User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 8

V for Vendetta

This edit summary made me laugh out loud, and now my coworkers are giving me funny looks. So thanks for that. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, that is me at my most fed up of repeating myself about the same edit. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This cheered my evening up lol. MisterShiney ✉ 20:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption

Hi. Instead of acting like a self-declared pro, you could add some value by taking part in the relevant discussion. Nataev (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Prometheus (film)

Correcting a mistake on a wikipedia page that you do not understand is not un-constructive vandalism. That would be you making 3 reverts without entering into discussion, or reading the source material available on Wikipedia. I've opened a section on the Prometheus talk page making a case for the change. Feel free to enter into discussion instead of constantly clicking undo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.88.53 (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You deserve this - for ongoing work in and around the film project articles, among others! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much SchroCat! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Your hard work at Arkham City deserves this award. Enjoy the feeling of having a new featured article :) — ΛΧΣ21 15:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

TAS

Hi yes I am back from the dead. I was just wondering if you could help out on making The Amazing Spider-Man a GA. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Had wondered where you had gone. First thing might be to re3quest a copy edit if you haven't had one already. I will do what I can but I work full time now so don;t have as much burnable time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I did request a copy edit from the Guild of copy editors one time. I think I got one too. Can you request it more than once? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If it's had a copy edit it probably doesn't need another one unless a lot has been chnaged on it since. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

123

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkwarriorblake (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've been blocked but I'm not 100% if it was intentional as I haven't received a message about it. I made 3 edits but then stopped and took the situation to the edit warring noticeboard, in between that I've attempted to both ask for help from related project and engage in discussion to fruitless ends, I've just tried to restore the article to its base until the situation was resolved. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Looks like this was just a mis-target. I've unblocked you for now and will verify with the other admin. Kuru (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

My goodness, that was a mistake. I'm very sorry about that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

God of War FAC

God of War is up for FAC again if you could voice your support again. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War (video game)/archive3 --JDC808 ♫ 04:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

And once again, the pot calls the kettle black.

