User talk:Tenebrae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This editor is a Master Editor III and is entitled to display this Bufonite Editor Star.

Please note: Postings that end with unsigned comments will be deleted. Wikipedia policy is to sign all comments.

IP-only editors, please use User talk:Tenebrae/Nonconfirmed.


Origins: Magneto.[edit]

Can you discuss here please. Crickets are chirping over there. lol Jhenderson 777 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Also you might want to join here too. Jhenderson 777 17:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Did you notice my comments? Jhenderson 777 23:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!!![edit]

Happy new year 01.svg Jhenderson 777 17:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Spider-Man villains[edit]

I have been doing a lot of copy editing on my sandbox that can hopefully replace this in the future. I am just wondering is it requirement to unbare citations like the DeFalco cites that I found that were helpful. Also what books is these quotes from? Perhaps maybe this?. Jhenderson 777 19:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I am talking about citation #4 and #6. It has no citation template. Is that necessary for something like maybe FL nominations. Also I am guessing the are citing a book? Jhenderson 777 19:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Also btw just like I said to User:Nightscream. I am allowing you to copy edit and place on watchlist for preparation of future use. I am definitely not done obviously. Venom and Carnage aren't even there yet lol. I am doing it in order publication date wise. Which I prefer over alphabetical order. Jhenderson 777 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I will say thought that even though I borrowed a lot of book related citations on Wikipedia. All of the web citations (among others) I did myself. I didn't cheat too much lol. Jhenderson 777 19:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh I know. Those are my implications and they weren't really serious. The reason why I put "lol" at the end. I was right though. It is the Marvel Chronicles novel...and I am going to see what I am going to do. Jhenderson 777 20:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
But you are right. It isn't cheating. It's very useful. to have the information to already be in Wikipedia. Jhenderson 777 20:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


Hey, I noticed that in the article that also references her full birth name, it states that she was born in 1986.


"She was born in 1986, so has few memories of Communism, but since she was largely brought up by her maternal grandmother in provincial Saratov, while her father worked in Moscow, she absorbed the history."

Wanted to know what you thought of that, also didn't want to undo or revert you, so I figured I'd let you look at that and decide what to do :) Lady Lotustalk 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean the reference by the London Evening Standard? This one. That was where I found the quote about her being born in 1986 and you shouldn't need a subscription for it, not like The Times. Let me know if you still like me to put the it on her page or if you'd like to :) Lady Lotustalk 21:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Peggy Carter[edit]

Hey, Jhenderson777 and I were having a discussion about the infobox image of Peggy Carter on his talk page, that spiraled into an interesting conversation about character's actual origins if you would like to weigh in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for input, actually I was more interested to hear what you have to say about her origins. You are pretty knowledgeable about early comics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I recently changed it. As Jhenderson pointed out, different sources state different dates, one even going back to Captain America #1 (1941).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits and I responded to your comment on the talk page. I love Stan and Jack's work too, it was really revolutionary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Don Simpson (cartoonist)[edit]

Thanks, Tenebrae, your points are well taken. All the edits made today to Don Simpson (cartoonist) are by me (the subject of the article, oddly enough), and I realized I should register -- I wasn't trying to hide as an anonymous IP. There is a fine line between self-serving self-promotion and getting something better than the rather paltry entry that was up there for so long. Anyway the one link I removed was solely because the ref tag to Comics Database is sticking out on the final entry (it seems miscoded and I don't know how to fix it -- my html skills are a bit rusty and Wikipedia's tagging conventions are new to me). It looks kind of sloppy. Anyway there was no malicious intent, I'm just a perfectionist.

I'll go over the guidelines and try to make my editing more encyclopedic in the future. Any suggestions you may have about creating separate entries for the various titles (Megaton Man, Border Worlds, etc.) that go into more detail would be appreciated, as it seems you've covered a lot of comics material for Wikipedia. (Now I have to get back to prep for college teaching!) Best, Donaldesimpson1713 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Catching Fire[edit]

Why can every film (American Hustle, Frozen to name a film) be able to list accolades from San Diego Film Critics, etc (the smaller groups) but you remove any mention of a nomination for Catching Fire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormow (talkcontribs) 22:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Tenebrae!

I saw your block log, and saw your block from half a decade ago. But never fear! Although Wikipediholism can be a chronic disease (and I struggle with it personally), recovery is possible. See Wikipedia:Recovering from Wikipediholism, and the navbox at the bottom. And, if you decide that you're a Wikipediholic, don't forget to add {{User:UBX/Wikipedia2}} to your user page.

If you reply to this conversation, please move it to my talk page first.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


You found the quote by Stan Lee about Barney's Beat! Great! I'd forgotten all about that!Ger Apeldoorn (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Ger Apeldoorn


Hmm maybe I should post this on the article talk page on the off chance anyone else cares but anyhow ...

Your edit summary was "removed fannish undercutting of Debruge's criticism" and I'd like to explain.

My edit summary was "Rare dissenting critical opinion. I leave it to others to paraphrase other reviews to rebalance the section and avoid WP:UNDUE".

There was no intention to undercut his review but at the time I added that review to the article did not contain any comments from other critics and his criticism seemed like a rare dissenting voice. It did become apparent to me until later that other critics, while praising the performances did not praise the story so much, some even expressing surprise that the film was nominated for a best screenplay Oscar. Also awkwardly I noticed that Debruge was not even the main reviewer for the film at Variety.

I felt like you completely misinterpreted my intent and I wanted to explain. At most I wanted to qualify the remarks, I did not in any way intend to undercut what I felt was a very insightful review (the negative reviews often are). Perhaps after explaining you might want to edit that section further. If you care to comment here within the next day or two I'll likely see it, otherwise I'll see your edits on the article. Thanks. -- (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply noted.

