User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 10

Are you a bad enough dude to review the Joker for good article status? Some Wikipedia users would rather it stay as it is by misusing rules to ban people for no reason and limit exposure of the review process, plus they truck in food from out of state. Do you like your food produced locally AND your deserving and important articles good statusified? Review the Joker today!

video file for The Amazing Spider-Man

I think I want to try again on bringing a video file as long as you are willing to help me. Also good job with Dredd (film). You are on a role with making possible FA's dude. I still haven't seen it but I definitely want to in the near future. Hopefully not in the future were he is the law though. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Getting an article to FA is like hard work though. What kind of video were you looking at?DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I will tell you but of course I would want your opinion on if it qualifies per guideline. On the preview section I talk about the first trailer. I want to hopefully depict that point of view portion at the end of the trailer saying that that is the scene that resembled Mirror Edge and maybe even saying that only some of the scenes in the trailer made it to the actual movie too. What do you think? Can that work? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Any non-free content has to compliment the text and be useful because the text cannot properly describe what you are trying to convey. So if there was discussion about the Mirror's Edge stuff and its appearance in the film, that would problably ok. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 11:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok then. Well here is the video if you want to edit it for me. The point of view scene is of course ate the end. If that doesn't work a probable nomination then external media will be my second option again. Also out of curiosity is there a video file that can work for both Flash and IOS on Wikipedia. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

That link doesn't take me to a video. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 17:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a filtering on my laptop that is blocking youtube...and I am trying to use IOS app links...but that isn't helpful. Just look it "The Amazing Spider-Man teaser trailer". You will find it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I decided for it to be unblocked. Try the same link again. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 18:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Well which part do you want specifically because its quite a long segment and you can only use so much. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 22:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The one that is showing him swinging in his point of view (all the way to him first showing off in his full costume in the reflection). Is all of that too much? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This is probably one of the longest videos I have seen on Wikipedia. So I would think that kind of length could maybe be ok. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You're limited to a percentage of the length of whatever, so that video might be long but as part of a 2 hour film its small. You can only try though and see what happens, as long as you can justify it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9Y5KWkGv_o4WEp4WVBlTXJLYm8/edit?usp=sharing DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Am I supposed to download that? Because I am having trouble. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Trouble in what way? There should be an arrow in the top left. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I know. It says that it is unable to find software for the selected file. Is there supposed to be a software I am supposed to use? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, so you have you downloaded it and it just wont open or it wont download? If its downloaded it is an OGG file because that's all Wikipedia will take, you'd have to use VLC player or something like that to play it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Download it and won't open. The PC says it's unable to find software for the selected film which is what I meant to say. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

That's fine, it's just because it needs an OGG codec. Just install http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/oggdsf/opencodecs_0.85.17777.exe from http://xiph.org/dshow/ and it should open fine. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 01:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that started helping but is it supposed to go to Windows media center? Because that's where it went. I wouldn't know how to re-upload with that. Also it ain't really playing for some reason on there either. That one other place where you stored the Spider-Man vs. Lizard effects scene where I can just use click "save video as" was much easier. Also do you think the audio is necessary? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't reupload through anything, you go to this link and upload it with whatever necessary details (just copy and paste a template from an existing video and customize it to your own needs). The file itself should play in most players like WMP, media player classic, VLC player, whatever, once the codec is installed. That's just for viewing it, not uploading. There's a no sound version hereDWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 13:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

When I said "re-upload" I just meant put it back to the internet. In this case Wikipedia. Which I am familiar to do. I will test it out some time so be prepared for more comments if I have trouble. I just think you misunderstood me because I didn't say what I quite meant and I wanted to explain. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷

That's fine, I'm not around super often but you can leave questions for me. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it is successfully uploaded but the quality seems poor and I am thinking the resolution might be too high. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get a moment. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do. The file looks blurry on my computer on the article....but it could be my computer. It has done that in the past with videos. I want it to at least look like your Dredd video. (Which is a nice one might I add. Good job!) If you upload another version. I would allow that too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 02:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I've uploaded a newer version, looks a lot smoother to me, you might need to clear your browser cache before it shows you anything but the previous version, you might not, it depends. But the difference to me at least is very notable. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That last video was more like it. Let's just hope the article updates itself with that last file because so far it doesn't seem like it hasn't (even when I purged it). Also thanks for the heads up on clearing the browser's cache. I did the delete history part. The other half (method 2 on the article you linked) is me probably needing to probably remember my gmail password and username to do it. Wish me luck on that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not updated for me yet, it's still showing the old version, you can tell because the new version doesn't have the black bars, I cropped them out. It will update in time. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. What are the rules on soundtrack inclusions. Because something like "Becoming Spider-Man" I have heard been accused of as similar to the score Horner did in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan from soudtrack critics. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You can only use 10% of the soundtrack length, and there would again need to be notable commentary to accompany it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 18:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