You've already made three revisions, isn't that a violation of 3RR? But I prefer not to fight dirty, so I don't intend to let the admins know about that. Bluerules (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See here is the problem that is also causing issues at the article, you don't know what you are talking about. I HAVE made THREE revisions, two to undo you and your edit warring in violating of guideline and discussion, and one to improve the article by updating the box office and gross, as I have done since I created it. You on the other hand have made SIXTEEN edits just in recent history ALL THE SAME THING about the cast order, you have done it repeatedly, excessively in favor of getting your way, you have done nothing to improve the article, couldn't even update the gross, your only participation has been to mess with the cast order because you want Jim Carrey higher, your edit history betrays your complete flip flopping, picking poster or actual film credits as you see fit when one fits the ordering you would personally prefer. This is the sole contribution you make to every article, messing with cast order to get your way and you will immediately edit war with anyone who undoes your edits insisting your way is correct and perhaps that is the problem here, that no one has stood in your way before so you are incapable of understanding how to deal with it beyond just continuing to push and push and push. Feel free because I'd be happy to see you blocked again for a period, I know I certainly felt happier the days I logged on and did not see your name in my watchlist having done the same thing again to The Incredible Burt Wonderstone or responded on the talk page with yet another block of text ignoring everything I had previously said. Any normal person would have called it a day and moved on, do you think what you are doing is normal? All of this text, all of this time in our ever so short lives wasted over the cast order? Honestly normally I wouldn't care because I have better things to do than monitor every time a fanboy tries to put his favorites higher, but you've done it on so many articles, been so disruptive here and there and so utterly obnoxious in every encounter down to your copy paste editing that removes references and/or content that I'm choosing to make it my personal priority in this case to enforce the guideline, otherwise you will just continue to do this forever. I asked for input from others, I asked for intervention from others, I've not just blindly assumed my way is correct, I asked at the FilmProject for their input, and one has come and said that what is there is preferred. YOu ignore that and accuse me of making stuff up again. You continue to waste my time and I ask you to stop, step back, breathe, and think if this is really worth all the hassle you are creating for both of us, and if you really think your personal rule has any at all bearing on this wikipedia when we have guidelines in place. Beyond that I no longer wish to communicate with you, I will post on your talk page if you continue to edit war, as I have done as a warning that it will be escalated because clearly I am not the person capable of handling you and I have no desire to do such, but beyond that I do not like you at all, and believe me it takes a lot for me to actively dislike a person, so bravo on achieving that. Hopefully you will get over this and go edit war with other people on other articles, as I have no desire to ever encounter your username in an article history or my watchlist ever again. Good day sir. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about when I say the pot is calling the kettle black. I write two sentences and you respond with a novella. You call that normal behavior? You think you're not making a big deal out of this? You left multiple messages over at FilmProject, begging people to respond to you. And yet you have the gall to claim this shouldn't be an important issue to a normal person and say I'm leaving "blocks of text." Yes, this is going to be a long post, but it has to be long in order for me to thoroughly debunk you yet again. The best part about your rant is you're trying to cover up the fact that you also violated 3RR by making three revisions to undo my edits. While you'll never admit this, the cast order is incorrect. It is incorrect according to the end credits of the film, material that comes directly from the film itself. That's one of the many facts you continue to ignore. Another fact you ignore is I was originally placing Carrey second. If this was just because I wanted Carrey "higher," why am I now placing him fourth? Why am I not placing him as high as I possibly could place him? The answer is I'm not doing this because I want Carrey higher; my goal is to correct the cast order. I had assumed Carrey would be second in the credits given how heavily he was featured in the marketing campaign and the premise's emphasis on his character, but later learned he was billed fourth. And you forget that I stopped pushing my early corrections because the fact that the film hadn't been shown to the public yet was a reasonable excuse (though you do love harping on the things I said back then). But once the film was released, you still refused to let the cast section be corrected, now citing three bogus reasons for keeping poster order in place- it was "easily accessible," it was "already in place," and your favorite- the only reason provided for the change was "preference." Like I've said before, the film's official website is also "easily accessible" and the cast section there puts Carrey fourth, yet another fact you've ignored. Yes, I already know the credits at the bottom of the home page put Carrey sixth, but we're not discussing a credit section (i.e. various people who work on a film), we're discussing a cast section. And before you claim you did not ignore this, you have- you responded to the home page billing Carrey fourth, but you never said a word about the cast page. Being "already in place" means nothing because incorrect information that's already in place is still incorrect information. As for your "preference" argument that you hold so dear, this is refuted by my real reason for using the on-screen credits order- it's information that comes right from the film. Despite being dismantled, you continue to claim that I switch between the credit and poster order to suit my "personal preferences" in an effort to discredit me, but you only make yourself look bad in the process. Anyone of a rational mindset can see what I'm doing is making the starring section of the infobox follow the poster order and making the cast section of the article follow the on-screen credits (as long as the credits are by prominence). You love posting my edit on The Help as "proof" that I'm happy to use the poster order, but fail to comprehend that I never made any alterations to the cast section there. Did it ever occur to you that I only edited the cast sections of Prometheus and The Man with the Iron Fists and left the starring sections alone? Of course it didn't, you only look for the things that confirm your beliefs. You've attempted to argue the cast section and the starring section should follow the same order and an article cannot reach "good" status if the orders do not reflect each other, but you were contradicted by two things. The first is the cast and starring sections of Fast Five, Prometheus, Dredd, and The Man With the Iron Fists, four articles you've made significant edits on, do not follow the same order. You made excuses to justify this, but you could have always changed the orders there. The second is those four articles did in fact reach good status despite their differing orders. The latter is also on the ever-growing list of facts you ignored. I know you're quite proud of your online achievements and I don't mean to take this one away from you, but you're not the first person to stop me from correcting an article. Before you, there was a (now blocked) user over on Heat's entry. Ironically, it was over something you would support; I was trying to make the starring section follow the text at the bottom, while he felt the section should only include the three names at the top. What I really like is you know you're ignoring the things I say and you can't stand how I continually mention it, so you attempt to turn the tables by accusing me of ignoring you. Problem is, you were only able to provide one example of me ignoring material and it's not even something you wrote, it's Sjones23's contribution to the talk page. For future reference, I was unaware of Sjones23's message because I don't have The Incredible Burt Wonderstone on my watchlist and I saw no reason to return there because you claimed you were done. You say "better things to do than monitor every time a fanboy tries to put his favorites higher" when the majority of your edits are reversions of the things you perceive as incorrect. Let me remind you that I stopped pushing my edits before the film came out, but you still continued to block me. To further destroy your "fanboy" theory, I put Willem Dafoe first in the starring section of The Boondock Saints, but on Existenz, I placed him last. How do you explain that one? I doubt you will, you'll probably ignore that fact too. After telling me to "stop, step back, breathe," you decide to add that you "actively dislike" me. In other words, you dislike someone you never met in person, and you dislike this individual over a trivial online issue. Are you still going to preach about normal behavior after that one? But it is frustrating to be constantly proved wrong, so I guess I can see where your dislike comes from. Bluerules (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I asked for people's input at the Film Project because it was a film project matter and it was clear you werne't interested in listening to anything I had to say. I didn't read the rest of your comment because I don't care what you have to say, I thought you hadn't replied because you'd read what I wrote, grown up and moved on. Clearly that is never going to happen. This is what needs to happen from here on then I never want to see you on my talk page again:

1. The guideline is against you at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
2. The discussion turned against you at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
3. You were banned for your actions at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
4. You have no support but your own at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
5. Thus I do not want to talk to you here again, and it is time to spend your life more fruitfully and stop modifying the cast list to suit your own preference at The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

You tried to have your way, your way was wrong, it's time to pick somewhere else to try and get your favorites higher, now leave me alone. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue here isn't so much that you wanted people's input at the Film Project, it's that you were begging people to respond while you rant about how this issue wouldn't be a big deal to a normal person. If you don't care what I have to say, keep quiet. You can't engage in a discussion with someone if you're going to ignore him. You really can't attack someone for not "moving on," when you're not moving on yourself. To review:

1. There is no guideline, just you believing people only change cast orders to get their favorite actors higher.
2. Only one another user took part in the discussion.
3. You got me banned because you're a dirty fighter who can't admit being wrong.
4. Only one user supports you.
5. You're in no position to discuss preferences because you want the cast list to suit your preference.
6. Yet another pot/kettle remark. My placement of Willem Dafoe on Existenz compared to where I put him on The Boondock Saints destroys your "favorites" argument.

And what are some the other facts you ignore?

1. The end credits come directly from the film.
2. The official website bills Jim Carrey fourth in the cast section.
3. I put Carrey fourth in the cast order when I could easily put him higher.
4. I use the poster order for the starring section of the infobox and the on-screen credits (if they're by prominence) for the cast section of the article.
5. I never altered the cast section of The Help.
6. I never altered the starring section of The Incredible Burt Wonderstone and Prometheus.
7. The starring sections and cast sections of Fast Five, Prometheus, Dredd, and The Man with the Iron Fists differ in order.
8. Fast Five, Prometheus, Dredd, and The Man with the Iron Fists are all considered good articles.
9. Poster order can also be alphabetical, as evidenced with The Man with the Iron Fists.

Either admit you're wrong or stop reverting the things you don't agree with. If you don't want me on your talk page, how about you stop responding to me? Bluerules (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Just shut the fuck up. Jesus fucking christ, are you even human?

1. Only one other use took part in the discussion and they supported what is already there, that is TWO (i assume maths is hard for you) against ONE (the ONE being you), so you have no support for the change. I asked for help from the Film project because you WOULD (WILL) NOT STOP, you have prolonged this discussion far more than normal, and no I am not the one prolonging it, I tried to move on ages ago but every time I do you reply with "Well I guess you concede the argument and I can make my changes then", you are the only person continuing this.
2. You got BANNED because you're a child who can't follow rules or accept not getting his own way.
3. Only ONE user supports me, that's MORE than 0 for you.
4. I'm in position to discuss preferences because what is tehre is based off a poster billing block based off a guideline, your changes that you won't move away from are based on your personal preference for the film credits which you flip between poster and film credits as you deem either worthy depending on wo is listed higher.
5. Aww, did you just learn "pot calling the kettle black"? It's cute how you keep repeating it like it makes you a big boy.
6. The end credits come directly from the film? Well blow me down with a feather, it's like we didn't even discuss that already.
7. The official website has a credits button, which uses the same credits as the poster, which we went over several times already.
8. You put Carrey fourth because that was as high as you could get him while still blaming credits.
9. That's stupid.
10. And?
11. And?
12. Again, already explained, you're choosing to ignore anything that doesn't help your argument
13. And?