Rotten Tomatoes in italics. Is the citation template broken or what? I don't care about italics but I do care about including publishers. Do I need to push the template to change the settings? -- (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought that IP 109. (as well as the different versions of that IP and IP was you, Tenebrae. I thought this because these IPs generally use the same expressions that you do while editing film articles in generally the same way that you edit them. And there's the fact that IP 109. signs his or her username the same way that you do -- with two dashes in front of it. But I wondered what reason you'd have for sometimes editing as an IP and sometimes as Tenebrae; I figured it might be for a good reason. Or because you sometimes don't feel like logging in. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
No, not me, though it's clearly someone who, like me, explains things in detail in his edit summaries. Maybe once every three or four months I'll forget to log in after clearing cache or something, but then I notice it after the first edit. Also not the other guy. Or given the above exchange with 109, perhaps I'm Sybil!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles sourcing[edit]


Regarding your revert to my Beyoncé Knowles edits:

  • Daily Mail is a tabloid thus unreliable to begin with. Wikipedia consensuses have repeatedly declared it to be unreliable. The site is notorious for fabricating information and often poorly supporting claims.
  • Huffington Post is also notorious for fabricating information and poorly supporting claims, particularly regarding politics. They are known for having a liberal bias in such reports. Essentially, it is the liberal equivalent of FOX News.
  • People is a gossip magazine thus also unreliable to begin with. I've seen no association of it or either of the other sources mentioned with Time, which has a far higher reputation than any of those three combined. It might not be as fabricated/poorly backed up as gossip sources like Star or InTouch or Perez Hilton, but things like that and Us Weekly are still often known to be quite false.

Just thought I should explain. "Reliable tabloid" and "reliable gossip" are highly oxymoronic. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

File:A Contract with God - back - Baronet trade paper.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A Contract with God - back - Baronet trade paper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Contract image[edit]

Hi, thanks a lot for the infobox scan---I think it looks way better than what was there. The back cover scan might be more difficult to justify---it'd be easier if it were on the back cover that it was advertised as a "graphic novel", but I don't think Eisner's and the publisher's views of the book are enough to justify it (one would expect the author and publisher to talk it up).

Also, if you look at the source of the bpage, there's actually a bit that's been commented out about the limited edition hardcover. I've found tons of sources (blogs, retailers) that mention it, but haven't found a WP-approved "Reliable Source" to cite it. Nice to have an even number, too, eh? Face-smile.svg Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A little more kindness, perhaps?[edit]

The Hoffman article is going to be a hotbed of editing today and its not going to be easy to always do the right thing there when it comes to editing or un-editing. Your comments re: WP:WEASEL seemed unnecessarily biting to me. Could you maybe be a little kinder and gentler? I think everyone at the article would appreciate it. -- Winkelvi 20:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hrs for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  DP 01:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tenebrae (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I'm not appealing to be unblocked. I'm pointing out, as did NE Ent, that the other editor is hardly blameless and deserves an equal block. There are other ways of attacking and belittling than by saying intemperate things, and his behavior toward me was horrendous. To say that he can insult, bait and belittle another editor and then follow him to a separate talk page and do it again there, and simply get away with it, is unconscionable and unjust. Tenebrae (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I'm not appealing to be unblocked." Please don't use the unblock template to make a point. only (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

I am sorry you are blocked, Tenebrae—you are a good contributor to Wikipedia. But the best thing to do right now is to wait it out until the 24 hour block expires. Epicgenius (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Oh in Ohio may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • this movie just lies there without a single laugh." Dan Callahan of [[Slant (magazine)]|Slant]] gave the film 0 stars out of 4, calling it an "implausible, weirdly depressed comedy" adding "
  • | title= ''The Oh In Ohio'' | last= Callahan | first= Dan | publisher = [[Slant (magazine)]|Slant]]}}</ref> ''[[Entertainment Weekly]]'' was more favorable, giving the film a 'B-', with [[Owen

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the above[edit]

So the bigger picture gets ignored? An abusive obsessive A disruptive editor who baits another editor just gets to walk away? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Using the term "abusive obsessive" is not going to make a case. You need to be able to complain without that kind of vitriol. I suggest moving on from this incident and maintaining your cool even if the disagreeing editor is not respectful/considerate enough. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please heed this advice, and the advice given above, and just walk away for a while or you liable to have your block extended. -- John Reaves 19:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This may sound strange, but I appreciate that you both and User:Epicgenius above care enough to come and give my plight attention. I've retracted the phrase and inserted something I believe neutrally and accurately describes the situation. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Tenebrae, I had no desire to block you. A simple retraction of your personal attacks would have sufficed - at least this time (and you were given more than sufficient opportunity to do it). I have often said "someone else's actions may explain your incivility, but it can never excuse it". You feel you were baited - I reviewed and failed to see any level of baiting that could have led to the gross personal attacks you lobbed. If you get angry enough at the internet to make those types of comments, logoff before clicking "save". You are a good contributor, and I have respect for your editing - but that cannot include this kind of vitriol; please. DP 21:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
i appreciate your kind words and assure you that I not only did I not take it personally but I acknowledged in the template above that I crossed a line. And while i've collected diffs of the other editor inaccurately calling me a liar five times and "a waste of time" thrice, he's contacted me via e-mail with a confusing but positive note, so I'm going to let it lie, put it behind me and move on, assuming he will, too. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
And ironically, I've a Civility Barnstar above that I'd neglected to put on my user page!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The Lego Movie[edit]

