23:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again about this but on checking The Amazing Spider-Man, the entire section The Amazing Spider-Man#Publication history cites very few secondary sources, the few that are are behind the scenes information: the brief descriptions of plot seem only to be sourced to the individual issues. Presumably you overlooked that when you recommended it as a model? Morwen - Talk 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a short sentence, backed with 4 citations, to the article now, to see whether you summarily revert it. Morwen - Talk 07:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help with grammar

Was this edit grammatically correct? I know you're a writer and my English isn't always perfect.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was with use of commas. We were not hurt too bad by Sandy where I am, just a lot of wind and rain. Thanks for asking, I hope you guys are doing alright too.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Lee

Thanks for the backup at the Stan Lee article! I was pretty sure I was right. Cheers! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoxee1214 (talk · contribs)

Can you help with this user, I am at my wits end, he insists on adding non-free images for the sole sake of illustration despite repeated warnings. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Strange

Hey there, could you please take a look at this for me? [5] BOZ (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's new, so I'll give him a chance to talk it out with you, and I'll keep an eye on it. BOZ (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kind of suspected that myself, but would need an SPI to confirm. This is why I locked the page instead of issuing warnings. I can lock the page for longer if nonsense is resumed, although if we have a more serious problem then I'll head to SPI. BOZ (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you are very welcome. :) I've actually been an admin for a few years now, here. BOZ (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at Category talk:Films directed by Jordan Alan.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

The Multiple Barnstar

Three barnstars for outstanding contributions to the site, and for having good taste in comedy, particularly Greg Giraldo and Lenny Bruce.

Parsh (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

The editor Albabe, who claims to be Al Gordon, has filed an AN/I report concerning you, which you'll find here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You requested a citation source for a book I wrote, and after I posted it for you, you claimed I was shamelessly advertising myself. I honestly thought my citation would help matters... not piss you off. So I have asked for help over at WP:ANI section.

On the link you provided me I found:

"Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations."

I realize this above quote is for External Links and not the for the Citation I provided for you... but it was on the link you sourced.

In terms of my Citation, I'm trying to provide the most direct source of information for you.

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 03:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the nice words! I just happened to have created the Goodman Beaver page recently, so the refs were right at hand. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 03:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

Ok, so I find I've been poked lately (here for example) for not helping out as much in article space lately as I have in other areas. Soooo. As you've interacted with me in the past, I would guess you have a fair enough idea where you think I could help, I thought I'd ask you for some suggestions (before I wander over to WP:CMC and the more general notices there : ) - jc37 23:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the game

Hey, jc — always good to see an old hand from back in the day! I think Doctor Strange needs work, though not as much as the scary-looking tag at top suggests. I know any comic with a current crossover story arc tends to need serious pruning from all the recentism imbalance that tends to collect. Those might be good places to start. Welcome back! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much : )

I'll head over there and see what's what : ) - jc37 23:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I am embarrassed to say this, but in looking over the article, I am reminded I haven't been following Marvel lately (both in and out of the comics). I think the last time I was, we had just seen the introduction of the Red Hulk... (talk about time getting away from me - lol.)

I'll see if I can help out with some of the structural/organisational issues. - jc37 23:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And sigh @ "back in the day". To me it doesn't seem anywhere near as long ago as my finger counting tells me it has been... - jc37 23:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GCD

Hiding was always who I would go to for help with referencing. And he's semi-active again. I think it might be worth asking his thoughts on this. - jc37 02:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPLOT

Tenebrae, I understand your desire to keep the Skyfall plot summary succinct, and while you are correct in saying that WP:FILMPLOT limits plot recounts to 700 words, please be aware that this is intended as a guideline, and not a hard and fast rule. If more than 700 words are needed, then more than 700 words are acceptable. As it stands, you are cutting out content related to Bond's physical and psychological state, which are not mentioned despite being key themes of the film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A second point: Talking about Bond's psychological /emotional state sounds like POV, since we can only state what actually appears on the screen.

... You were watching the film, right? It's made quite clear that, in order to return to the field, Bond must pass all the physical and psychological tests expected of an agent. He fails them, but M approves him for duty anyway. That's what the whole montage scene was all about; Bond is bothered by his shoulder injury when doing chin-ups, and later loses his grip whilst hanging from the elevator car. He misses the target during shooting practice, and misses Severine when Silva forces him to try and shoot the shotglass off her head. His physical and psychological state are definately explored in the film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's just "an interpretation", as the film makes it pretty clear that a) Bond has to go through the tests to return to active service, and b) he failed them. If you don't believe me, look back to the briefing scene where Bond identifies Patrice as the man who shot him with a depleted uranium bullet: after he leaves, Tanner asks M whether Bond passed his tests. She says he didn't. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back over SchroCat's edits, he was removing something that was mentioned twice.