I don't need to admit anything, a) because I'm not wrong, b) because you have no support and c) because as we went over, you not stopping talking does not mean that you have somehow won the debate and have support to change the cast order. I respond to you because your comments are so fucking stupid they need to be dealt with, by myself or a trained medical professional, I respond because you blatantly ignore everything I say and then end each comment with "so I win, so stop reverting" ignoring EVERY comment made, the support I have over you even if it is 1, your banning for your blatant unjustified editing, and the way users can and do revert your edits elsewhere before you edit war with them to get your way like you are doing here. You have NO justification for the change or the length of this fucking discussion that you have prolonged like some new electronic form of fucking cancer that will eventually rot the internet from the inside just by the sheer weight of text you continue to write instead of WALKING THE FUCK AWAY. Last time - you have no support, teh guidelines in place back me up, you will not make the change simply because i stop responding you, you will not make the change without support, and even then things are decided on an article by article basis so you will never get the support you seek. Now go away. You have a day to read my response, do not bother responding as even if you do I'm deleting this second text monstrosity off my talk page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know I speak too much truth for you to handle. When you spend your whole life thinking you're better than everyone else, it's not easy dealing those who are smarter than you.

1. What's the difference between two and one? One. Having one extra person support you is not a game changer. There's no big difference in numbers here. Again, I don't mind that you wanted support from Film Project; it's just odd how you were begging for a response while you berate me for making a big deal out of this.
2. Awesome self-parody.
3. If two people think a tomato is a vegetable and one thinks a tomato is a fruit, does that mean a tomato is a vegetable? The number of people in favor of something means nothing.
4. Way to not respond to the fact that I placed Willem Dafoe first in the starring section of The Boondock Saints, but last in Existenz and John Carter. That ruins your "personal preference" argument.
5. It's even better how all you can do is make ad hominem insults and pretend to be intellectually superior all while not realizing the underlying irony in your posts.
6. You're right, we didn't discuss it because you keep ignoring that fact since you can't refute it.
7. We're not discussing changes to a credits section (which includes various people who worked on a film), we're discussing a cast section (which focuses solely on the actors). The cast section bills Carrey fourth. And you only responded to the homepage billing Carrey fourth, not the cast section.
8. I could easily claim the end credits really billed Jim Carrey second or third.
9. Fantastic job not elaborating your point.
10. That destroys your "Bluerules is happy to use the poster order when it suits his preference" argument.
11. That destroys your "starring section order should be the same as cast order" argument.
12. Simply making statements without any logical foundation (especially ones that have been copied from me) isn't going to work. You've never made a reply to this point. But imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
13. That destroys your "cast order should follow the poster order" argument.

Saying you're not wrong does not mean you're not wrong. The National Socialists sure got a lot of support in Germany; does that mean they were right? What makes me right is your inability to refute the things I say. Being proved wrong is just killing you. That's why you have to continually insult me (which is a violation of talk page guidelines) and pretend that I'm ignoring you in a desperate attempt to turn the tables on me. Unfortunately, your attempt fails apart due to your inability to cite specific examples. You got me banned because you're a coward and a dirty fighter, support does not equal being in the right, and most people don't bother reverting my edits. My justification has and always will be the fact that the credits come from the film and you will never refute that. You are not walking away from this issue, so you are no position to attack anyone for not walking away. Revert my edits all you want, the simple fact remains that I am right. If you delete this text, then you just show the world how cowardly you are. Bluerules (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

This is a neutral request for comments at WT:WikiProject Film/Comic book films task force#Iron Man's armor (film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion at this RfC and the various sections that followed it, the latest being "This discussion". Since there are four sections so far, very spread out, I am clarifying that the topics are whether we open with Publication history, and whether citation format should be consistent. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Image

I want to get these image guidelines straight. Sometimes they can seem so debatable. Can you help straighten out issues on here and maybe help resolve the certain issue on the GA nomination here (definitely since you are a major contributor). I find it strange these issues weren't a problem in you're GA nomination of Prometheus. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I like that you weighed in but I prefer that discussion to be moved in to the other link if that is ok. I feel that it should be debated from the editor who knows more about it. Not the nominator who admitted he didn't. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean here. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Dredd or Dredd 3D?

