User talk:Bignole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Seine wide.jpg

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Want to learn how to properly archive?
Year 2006 archive
Year 2007 archive
Year 2008 archive
Year 2009 archive
Year 2010 archive
Year 2011 archive
Year 2012 archive
September archive
October archive

I reserve the right to archive talk discussions at my leisure, but will make sure the discussions are closed before I do (I determine when they are closed). Thank you.

Freddy Vs. Jason[edit]

Okay, I don't think there was a need for you to remove that statement when it's supported by what I stated in the summary and the fact that Jason Goes to Hell features an appearance by Freddy at the very end and production on the crossover happening afterwards, but stalled for a few years until it was finally made and released in 2003. It's rather clear the movie follows on after Jason Goes to Hell so I don't see why there needs to be a source to indicate that. - Jabrona - 6 October 2013 at 07:14 (UTC)


Hi. The age-old question, "Is Freddy Krueger a ghost?". I thought he was a vengeful spirit, and that's what he's described as at his page here. If he is, he's a ghost, and is entitled to all the ghostly honors to be had, no? Why do you say he isn't a ghost? I've actually only seen the first film, so my Kruegerpology is quite lacking, and I leave it to the experts. But if he's not a ghost, none of his films should be listed on the ghost film page, which would make it much less bloodier and remove some of the sound of muffled screaming. Good to meet you! Randy Kryn 12:55 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Happy Holidays![edit]

Could use your help![edit]

Thanks for your assistance in other page edits. I am messaging you because I've been correcting the heavy metal band, Dynazty's page. I corrected the discography list to be in a chart format, and yet I cannot get the chart to look correct for the life of me. I've done charts before and for whatever reason the format is all skewed. If you could check it out and maybe fix it, that'd be appreciated! Thanks. Burningblue52 (talk)

Wonder Woman film[edit]

Hey! You've helped me before. WB just released the first Wonder Woman poster for the film. I have changed photos before and they always get reverted/deleted. Here's the poster Here. Thanks for the help. Burningblue52 (talk)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --HamedH94 (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Horror Collaboration[edit]

Expansion for the article on Leatherface is in full swing, thanks for all the help. I did add some information pertaining to the additions you made in the talk page for the draft. Hopefully it helps. Again thanks for the assistance.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Added some more information to the draft, I also replied and added new topics in the talk page that you should check out. So far it has been just you and me collaborating and working on expanding this article. We really need to get other people in on this project because it is way too big and important an article for just two people to work on. Thanks for all the help.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

BvS "some"[edit]

Some means that "not all the analysts" wanted to see $1B, thus only "some analysts" would say that it was considered "a disappointment", while other analysts had their expectations met.

In lieu of saying "there were analysts who had their expectations met at $800 MM and there were also analysts who had their expectations met at $850 MM and there were analysts who were disappointed that it did not reach their expectations of $1B" - which I guess would be the most accurate way to state the whole long saga - how is it not fair to summarize as "some analysts considered it "a disappointment" for failing to reach $1 billion"? Readers will understand that this means that some were not disappointed and some were, without having to write every-single-analyst's-expectations.

Don't know if this is a concern that the shorter form is seen, perhaps, as being pro-BvS or con-BvS - it is merely a simple logic that some does not mean "all analysts", and readers will understand that there was a difference of opinion from analysts that is important enough to mention. (even if some are satisfied means pro-BvS, some are disappointed implies con-BvS, readers will understand that message that the movie does not carry a one-size-fits-all "a-ok" from all analysts). Jmg38 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I'm still not sure how to ensure there's an understanding that "not all the analysts" called it a disappointment. Again, I'm not trying to salvage the reputation of the film, I'm just want to avoid the 100% agreement that is implied by the phrase it was considered "a disappointment" for failing to reach $1 billion.
The link you suggested, WP:WEASEL, actually talks about editors who use "some" to try and get away with Unsupported attributions. The examples given explicitly point to this. The WP:WEASEL link also reinforces that an unsupported "some" is different from the use of "some" where "the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.
My use of "some" in the BvS item is not dangling in the breeze, trying (without attribution) to imply that there might be an unnamed someone out there that holds these views. The first sentence, regarding $800+ MM, ends with specific attributions (ref name="Box Office – The Wrap", ref name="Rainey" and ref name="Box Office – Deadline") to show that there are some specific analysts who saw reasons why making a multi-million profit is not a failure. References regarding $1B that are found at the end of the very next sentence (ref name="Box Office – The Wrap" (repeated), ref name="Scott Mendelson" and ref name="Flavorwire") further show that some specific analysts were disappointed that the figure was not larger. The point is to acknowledge the difference of opinion amongst the analysts themselves. Jmg38 (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)