Ok, you don't want us to write "critical acclaim" but what about "generally positive reviews". The very positive reception needs a mention, and "generally positive reviews" is not hyperbolic. Koala15 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, before you revert again let me state my case. I just spent hours on this section and you tell me its too long and trim it down to nothing. First i never heard about sections having word limits ever. What i did to the article is probably GA worthy, i have added a section like that to my GA's and the reviewer never had a problem with it. Koala15 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, you should revert any edit you think is a bad one, regardless of who made it or whether it was good faith. Regarding the plot, I think we should use the 700 limit as a guideline only, especially adhering too strictly to it requires us to omit important explanatory information about the plot, character arcs or themes. As a compromise, I restored some of the material I added. I also again changed "dad" to "father" per WP:TONE, and changed "minifigures" to "people", since characters should be thought of primarily as people. Hope that's okay with you. :) Nightscream (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"You're one of the best editors here, Night, and a treasured friend and colleague." True. LOL.
Seriously, though, it sounds that endeavoring to keep plot synopses under control is something that you and I both do regularly. Just check out the rewrites I end up doing whenever someone gets to writing the synopsis of a new South Park episode before I do. It's gotten to the point where I now add this note box at the top of each episode's talk page to explain to newbite editors not to add detail bloat, trivia or synthesis to plots. My feeling is that the synopsis should summarize to the reader the essential information regarding the three key aspects of a story: plot, character and theme. This is really a problem with those capsule-sized synopses found in List of (TV show) articles. This is something I've come across the Big Bang Theory season articles and the current Episode list for Agents of SHIELD, which are filled with synopses written by editors who think mentioning ever joke and gag, or meaningless detail, like whether a scene between two characters is taking place inside a car, is worthy of mention. With Lego, I felt the scene in the third Act that introduced the live action boy and father needed to explain the thematic arc exhibited by that scene a bit better. I don't tend to pay that much attention to a specific word limit, but I tend to look at the synopsis as a whole to see if it does this. Nice collaboratin' with you! Nightscream (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit[edit]

Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

International film releases[edit]

iMDB is actually a reliable source for film information. Official film bodies often send their release dates. I was adding the international airdates for English-speaking countries. This is not the American Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to have a worldwide view of the subject. However, non English releases can be found on the rescpective language sites. Finealt (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop. Wikipedia has to provide a worldwide view of the subject. IMDb is reliable; official film release organizations send their figures to the site. Maybe you should back off and move on. What you're doing of reverting edits and scolding them won't help. Wikipedia is for all the world. Not just America. Finealt (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I add international airdates if they are published by reliable sources? (Such as newspapers, press releases) I also started a new policy discussion on the talk page of MOS:FILM. Finealt (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

What about if I just say like "The film was released in 100 countries in November" instead of listing every country? I understand. No one cares about international release. Finealt (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it notable or significant if it was released in another country before the original airdate? Such as The Lego Movie was released in Denmark on 6 February 2014 and in the US on February 7, 2014. Finealt (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at Favre1fan93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not sure if you watched my page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to split up the discussion, but we may have a larger issue with this user at hand. I do not have the time to look at this for a few hours. They've jump ship from the Film project to the TV project. If you have the time, please look into all of these page moves and redirects. They seem really hell-bent on this whole "American Wikipedia" concept. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Skyfall BO[edit]

This is a neutral notice of a discussion concerning this film's box office section.Spinc5 (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Lego Movie[edit]

Thank you for your constructive criticism. My editing behavior as of late may not be my finest in my four years as a Wikipedia editor, but I assure you, I have the interests of WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PLOTSUM in mind when it comes to summaries. User:Immblueversion (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dread Central's Uncle Creepy[edit]

It is unfortunate that Steve Barton, founder of Dread Central and genre expert chooses to write under a pseudonym, but as founder, Steve Barton using the anonymous "Uncle Creepy" has long been accepted as expert in the field. Schmidt, Michael Q. 14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


Since you're more learned than me on the writing side, when you get a moment could you take a look at this edit? The user added similar info in that section, rewriting it every time I removed it for being irrelevant. I'm reading it and I can't seem to see it saying anything. Maybe I am misreading it because it seems dense but it opens with a sentence which would be more appropriate on Ridley Scott's article and then just seems to reiterate various scenes David is in, but these do not appear to constitute themes, nor material appropriate for the article elsewhere. But I didn't want to remove it without a second opinion in case I'm just not reading it right. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 00:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your significant contributions that helped promote Iron Man 3 to good article status. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

RE:Talk: Polly Draper#Written like a press release[edit]

I replied to you're comment. ATC . Talk 20:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I replied to you're reply. ATC . Talk 20:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I replied again. ATC . Talk 04:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at Favre1fan93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(Direct linked to the section on my page in the template.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.[edit]

I have no problem with your opinion. I had no choice but to take this action because you repeatedly made accusations, took statements out of context, and repeated claims long after they had been discounted on the admin discussion. You were not debating with civility, and this is necessary to build a good encyclopedia, regardless of how strong your opinion is.Bob the goodwin (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Bill Finger[edit]

FYI: Bill's family appreciates those edits to his article. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 22:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

His granddaughter brought up the Wikipedia article again when we were at dinner with Danny Fingeroth. She remains very grateful for the recent improvements. She also still finds it strange and surreal that a Wikipedia article names her, but that's a separate issue. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 10:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