The title of the film in the poster is shown as Dredd 3D. And so is Texas Chainsaw 3d. The dredd film is named as simply "Dredd" while the texas chainsaw massacre film is named as "Texas Chainsaw 3D". I think the title of the dredd film should be "Dredd 3D". KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's Dredd, if you look at the actual billing block of the poster it is shown as Dredd, the BBFC from its home country lists it as Dredd also here, the 3D was for advertising purposes, as shown in the article where they harshly limited 2D versions available. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Man with the iron fists box office

Look man I don't know why I have to explain this to you again and agian but please stop your "formatting" on the box office gross of man with the iron fists. So many users, not only me have reverted your edits and instead have used the accurate gross. I don't want to sound harsh but no one thinks your "formatting" is correct and serves any purposes. I don't know why don't you understand it? How many times again and again you have to be explained? KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You've not explained it once, the formatting is accurate and correct and used on many articles I've raised to GA, the incorrect figure was there when it became a GA, it is an estimate, as the figure on boxoffice.com is an estimate, just an estimate you prefer because it is higher than boxofficemojo.com's. The formatting is correct, the full estimate figure is shown in the article body, people haven't reverted, they've lazily copy and pasted from whichever site they are using at any given time, so feel free to tell me over and over because that's how it is. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Higher than BOM but the gross on BOM is wrong and you know that too. If you add the gross for all countries in the foreign section then gross is even higher than Boxoffice.com 's. You know that already so why are you making excuses? When I said users have reverted you're edit I basically mean that they removed your edit even because they thought your formatted gross was not correct. I think it's you who's trying to make lame excuses because if the article looses "GA" status your hardwork will be in vain. I think that's why you're reverting my edits. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not reverting your edits, the policy is WP: BRD, the format is in place and there's no explanation for changing it. The figure is an estimate, and in reporting the figure is always presented as a rounded number because the long number is an estimate that is different from different sources. People are not reverting it, as I said, they just lazily copy and paste the figure, I know it's lazily because they never update the rest of the article where the figure is present, just the infobox. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright then I'll let this matter go. But why are you claiming that you or your formatting made the article GA? It did not become GA because of formatting the box office gross but because it was reliably sourced and everyone who made contribution deserves equal credit. Not just me or you but everybody else. Besides if I remember it correctly it was me who added Boxoffice.com as a source for the box office gross instead of BOM. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)#Cast Section

As you have participated in this discussion, I am letting you know, there are compromise solutions on the table if you wish to add your opinion. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Snitch budget

Some user keeps adding the budget for the film Snitch as $15 million. I have mentioned in the edit summary already that he needs a source for his edit. Also BOM does not list the budget for the movie. I would have contacted him if I would have known who he is but I don't. Please help me to solve this situation. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is the same user, explain it needs a source, you say you have already done this so if he continues to do it, warn them, increasing the severity if they continue to do so without discussion. And it appears to be this user: Special:Contributions/111.68.100.252 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright thank you for your help. I've already told the user 2 times in the edit summary that a source for his edit is needed. Instead of letting him adding the budget back again I searched myself and instead added 35 million dollars as the budget along with a reliable source. Probably he will realize his mistake himself now and not undo my edit. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Bluerules

I just gave Bluerules my own assessment of his disruptive editing in this section his talk page. I just you should look at it and see what you think since you gave this guy several warnings. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Battleship, as I've said in discussions with him (which I wouldn't expect you to read because they go on forever), I'm not mega concerned about cast listing, but the methods in which he conducts himself to get his way, both at Wonderstone and other articles, have forced me to take a stand over it and start highlighting his actions. I'm glad someone else noticed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't believe that guy would try to accusing you of something you didn't do. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