My issue with the plot right now is that it mentioned Bond being shot twice in two sentences, with very little to differentiate them, and thus it might be confusing. It's certainly awkward to read. I feel it is better to cover the sharpnel from the wound Patrice gave Bond when the shrapnel actually plays a part in the story. Plots don't need to be recounted chronologically, and this version reads better. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop trying to force through edits by threateneing administrator intervention. I have reverted your edits because they are not particularly well-worded. I doubt you have even read the edits I have made, because they are concentrating on a single sentence that I feel could be addressed differently. it is not a question of wording, but of content. Nevertheless, you insist that wording is the issue here. You have not even addressed the issue that I have raised.

Here is my problem:

In Turkey, MI6 agents James Bond and Eve attempt to recover a stolen computer hard drive containing details of agents placed undercover in terrorist organisations by NATO states. As they chase the mercenary Patrice, who killed MI6 agents to steal the drive, Patrice shoots Bond in the shoulder. Later as the two men grapple, Eve accidentally shoots Bond, who goes missing and is presumed dead.

I feel that this part in bold can be worded better. The problem is that in one sentence, the wording states that Bond is shot. Then it states that he is shot again. I find this to be awkward, and would like to change it because I feel it can be addressed better. Nevertheless, you insist on reverting my edits on sight. Even after I have raised the issue once already. If you report this to an adminstrator, then I will simply point out that you repeatedly reverted my edits without addressing any of the issues I raise.

Any further edits that I make to the plot subsection will only address the sentences I have highlighted in bold because of the issue I have with the wording that has Bond being shot twice in two sentences. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realise now that I was reverting more than I was actually intending to. I have rewritten part of the opening paragraph, explaining why Bond is considered missing and how this allows Patrice to escape, which weren't addressed before.

Also, I actually dispute the idea that Bond is shot twice in the opening sequence. He only ever digs slivers of the bullet out of his shoulder, and the scene where he does this shows that they're not actually buried that deeply. Given that he was sitting in the cabin of a digger at the time, I think it's far more likely that he was hit by a ricocheting bullet. Yes, that is an interpretation of the scene, and I have not worded it like that. But I think it is pretty clear that he was not shot by Patrice the way he was by Eve. Prisonermonkeys (talk)

Re: Danny Arnold

Thank you very much for noticing the clean up on Danny Arnold. People usually don't come to my talk page to thank me! You just made my week. Thanks! Pinkadelica ^♣ 23:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to archive dude

Also as you have edited hte Dredd plot in the past would you mind giving your independent opinion at Talk:Dredd#Kurzon.27s_discussion_because_..., it will go faster with a third opinion whichever way it goes, I don't need another drawn out discussion about minor things. Ugh and another ongoing argument at Prometheus over it not being scientifically accurate (eye roll). This is why I'm not taking on any more articles beyond what I already have. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wreck-It Ralph

I've added my comments to talk. I probably am unlikely to edit the page again, so take my comments as you will. Thanks.Luminum (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O'Dwyer

I chuckled at your comment knowing that you yourself are a journalist.

Slim made some good comments and I made some revisions based on them if you care to join in on the section in question. Corporate 06:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dawn (2012 film)

Can you please take a look at Red Dawn (2012 film), an IP is edit warring with several editors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some concerns about first-party sources and self-published sources.

Dear Tenebrae, I am addressing some new concerns about the sources we're using in Skyfall article. As I feel that you're one of the main contributors, I would like to invite you to participate. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Conversation on Talk Pages

Hi Tenebrae, I respect your contributions and hope you will respect mine as well. I try to confine my remarks to other editors, or comments about their contributions, to the talk pages and hope you will too. When I write I often begin with a fuller text and shave it down in successive edits, and confine my descriptions as "clarifying" or "streamlining". It does not appear that there was any discussion or consensus regarding the plot summary of Flight since the film opened, when most people would have seen it...you wrote nothing on the talk page, and I would be happy to open up a dialogue. I was also a little surprised to find you hopped right to Shakespeare in Love, which appears quite antagonistic, and butchered the summary. Shakespeare in particular is a complex plot, which requires careful explication. And brevity is not the only standard; clarity and good writing are equally important. I'd love to work together to reach a consensus where we might disagree. Thanks! Beadmatrix (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix[reply]

Thank for getting back to me Tenebrae. I do hope we can continue to work through our ideas here and on the article talk pages. As I said, I often trim successive edits but my first concern is clarity, with brevity and good writing nipping at its heels. I'll be more careful labeling my edits, and really streamlining. I'll explain the changes I make on the talk pages and hope we can work things out there, with the input of any other editors of course. I certainly hope my contributions and ideas as a newish editor will be treated with respect as well. Beadmatrix (talk) 08:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix[reply]

Nice to meet with your approval (re: Flight)! Beadmatrix (talk) 08:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Beadmatrix[reply]

Can you be our mediator?