First, making a WP:BOLD edit is hardly "edit warring". Second, not sure how you'd sell editing an HTML comment as "disruption" to any sane admin considering the results of the edit aren't even visible to article readers. Finally, we have site-wide standards covering this; there is no need for ridiculously overstated requirements when the existing requirements work fine (and are endorsed by the community, not just two editors on some random actresses article). —Locke Coletc 17:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In order for something to be disruptive, someone had to be disrupted. Who was disrupted? In so much as the comment was petulant, I think you need a sense of humor. It does at least accurately reflect how the discussion seems to be going. Before I even got there you guys had revert warred over no less than four separate sources. Each of them progressively more reliable than the last. Now it's devolved down to "we won't believe it until she says she is, sources be damned". Which isn't the burden necessary for inclusion on Wikipedia... —Locke Coletc 17:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've replied on this editor's talk page, but I'd also like to clarify here that it wasn't one "bold edit" — it was two reversions of two different editors. That's edit-warring. And a a petulant, sarcastic comment like "won't believe anything reported until they're personally sitting down next to Scarlett at an ultrasound" is disruptive even as a commented-out note. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
As for the "sources" — Time writing that "People said this" is not multiple sourcing, and People claiming something without sourcing, attribution or anything else is not reliable. WP:RS states that even normally reliable sources aren't reliable in every instance, and an unsourced, unattributed rumor is not reliable, period. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much this is an issue because Locke is still upset over the Jeremy Renner dispute. I feel Locke doesn't care about th issue, but simply wants to use this as a platform to make personal jabs, making remarks like I'm delusional, etc. Rusted AutoParts 19:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi there. I'm a bit confused, having no knowledge of whatever is going on at Skyscraper. I come across Richard Weingardt during new page patrol, created by User:Coolieguy and also edited once by an IP, In that latter IP's edit history are edits to Fazlur Khan and Talk:Skyscraper which seem to relate to this ongoing issue you're dealing with. I then get a second IP on my talk page reporting this revert of the IP's edit to Skyscraper, which does go a bit far referring to the editor as "retarded".

Are (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and Coolieguy (talk · contribs) the same user? Am I being drawn into something when I assisted Coolieguy with his/her page? Or is it just a coincidence? --S.G.(GH) ping! 18:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Moin! Sorry for getting somewhat personal about this guys/gals behavior, but I've been observing his madness for months now, again and again. I remember someone IP reporting somewhere, but obviously it didn't really come to fruition. It's driving people mad. It's not even funny in a way, just madness. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your apology. I hope a resolution can be found. Many thanks, Horst. Regards, --S.G.(GH) ping! 22:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Aalaan was blocked for sockpuppeteering another account on Fazlur Khan content, and a lot of similar IPs sprang up to continue the same edits immediately afterwards. User: has since stated that he or she is the same user (which most likely goes for all of the other 119.30.* IPs) and I've asked them to request an unblock of their main account before making any more mainspace comments. Edits and comments made as part of a WP:BLOCKEVASION can be deleted on sight. --McGeddon (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Retarded" is not "getting somewhat personal;" it is being completely ignorant, offensive and disgusting. No surprise that the same person that uses the word "retarded" would rip apart the Khan page because he, and some other person, have decided that Khan is being egregiously aggrandized. You removed an astounding and fully-sourced observation from Khan about his design process simply because your ego and anger got in the way. Please try to do better. (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The text removed from aforementioned aggressive and inappropriate revert is this: "Khan revealed that he often felt he himself was the building when designing a building project." Which is correctly sourced here:

The direct quote from Khan is this: “When thinking design, I put myself in the place of a whole building, feeling every part. In my mind I visualize the stresses and twisting a building undergoes.” Which comes from here:

Horst, hope you can do the right thing and call off the ego-driven rampage against Khan. (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC) this user who was in favour of khan is not me. Please check locations with Ip locatioh checker please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC) use this website to see locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk Pages[edit]

Sorry about that, and thank you for informing me. - Television fan (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae, My name is Alex Jacobs. I'm no expert on Wikipedia, but I just went to my father's (Frank Jacobs) Wiki page and saw that you removed the entire section on his personal life. This was composed in conjuction with him, and I was surprised to see you deleted it. If there was something missing that we needed to include (citing my name, for example?), then I'm happy to do that. As I said, I'm no Wiki expert, and spend no time on Wiki other than looking up information, so editing his page was the first time I'd edited anything. Let me know what we need to do to re-add the information we added last year that it appears you deleted in January of this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexJacobs1313 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Saving Mr. Banks[edit]

From my watchlist, I've noticed your extensive work on film-related articles and therefore I'm leaving you this message, in hopes that you will participate in a discussion currently underway at Saving Mr. Banks. To avoid any edit warring, a consensus is being reached, regarding the overall placement of one of the article's sections. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Iron Man 3[edit]

Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Russo image[edit]

Hello friend, regarding your edit summary. Anthony isn't technically looking off screen. He's looking at Joe, who is actually between Anthony and edge of the article. Also it was keep with WP:ALTERNATING (can't find the guideline but I thought boxes were supposed to alternate).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Iron Man[edit]

Hey! I saw that you started archiving the links on the Iron Man page, and just wanted to say thanks. I was actually about to start doing that later tonight, so it'll be nice to not have to do every one myself, haha. I actually think that with some rewriting here and there and the addition of a "Themes" section, that article is a candidate for a FA nomination. Was planning on working towards that. Cheers -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To you both, I noticed in some of my recent work over the past few months, that Iron Man (and Hulk) are the worst offenders for formatting and stylings we've come to create for recent MCU pages. I will gladly try to lend you both a hand in this task, if you are taking it on. I do know, if we are striving for the GT nom, that the pages should all be laid out similarly. I can try to work on that if needed. Next week I'm on break, so I will hopefully to have time to work on a few things I've been meaning to get to. Let me know! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Hey Tenebrae. I saw on Triiiple's talk that you saw the film already (always jealous of you as press haha). Anyways, I will be unwatching the page soon in the coming days (possibly), so if you could keep an eye on it an help formulate a proper plot and such, that would be fantastic. I'm trying to get tickets Friday for the early screening on 3/20, so if I go, I will be able to return to the page and help a little sooner than waiting for the US midnight release. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts[edit]