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

Wow, sorry you had to go through that with Bluerules. Glad an admin was able to intervene and help. It's hard not to let angry, impolitic people get you down, I know. You hang in there. You're a really good editor. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks T, yeah I don't care about cast ordering I use the guideline of the billing block because it's simple and 'avoids' conflict, but he's done it before at other articles and on that particular article was doing it before there was a billing block based on who he thought was important, and I just decided that he wasn't having that one and I was going to stick with the poster billing. He just would not let it go, it was crazy. To still be edit warring even after a block and other editors getting involved, he was far worse than I had realized. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaced boxoffice.com as source for Box office gross instead of BOM

The title mentions it all. As soon I saw the box office gross was in significant figures I knew it would have been you. So I posted this message so you won't revert my edit. BOM only shows domestic gross but no foreign gross. It is shown as n/a although foreign gross for 2 countries is shown under foreign tab. This problem is occuring a lot these days on BOM with many films. As you might remember it happened with Dredd and The Man with the Iron Fists. I've replaced boxoffice.com as a source instead of BOM for many 2013 films. The difference between the 2 sources is very less. Only 21 & over has a very large difference between the two sources. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's has a foreign section on this site as you will see it here. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It does but what you aren't noticing that the total foreign gross is given as "n/a". The website is contradicting itself. Will you use your brain? It doesn't even qualify as a reliable source. I already knew it has a foreign section. You didn't read my earlier statement carefully. Try reading it again. I never said it doesn't have a foreign section I actually said it does have a foreign section. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation for discussion

You're invited to discuss and help sort out this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham Series

Hello, I thought that "Captain" Jim Gordon was irrelevant because Gordon was never a in a "Captain" position. He started as a Detective, then a Lieutenant, and finally Commissioner. Since this is an origin video game, and judging by the time period the game will take place in, I figured Gordon would be a detective. He was never a "Captain". Thank you. - Special:Contributions/174.95.150.186

The games are not the comics or tv shows, he can have been a captain in the comics, and when the information is sourced we go with the source unless conflicting information arises.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a note to keep a head's up

...for that disruptive high-school student changing stable boxofficemojo cites without consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Invite to discussion on RS/N.

You're invited to discuss and to help sort out this issue at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fast & Furious 6, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luke Evans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to the Edit-warning noticeboard

You are invited to join in on the edit warning noticeboard here. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion had been closed by the time I got there, but he is already back at Burt Wonderstone attempting to restart the two novels worth of discussion already had over simply cast ordering. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I know. We need to keep an eye on Bluerules. Blocking Olympus Has Fallen for three days might not help much. One other thing, BR is discussing you on the conflict of his previous actions on this section of Master of Puppets talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

On that topic; while I understand you were frustrated with Bluerules during your dispute, throwing insults isn't the best idea. Technically, that (and a few other edits) are outright breaches of the no personal attacks policy. I'm not going to harangue you about it too much, since I know that disputes can get a bit heated. Just keep this in mind for next time. Regards, m.o.p 19:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It will be kept in mind m.o.p., though I dare anyone to keep their cool when dealing with an immovable force. Even now he perpetuates this Wonderstone cast list thing and it is like 6 weeks later. He will not drop it until he gets his way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The one thing, Darkwarrior, is that Bluerules is trying to do the same thing in Olympus Has Fallen. While in the talk page of that article, I did mentioned before that we should wait til the end credits and see how it looks, but the position on some of the actors in the end credits isn't the best and some of them that are that had a little more screen time then what they are listed in. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

What are the credits done by on Olympus? Order of appearance? Alphabetically? If the poster billing block was in place first then the only reason to change it to the film credits is preference, which is how BlueRules seems to work though he will argue otherwise. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit scattered in some areas. Here the two diffs for you to see. [1] [2] BattleshipMan (talk) 23:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Prometheus portals

Hi! Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Use_of_Portals_in_film_articles WhisperToMe (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Could you take a look at the FAC of Ra.One? Your input would be much appreciated. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)