User talk:Tenebrae

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Please note

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

Number of FAC's

I just wanted to let you know that it is suggested that you only have one article on FAC at a time. From the FAC page: "Please do not place more than one nomination at a time — this makes it difficult to do each article and its objections justice." Good luck with the articles anyway, just keep this in mind for the future. Thanks - The Catfish 21:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Three-Revert Rule (from archive)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are also non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

Do not violate NPOV on X-Men: The Last Stand. Facto 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please point out to me one instance where I have inserted NPPOV(sic). Making unfounded accusations is regarded as inciviliity, if we're talking blockable offenses. I would ask that you read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Article_body:

The second paragraph should be a brief look at the film's impact: whether critics liked the film or not (and why), whether it was a commercial success or not, and whether any sequels to or remakes of the film were produced. … Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers, and not comments from members of the public (for example, quotes from users of Amazon.com and the Internet Movie Database do not count). Adding critics' verbatim quotes is not NPOV. It follows WikiProject Films guidelines. If you'd like to take this to mediation, please do me the courtesy of telling me now. I;d be happy to-- Tenebrae 20:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your biased additions

You know exactly where you inserted POV. You keep adding this biased paragraph back into the last stand article.

Variety said the film is "a wham-bam sequel noticeably lacking in the pop gravitas, moody atmospherics and emotional weight that made the first two Marvel comicbook [sic] adaptations so rousingly successful". [1] The Hollywood Reporter stated, "Though the picture is not without its wow-inducing, SFX-driven moments, that potent X-factor is considerably diminished in Singer's absence". [2]. Rich Cline of the British movie e-zine Shadows on the Wall said, "At least Ratner knows how to handle both action and drama on screen, even if subtlety and substance fall by the wayside". [3]. Critic and former comic-book writer Frank Lovece of Film Journal International said, "A risk-taking script with genuine consequences elevates this ... above the lackluster direction of Brett Ratner, whose competent mechanics move the story efficiently but with very little soul" [4].

I suggest you read the NPOV article (which supersedes WikiProject Films guidelines). Specifically the WP:NPOV#Undue_weight section, the Fairness and sympathetic tone section, and the Characterizing opinions of people's work section.

[2] [3] and [4] are all biased against Director Ratner. [1] also implies X1 and X2 were better movies and that is arguable. Stop inserting (re-inserting) bias into the article.

[May 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) X-Men: The Last Stand (sampling of critical response in lead, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Article_body and this article's Ta;lk page)]

[| 13:15, May 30, 2006 (hist) (diff) X-Men: The Last Stand (critics response is per Wiki guidelines @ Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films#Article_body: SEE ALSO Discussion at Talk:X-Men:_The_Last_Stand#Critical_Response. Pls don't violate Wiki guidelines) ]

Facto 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My response to above, at User talk:Facto

Formal notification of arbitration

(note: above [sic]; I returned and corrected it to "mediation")

I'm sorry you feel that respected reviewers including Variety and the Hollywood reporter, along with a British critic and a critic who was also a comics writer, constitutes bias. I'm requesting arbitration and reporting your incivility. -- Tenebrae 02:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Your arbitration request would be silly and most likely rejected. Especially because you are the one inserting bias into an article. Facto 02:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected.

Last Stand Talk Page

You're right, I didn't do it maliciously. I was simply trying to keep them together so that they made a bit of sense when you were reading. Bignole 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's no problem. Bignole 22:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, ok, even that was a little childish (with the come vote my way please, because of these Xmen crazed fans)Bignole 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, depending on how you word it I think that a review section can cause problems, like the ones we are having. It's hard to take in everyone's opinion. There are too many critics out there to accurately take care of that, and you are always left with an unneutral bias (and I am using that in a light term). By incorporating selective quotes from reviewers, especially those directed specifically at people instead of at the film as a whole, you create bias; I don't care if that is in a positive light or a negative light. You can have a review section as long as you keep it clean and selective quotes is not going to help that situation. Bignole 23:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That is why I said that unless it is clear, which it is not for this particular movie, then it should be limited. In the case of F13th, that is clear that is was panned almost completely (though I tend to enjoy it, just because I like that particular take on the way Jason looks, but I don't think that the review section for that should be removed). I think that a review section is important if there is something that surrounds it that should be noted. F13th series has a cult following but the VIII movie is noted as one of the worst in the series. The Last Stand has been criticized ruthlessly when refering to Ratner, and those it is of no surprise that those opinions would stay the same when the film came out. You can't tell me that there isn't a bias in reviews when there is constant apprehension for a filmmaker, a distaste at the fact that the previous director left on such a high note, and are dislike for the new one's previous films. People cannot help their own biasis, it's natural to always think about those things. That is why I think that this particular movie article does not fair better with a review section, because there will be too much bias, no matter what the direction (Ratner haters, or die hard Ratner lovers). Bignole 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Horror

I know of Argento...."Suspiria" is what he's really noted for. Bignole 22:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

HAHA...well, as soon as I get the chance I'll be sure to watch it. I have a rather large collection, so I'm always looking for an excuse to add to it. I still haven't finished the Universal Collection. I get sidetracked and watch other movies that I buy. Oh, btw, I apologize for any offense that I may have caused with any sarcastic remark that I made. I also apologize for that other user spouting off, he was a little out of line. I just never really understood the point of a "review section" because we are adding a section that consists of opinions, when we go about the rest of the article trying to remove them. I don't think that just because someone is paid to voice their opinion that we should feel compelled to include it in the article. An opinion is an opinion whether you get paid for it or not. It's a little bit of hypocracy to include an opinion section (knowing you can't include every opinion to get an accurate reading) into an article where you fight to remove POV from the rest of it. Bignole 22:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Just kidding...

I hope you know that I was just kidding over at Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand#"References" vs. "External links". I thought I was being obvious in my facetiousness, but given the later topic on the talk page, I just wanted to be absolutely sure you knew I was not being serious in any way, shape, or form. EVula 04:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Punisher in Riverdale

The real question is, who's talking about the Hoary Hosts of Hoggoth? I think it might be Clea, but I don't know for sure.--Mike Selinker 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

X-Men: The Last Stand

I've had a look and the discussion seems to have settled down somewhat in the last 24 hours so I'm not sure a note from me is needed. I'm also away over the weekend so if you do need an admin your best bet is to try the admin's noticeboard. Yeah, I heard about Toth, it's sad, but kinda on the vards. Shame The Journal fell out with him, I would have liked to see an interview with him. Steve block Talk 20:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR

Is there any particular reason you removed my report from WP:AN/3RR?

RandomP 02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

You removed administrator (Humus sapiens) comments . I am reverting. Facto 02:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Avengers United They Stand

Why do you keep erasing The Black Panther's appearances in The Avengers United They Stand. He really does appear in them, and it's part of the animated continuity (hence other media). I'm wondering if you're jealous, that I contributed the information and not you. If so, get over yourself and try to be a little more trusting.

My response to User talk:71.115.212.229

Sorry, that wasn't me. I didn't do anything to Avengers United We Stand. Aloso, please sign your posts. It's a dash, followed by 4 tildes (the ~ symbol). Thanks. --Tenebrae 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Then why is the erasing in your contribution list?

It's not. I went to that entry's History page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_United_They_Stand&limit=500&action=history and a word search did not find Tenebrae on the list. Also, I will erase any entry on my Talk page that is unsigned, so please sign your comments.--Tenebrae 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• But the person erasing them is named Tenebrae, how else could that be happening? 71.115.236.171 (Yes it is me 71.115.212.229)