Hello friend :) Wondering what your thoughts on this was? LADY LOTUSTALK 14:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Locke Cole[edit]

He removed the hidden message again. Obviously doesn't listen or care. Rusted AutoParts 02:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Boyd Holbrook[edit]

Hi there :) I noticed you were having some issues with users reverting the birth date on Boyd Holbrook and wanted to give a heads up before you thought I was stepping on your toes, I would never do to you intentionally of course. But on the Floyd source, where is says " Holbrook, 28, signed with a modeling agency in 2001 and his success began almost immediately.", I think they mean that at the time of publication he was 28, and just talking about how he signed with an agency in 2001. So I think that puts his birth year at 1981, with the other source I added says 1981 also, but I took out the month/day since those aren't sourced. Let me know what you think! LADY LOTUSTALK 17:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You are as always, so gracious. Happy editing :) LADY LOTUSTALK 18:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:TheGirlWithTheX-RayEyes logo.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TheGirlWithTheX-RayEyes logo.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.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Chlotrudis Society for Independent Film[edit]

Hi Tenebrae. As the article was deleted are you going to nominate the other related articles? I don't mind doing that if you're busy. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, all tagged. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your significant contributions that helped promote Thor: The Dark World to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


Hey, just wanted to tell you that in the mid-credits scene, his subordinate directly calls him "von Strucker". It's one of the first lines of the scene and a bit hard to hear due to the accent, but it's in there. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem! Basically, the first few lines of dialogue are something like "Sir, Fury released everything to the public." "Everything he knows about." "von Strucker, if they find out we're working for HYDRA..." It's tough to hear but if you're listening for it, it's there. Anyway, cheers! -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Eva Moskowitz[edit]

Thanks for the thanks, and for your recent work on the article. One can almost flip to a random paragraph and find content that deserves to be trimmed out :). --JBL (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

This edit was made by the same user for what appears to be the umpteenth time. I have reverted it. Would you agree that something should be done to prevent this from happening again? Mystiques00 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Image placement[edit]

You flatter me, sir. :-) No, MOS:IMAGELOCATION was indeed where that guideline was once located, but I noticed that it's not there any more, so I assumed that that guideline had been done away with. Nightscream (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for the Robocop quote, Tenebrae!! :) Mvblair (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on a source for comics articles[edit]

Hi. Your opinion could be very useful in this discussion. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Vince Colletta Wikipedia page[edit]

Hi Tenebrae,

It's been a while since we've communicated. Hoping that you are doing well.

I finished my book and it is now awaiting MSU Press' decision whether or not to publish it. They have had it since the beginning of the year. I am hoping that I won't have to go the " seeking publisher/agent" route and that they run with it. I sent a first draft to the MSU library's comic book department and the curator has made it a part of the library's permanent collection which was nice.

Respecting your request for anonymity, I discarded all of your contact information but if you'd like me to send you a copy of the first draft, just re-send it to me at

I'm writing to ask about the Joe Sinnott comment that appears in Vinnie's page. I don't much care for negative comments made by people like Len Wein but I happen to know that Joe had a very high regard for my father and would not be happy to see himself quoted that way. Joe doesn't get on the internet as far as I know so I'm pretty certain that he's unaware of the comment. I'd like to bring it to his attention and ask if he'd like to amend it. If he agreed to do so, would that a revised comment from Joe himself be acceptable per your guidelines? This passage was from the Dan McFan website. In it, Joe essentially says the same thing but....

Joe Sinnott: I began working with Vince Colletta shortly after Marvel Comics ceased production in 1958. From then until the super-heroes burst onto the scene in late 1961 I was finding work wherever I could. Charlton, Dell, Treasure Chest, ACG, doing advertising and Crossword Puzzle covers. From 1959-1963 I got work from Vince penciling Romance stories and Gorgo for Charlton Comics. These were Vince's accounts and I was paid by Vince, not Charlton, therefore no Colletta/Sinnott credits are seen in any of the books. I was very grateful to Vince for giving me the opportunity to pencil these stories as I needed work at the time. I drew well over 2500 pages for him of Romance and Gorgo stories.

Once Marvel asked me to come back full time (when the super-heroes arrived), I had to leave Vince and Charlton behind. I know Vince was very upset about me leaving, but Marvel was paying much better, and I also started penciling and inking my own stories full time at Treasure Chest. The only thing negative that I can say about working for Vince Colletta is that I would do full detailed pencils in all my work, and when the finished product appeared, I found it hard to recognize my own work. Vince would actually eliminate many figures, silhouette others and cut many corners. You will hear several artists also tell you this about Vince as well.

But in spite of what some artists feel about Vince, the editors loved him because he would never miss a deadline. I'm sure this is why he took all the shortcuts that he did. I always remained friends with Vince and talked to him often on the phone for many years. The first time we met however wasn't until the 1975 Marvel Convention in NYC - several years after I started working with him. I will always be grateful to Vince Colletta for helping me out by giving me work back then, and I am proud to call him my friend.

Please let me know both about whether you'd like to receive the first deaft of my Vinnie book and also whether my contacting Joe Sinnott would go towards adding some context to the comment that appears in the VC Wiki page.

With my best regards, as always,

Franklin222 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Franklin Colletta


Thank you for your quick response. Allow me to clarify my intentions.

I'm not particularly interested in finding any new positive entries about my father, nor do I wish to see the negative ones removed. The Vince Colletta page, in my opinion, is fair and balanced as-is.