Dear Tenebrae, I'm sorry to bother you, but I need a bit of your help. I'm afraid things are not going well between me and SchroCat at the moment, and I would prefer this not to drag on into lengthy discussions, page-lock, or RfC. We've just had our Skyfall article locked for three days, and I would like to avoid this, if possible. You seem to know him well, and I would like to ask you to be our mediator. Now we have a disagreement on his talk page about what ref we should keep and what we should remove. [6] He wants to remove reference from [7] under the grounds that it contains a video, and it might be removed later once editors see that the video stops working. I disagree with him on the ground that we need only the first paragraph of that article to cover Smithfield market as Skyfall filming location. And it was published under Empire, a undoubtedly reliable source, and a reputable magazine which archive its articles, and its site was maintained by tons of people, meaning that the link will not rot any time soon, and even if the vid stops working, the reference will still be legit.

I strongly disagree with the removal because otherwise, Schro will cover that part using [8], which I find it only barely reliable. He insist that it is, because of [9] (search for the link above if you can't find the discussion). I find that the confirmation from only one user, which was not even sure what she was talking about, highly doubtful. My take is that no one contradicted because no one knew, and I wouldn't be surprised, as the site in question looked self-published. Can you be our mediator and ask him to keep both references as compromise? Anthonydraco (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't here last night when you showed up. And now I've just woken up and must soon go to work. Can you drop me a word when you show up tonight? Or maybe tell me when I can expect you? I have a lot to say, and I am afraid that without you, things will descend into an unpleasant argument. I will try to post what I want to say when you show up, or nearly. Anthonydraco (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's 8am here. I have to go. I will be available again when I'm done with all my work around 6 hours from now, but I'd rather not start this without your presence. Anyway, aren't you in UK and isn't this supposed to be the dead of the night? I assume that you'll be on Wiki editing the articles at night, no? Can you give me a word then? Anthonydraco (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on the talk page. A lot of text there, and I'm sure he will have a lot to say. Hope you get here soon. Anyway, sorry about the mention of my work. I took the liberty of editing it. Whatever your impression was, that wasn't my intention. I'm just used to talking this way. ^^; Anthonydraco (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I dragged you into this. I tried and failed. It seems that I've called this attempt to clear the problems wrong. I shouldn't have called it mediation; it gave him the opportunity to refuse. I don't want to do the RfC/U or ANI yet, as they seem a little extreme. Can you at least convince him that when he revert, he is supposed to do it only when he needs to, and at least explain it more sufficiently per WP:Civil? He does not try very hard to spare the reverted users' feelings. He even put 'rv idiotic edit' in the edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyfall&dir=prev&offset=20121205085844&limit=100&action=history . That was clearly against the guideline, but I don't think that he will listen to me now. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I think we can clear up the content dispute right away. If you say something on the talk page in that regard, I will agree with you immediately. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'idiotic' comment. Please search for the word in the link. He said 'idiotic' twice, and I'm not sure the idiotic comments are always for his own work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skyfall&dir=prev&offset=20121205085844&limit=100&action=history Anthonydraco (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems that you see it too. I knew that comment wasn't about me because it happened while I was expanding filming section, and he explained it to me that he had to do that one. Doing it was fine to me, but what he put in the box, I didn't really agree with. That's what I would like to ask you to convince him about, among other points on being civil. Calling the attempt squalid was something else too.

P.S. I saw your comment on Skyfall talk page. Thank you. I almost believed you that I was a fine editor. :P XD Thank you anyway. Anthonydraco (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Strange Edit

Tenebrae, I saw your change on the recalled comic. It's word-for-word from Jackson Guice Entry and from the Recalled Comics entry, without attribution. While I believe you did this in good faith, without attribution it becomes a copyright problem, so I've removed it per copyright. I'm a casual fan of Dr.Strange, so I'm not gonna throw a hissy fit if you change what I wrote, just don't go word-for-word again. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 00:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm double checking now. If I'm wrong, I'll revert my self, no problem ! KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 01:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, Tenebrae, I just double checked with MoonRidden Girl and she states that I'm incorrect, that because you cited the text you copied as being from Recalled comics, it's not copyrighted. I'll self - revert now.

Thanks KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 11:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Auctions

Wanted to let you know we haven't forgotten about it! If you are still available to work with us, we should be able to finally get the ball rolling on this in January. Corporate 20:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your continued patience and calm you really do deserve this! Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your significant contributions that helped promote The Avengers (2012 film) to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, too. I was too lazy a reviewer to figure out everyone who deserved credit, but your work is very much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday greetings

Hi Tenebrae,

Just wanted to say "Merry Christmas and Happy New Year". I hope that you are having a wonderful holiday season.

Mtminchi08 (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Merry Christmas!

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