I would like to bring Mr. Sinnott's quote to his attention and give him the opportunity to add to or amend it. If he decides to update the comment attributed to him, would it be within Wikipedia's guidelines to use it?

RE: The Dan McFan site - I took down all of the posts except for the first one in which he clearly stated his case, both in the post and by his choice of URL. The Joe Sinnott passage was taken from the content of the site and appears in my book.


Franklin222 (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Franklin Colletta

Scarlett Johansson[edit]

Remove another valid dispute tag again and I won't even bother coming to your talk page, we'll go straight to AN/I. Don't bother responding, I don't care what you have to say. —Locke Coletc 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Since an admin agreed that it was not a valid tag, and also had some words for you about civility (Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Fully protected) perhaps I should threaten to take you to ANI. In fact, let's all threaten each other! It'll be a threat-a-palooza! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick question about CA:TWS[edit]

Was Rumlow actually a member of HYDRA? I seem to be remember that he said he was or somebody saying he was but I'm not certain.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, I think "double agent" would be more fitting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Also wasn't Steve the leader of the STRIKE team? He was the one giving the orders on the ship.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think he was just leading the mission that needed him, Black Widow, and the STRIKE unit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I was just reading more into it because if Steve was the team's leader, it would have made Rumlow's betrayal that much more biting. Also it would have drawn a parallel between Steve's WWII commandos with similar generational sensibilities to his modern STRIKE team with questionable ethics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I personally didn't get that from the film. But I have to go see it again anyways, so I'll try to keep this in mind if it isn't squared up before I go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Just wanted to thank you for your work on the plot of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I just hope it stays that way. It always a pleasure working with you. TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 9 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

article talk reminder[edit]

Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Scarlett_Johansson focused on the topic, not personal observations about, or questions to other editors. NE Ent 10:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Twin Earths[edit]

You recently flagged this article as unsourced: "this article does not cite any references or sources". But the article does cite one reference and one source, and that source is a reprint of almost the entire run of the comic strip, and also includes interviews with the artist and writer. How should this citation be improved? Does each fact in the article need to be keyed to a particular page in the source or would it be better to add additional sources, even if they repeat information in the primary source? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert of edit on accolades page of American Hustle.[edit]

Hello. Hope you're well. I had added "scope="col"" for column headers, and "scope="row"" for row headers because I'd seen it done for the featured list for 127 hours as per this discussion: [[2]]. Their reason was for accessibility for screen readers as highlighted in [[3]] Cowlibob (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Hey Tenebrae. Quick question for you. I know in the past you have said you work in the media, so I was wondering if you would be able to get a high resolution copy of the Agent Carter or All Hail the King One-Shot posters? Both have what appear to be the logo Marvel is using now for the One-Shots, and searching the internet has not proved helpful, as I have not found a great copy of either poster. If you have the ability to do that, that would be amazing! Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirect Sing Your Face Off[edit]

Hello. I've restored the redirect for now since it appears that the subject of the redirect is notable only for the redirect target. In this case, EASTEREGG wouldn't apply since it's not a hidden link but rather a link to the notable subject, i.e. what the redirect subject would be notable for. If you believe that the redirect should be deleted, please bring it up at WP:RFD. KJ «Click Here» 23:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Muppets Most Wanted-response[edit]

If you are talking about the plot to Muppets Most Wanted, there was some details left out of the plot like Nadya having seen various prison movies (including the ones in space), the name of the Gulag that Nadya works at, and some rearranging of some plots. Did I leave anything out? Also, James Bobin confirmed that Louise Gold would reprise Annie Sue even though she was given no dialogue, so I had to list her as performance only just like Rizzo the Rat should've been listed as credit only for The Muppets. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I added the last one in as a related note when it comes to the cast list. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Sophie Dee[edit]

Hi. I guess you're right about the wording. It's just that four years can be a long time to be married between two actors in, ahem, their line of work, so I tried to word it to indicate that they were last known to have been married since 2010, but I guess you are right. Thanks, Quis separabit? 02:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick Ayers[edit]

It was announced by Roy Thomas on the Timely-Atlas list run by Michal Vassalo Here's the message: Hi List--

It's my sad fate to relate that I received word a little while ago from Fred Ayers that his father has passed away yesterday, May 4, a few days after his 90th birthday. Stan and I had each sent greetings, as doubtless did some of you. I know no other details at present. Regretfully, Roy

Leocomix (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion[edit]

Hi! There's an ongoing discussion on ANI. I'd be happy if you express your opinions. Thanks. Shallowmead077 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


Dear Sir or Madam:

I had no intention of starting an edit war and I now recognize my actions were rude. To be honest, the only edits I have done regarded plot or minor edits such as spelling or vocabulary. I therefore offer my deepest apologies and hope we can start over with a discussion regarding this issue.


Njorent (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Red Kitten 01.jpg

An apology present.

Njorent (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


I do wish to make amends. As stated in my last section, I did find a website concerning character descriptions. The link is posted below:

As for advice, there is none I can think of at the moment.

Njorent (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply Part II[edit]

Ah. I see. Perhaps the information described on the movie website then? Or does that fall into the same category?

Njorent (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Reply Part III[edit]

Something odd just occurred to me. Some of the information in that Stitch Kingdom article is almost identical to information found on the film's website. Excluding three characters, it's almost similar. Very confusing in my opinion. What do you think?

Njorent (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Because you thanked me[edit]

Thanks extension ThankYou.png You thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this inspiring encyclopedia! – Paine

08:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism at Marvel Comics[edit]

Vijay Rajkumar is not a founder of Marvel Comics. I don't understand your need to add this vandalism back and remove Goodman as a key personnel (as founder) as the founder field isn't available for the publisher infobox. You will revert it or be reported. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References, doesn't recommend ("..., it is unwise to use it ...") The Grand Comics Database. Spshu (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your unilateral assertion that GCD, a stringently edited site of non-POV statistics and credits, which has been acceptable by WikiProject Comics for years and has no acceptable counterpart, was unusable. I didn't see this other edit you mention here, and was gong solely by your edit summary. Obviously, I agree with you that the Vijay Rajkumar edit was vandalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Long time[edit]

Dear Ten,

How are ya? It's been a while. Thank you for joining us on GoT article. I miss the olden days of working with people who know that plot sections usually need trimming instead of finding the way around the limit. Working with you has been pleasant. Are you sure you don't want to work on those articles with us, 10-10? We could use an editor that don't keep insisting on his way like you. \(^.^)/ Anthonydraco (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Tenebrae: Anthonydraco means me as one of the editors "who [doesn't] know that plot sections usually need trimming" and who "instead [is trying to find a] way around the limit," simply because I started a needed discussion on the topic and despite the fact that I barely edit the Games of Thrones articles and haven't yet edited any of the plot sections concerning the topic (other than minor edits at List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters and the removal of a plot tag). Yes, somehow I apparently keep insisting that things go my way on this topic. It doesn't seem to matter much to Anthonydraco that I'm the one who called you to the aforementioned discussion because of your sharp way of cutting plot material. Perhaps Anthonydraco feels that I should have recognized his talent at cutting plot material as well instead of mentioning you as the main editor in that regard. Whatever the case, I've long been tired of the drama going on at the Breaker of Chains and Oathkeeper articles over plot summary material, drama that I was not involved in, and I certainly don't need this extra drama. You are good at getting your way with plot material, but I don't see that there is a problem concerning disagreement on plot length in this case; I mainly left that discussion to others to sort out, and all of them thus far have agreed that we should keep the Game of Thrones plot summaries within the WP:TVPLOT recommended length. And, Anthonydraco, in case you are wondering: No, I didn't follow you to Tenebrae's talk page; Tenebrae's talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to work with Ten, and I'm asking him and I've only told him why without pointing fingers. But thank you for coming out and announce yourself by trying to add a lengthy retaliation on another user's page - again. If you can't stand even stand being thought about, Wikipedia is not for you. I don't care if my trimming go unrecognized. It's been like this for centuries. You can ask 10 that too. Anthonydraco (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
And you wonder why I don't want to work with someone... Anthonydraco (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Original comeback there; only it's not. And interesting how you interpreted my starting the aforementioned talk page discussion as an attack on you (quite a contrast to the polite way that Balaenoptera musculus interpreted it, the one I mainly focused on when starting that discussion), and have now interpreted my responding to you on two editors' talk pages as "a lengthy retaliation." Yes, you do seem to have something against "lengthy," as if most disputes on Wikipedia are handled with a few words and as if lengthy is inherently bad, when, in actuality, it's the lengthy discussions that mainly get things settled and done on Wikipedia. You are the one who started this unpleasantness between us; you might as well own up to it. And I will comment on anyone's talk page, unless I'm unwelcomed there; I'm not unwelcomed on Tenebrae's talk page; so you'll have to deal with that as well...or not. As for "it's been like this for centuries": If you mean plot guidelines, then, actually, no, it hasn't been like this for centuries or since Wikipedia's inception. If you simply meant your trimming, then okay. But do I generally agree with keeping plot summaries within a length that Wikipedia respects? Yes. And Tenebrae knows that as well. The main exception for me in that regard are soap opera plot summaries (mainly the soap opera character articles), which can be quite difficult to summarize, given that soap operas, at least American and British soap operas, usually last many years and therefore have heaps of plot material to tackle and to try and condense. But, yes, work with Tenebrae; I'm certainly not stopping you. As for working with me, I don't care if you work with me or not, and I certainly was not wondering about you in that regard. Like I stated above, "I mainly left that discussion to others to sort out." You are the one going on like it is not resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Seeing a post on your talk about The Matrix article, I now remember you several hours after seeing that post. We apparently interacted before all of this Game of Thrones Wikipedia drama; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 13#Thanks for your help with The Wachowskis' issues in The Matrix article. At least we got off to a good start. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, guys. Sorry I haven't been more active of late: An incredibly contentious and, from a professional-journalism standpoint, mind-boggling RfC debate at Talk:Desiree Cousteau put me mostly off Wikipedia for awhile. I'm still not sure I'm ready to jump back in; I was hoping the RfC had concluded so I could move on from some of the maddening things I'm seeing there. (Did you know the Associated Press is not a reliable source? It's true! Just ask any of the armchair generals at the RfC!) Anyway, it looks like the discussion above has been quiet for a while, so I'm hoping you guys have reached detente. With best regards, Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Film critic notability[edit]

Hi. Hope you're well! I was wondering if you knew of a set of criteria for what makes a film critic notable enough to have their own wiki. Would going to Cannes as part of the press or being part of Indiewire's critic network confer notability in your opinion? Cowlibob (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Regarding your reverts at Ginnifer Goodwin, Josh Dallas, and Kelly Clarkson: I'd be very interested to know how including the name of a non-notable minor child (who has no contribution to anything other than being born) improves a BLP article? While not a specific policy, it's always been understood (by me and several long-time editors I've come across) that the names and identifying information of non-notable minor children are to be left out of articles for reasons of privacy. Nonetheless, the following (found at WP:BLPNAME) is policy: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." is clear. The name of a non-notable minor child that doesn't enhance a reader's understanding of the article subject. It should be left out on this premise alone. -- Winkelvi 15:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of what is and isn't policy is as flawed here as your claim at the current ANI] that it's OK to curse at someone you don't like and to tell them "fuck off" because, in your words, "It's not against policy to do so."
You've removed my four-point rebuttal at three talk pages where you were edit-warring and where I tried to initiate discussion. But in short, the idea that any professional biographer would not include the names of a subject's children, particularly when those names are announced officially by the parents themselves in magazines and on TV shows reaching millions and millions of people, is misinterpreting both policy and the mission of an encyclopedia. The notion that Wikipedia is forbidden to say that Kim Kardashian and Kanye West have a daughter named North when virtually every popular publication in the world has reported their announcement of this is absurd. I would have replied on your own talk page, but you've removed comments of mine there and, oh yes, told me to "fuck off."--Tenebrae (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ginnifer Goodwin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Winkelvi 20:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Josh Dallas. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Winkelvi 20:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Kelly Clarkson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Winkelvi 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tenebrae reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). Thank you. -- Winkelvi 20:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   the panda ₯’ 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Tenebrae (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

I believe 60 hours is a bit harsh if another editor, who in fact made more reverts than I, is being blocked for 24 hours (with neither of us going over three in a 24-hour period).

And if I may address your reasoning: I think it's inaccurate to say I don't understand BLP: If one would look at the RfC over Scarlett Johansson's alleged pregnancy, you'll see that i, along with Lady Lotus, Rusted AutoParts and others, was at the vanguard at saying we should not use anonymous, unattributed, unnamed "sources." So I do understand it. Disagreeing in good faith over whether to include the names of children whose parents have ballyhooed them on magazine covers and in mainstream print and television is not misunderstanding BLP.

If I may address one more thing, the length of the block appears to be in part because you, I think harshly, called me "lame" for reporting Winkelvi in "tit for tat" fashion. In fact, I did not: We were doing it at the same time — his timestamp is 20:49, mine was 20:52 and it clearly takes more than four minutes to write wht I wrote with links, etc. If you're upset with me, that's understandable. I don't think I should be accused of "tit for tat," however when I had no idea what Winkelvi was doing; we clearly were both there at overlapping times.

As I've said before, I take responsibility if I've done something wrong. But this disparate punishment when two editors were behaving roughly the same way seems inequitable. I ask you to take my long years of largely unblemished service into account and give us equal punishments. I appreciate the opportunity to plead my case. With respect,Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block has now expired. I am closing this unblock request to prevent more administrators wasting time on checking it, as I have just done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

There's no "punishment" whatsoever - I don't play that game. This is protection as you obviously understood EW and 3RR well enough, based on your edit summaries. A review of your edit-summaries is quite clear that you were FORCING the other person to edit war, and egging them on. That's 100% unacceptable behaviour which is why your block is for a longer period. My statements on AN/3 on this matter were quite clear the panda ₯’ 00:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Like with the other fellow, I won't review here but I will opine. What bothered me most, I covered in the ANI discussion, that your actions were antagonizing him. DangerousPanda mentioned your edit summaries, in the ANI I gave specific links to your actions. It is like you were trying to push him into being uncivil. Well, it worked. And it pushed both of you into edit warring and blocks. Had you taken responsibility for the instigation, you probably would have gotten 24 hours but you sluffed it off. Antagonizing someone is JUST as incivil as foul language. I've already explained and linked to this fact. I will recommend the same to you as I did to him: wait it out, go read a book or watch some Futurama reruns. I won't interfere or recommend against an unblock, but it would benefit you if you understood and acknowledged your actions other than edit warring. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your taking the time to give counsel and advice. I really do; I know being an admin means having to sort out craziness like this all the time, and I don't think I'd have as much patience as you. Still, I think saying, "It's your fault that he cursed you. You made him curse you" isn't really the fairest observation.
And despite Winkelvi's claim, one can see here that there was no consensus to change the status quo, so the fact that someone who isn't being honest gets less time — that just seems wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
My focus was mainly on behavior other than edit warring, hoping you would just both back off the edit warring. I mean this with all respect, but your posting the three times on the articles reminded of the little brother sitting in the back seat of the car, swirling his finger close to but not touching his sister's face, saying "I'm not touching you..." after mom had already yelled "Don't touch your sister". Ok, maybe an odd example, but it really came off as antagonizing, being WP:POINTy. Like you were trying to push him into acting badly. It looked dickish. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, maybe you thought it was less offensive than his reaction, but you had to know it was likely to get a bad response from him. Again, aside from the edit warring, the behavior of you both was equally worthy of a mild verbal reprimand, which is what I gave at ANI. His was more obvious, which is why I used the diffs to demonstrate the problem I had with your actions. Once at AN3, I knew blocks would be coming. Again, I won't interfere with an unblock, but it would be helpful in the future if you ponder this with a fresh perspective. As for content, I leave that to editors, and the edit warring, I leave to DangerousPanda, who reviewed that part of the equation. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocking admin note: this block is based on 2 separate AN/3 reports in which 2 separate editors were blocked. Reviewing both sets of behaviours and both unblocks together would be fair and appropriate. My notes on AN/3 will also be helpful the panda ₯’ 00:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi friend :)[edit]

Hello there, quick question, why are you under Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aalaan ? LADY LOTUSTALK 19:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)It is probably because of the template in the "Skyscrapers" thread above. I hope this helps. MarnetteD|Talk 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It was because of a malformed {{user}} invocation that instead substituted a page instead (see here for diff that corrected it). —Locke Coletc 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys! LADY LOTUSTALK 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for Wolverine (character)[edit]

I am inviting you to take part in this discussion to determine if the page should be called Wolverine (character) or "Wolverine (comics)." --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)