So let's say the length is as long the preview is (becoming Spider-Man) on here. With the critic comparing it to Star Trek II (and cited of course.). I really don't seem to find no interviews of James Horner. So I need to patch the music section some other way. Reviews are probably the only way to do it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If the length is 4:16 then the sample can be no longer than 25.6 seconds. If you can find suitable critical commentary to support its inclusion then you can add it, that's what I have done at Dredd and it has not been an issue at its FAC nomination apart from having to shorten the track length. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm ok. Since you know how to do that (Since you did that in Dredd). Can you do it or show me how? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Also there are files that are more the length that you are talking about if you prefer to download a different one. I just need to figure out the critical commentary to place with that certain score. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You need to point out a time stamp from the file that you want, I don't know what part you need. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Just pick a part with piano playing (like a Ganalili device) I should have commentary on that. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a time stamp when this piano part starts? DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I can't hear anything like a piano in this song, are you sure its the right one?DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

When I mean anything with piano. I kind of mean anything. I am not sure if time stamp or whatever music matters. Also I would think you would recognize what's piano maybe better than I do. Let me know why time stamp matters if do. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will take a look. As a user involved in the use of video content on Wikipedia, this discussion might also be of interest to you. this one?DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 20:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow! That FFD is getting really busy with debate. Unfortunately what is considered "free use" to Wikipedia is getting to be one of the most debatable things on Wikipedia. I've added things that are considered free use on The Amazing Spider-Man just to have reviews for GA saying it's probably not within the guideline or it is better off not being there. So I just removed it. I really wish us editors would make up our mind sometimes honestly. I can see why you want it to stay. It really does looks cool. I may go on there but I honestly feel that I don't know enough on the subject. I got to think on my opinion for this one for a bit. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well that is what I am arguing at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Batman_Arkham_Origins_Gameplay.ogv because they're making stuff up as they go along, saying we should use a non-free image instead of a non-free video ebcause a video is 'technically' lots of little images. It's one of the stupidest damn things I've ever heard, but most important there is no instruction, rule, guideline or policy that says that so it's just a group of people who have decided that is the case, so I am fighting against it now, because if this loses, which I genuinely believe enriches the article, then no game article will ever be able to have video content on it, and while I like Arkham City, I did not add those screenshots in the Gameplay section and I think they are useless, they don't show anything. BTW, did you notice the sound file in my last comment? DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 23:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Read your comments at the review, sorry I meant to link you to this Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_December_21#File:Batman_Arkham_Origins_Gameplay.ogv DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 07:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok let me think on what I am going to say.. I You sound upset with what is going one and you might need to clear your head before you keep on taking part. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm losing my temper because the people against the video keep saying "It fails 3B, replace it with a screenshot", but the third rule of NFCC does not say anything which the video fails, nothing, and none of the other NFCC rules nor any other guideline says that replacing a NFC video with a NFC photo is an improvement, it just seems to be a lie they've told themselves so often they don't realize it isn't the reality. Yet every time I explain this to them they ignore it and say "It fails 3b, replace with a screenshot". So yes, I am pretty upset that a video which meets all the requirements asked of it, which I specially made to meet those requirements and do what it needed to do for hte article in as short a time as possible is getting railroaded by imaginary guidelines. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 15:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I hear you. BTW, which score is the one you shared to me. I want to know before I upload it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

this one is the opening to the Becoming Spider-Man song. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 15:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok the commentary is Filmtracks.com critic stating this: "The piano is clearly the heart of the score, following Parker's relationships in their tender and mysterious turns." I am assuming what you shared can work with that? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it definitely that song? I didn't notice any pianos. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the third paragraph here. I don't think he meant a particular song on the score. That's why I said any piano version. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Try this DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 16:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I got "File extension ".ogg" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (audio/wav)." when trying to upload it. What did I do wrong lol? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to save it as an .ogg file. Here you go. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 21:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

TriiipleThreat (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

		Holiday Cheer
		Jhenderson777 talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer, by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! - Jhenderson Jhenderson 777 23:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Michael Q. Schmidt.

I've contacted MichaelQSchmidt which I tagged you with because he usually is a good inclusionist with good arguments. Although I can't assure you he knows files as much as he knows how to restore articles. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

And a hearty Happy Holidays to you as well! Didn't get around to sending banners this year, and I'm appreciative of all my friends and colleagues who took the time to wish me well. Enjoy the season and Happy New Year, DWB! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOP

You have now violated the policy at WP:CONSENSUS called WP:FORUMSHOPPING twice about the image File:Batman Arkham Origins Gameplay.ogv. There is an open discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_December_21#File:Batman_Arkham_Origins_Gameplay.ogv. The first violation was at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Batman_Arkham_Origins_Gameplay.ogv and the second violation was at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Invocation_of_NFCC_Rule_3.2F3b. I am politely asking you to refrain from attempting to "game the system" in trying to get your opinion to be accepted by more people. If you further WP:DISRUPT the editing and discussion process, I have no issues starting the WP:DR process.

As a side note, I hope you understand that no discussion about anything is to be taken personally; Wikipedia is a community trying to build a policy-backed consensus. I feel that you should calm down a bit about these discussions about the video file. Take a deep breath, come up with a well thought out opinion of what you should feel. Post that in the appropriate discussion. Answer any questions, or respond to any talking points about your opinion, but do not argue with every point that is made that you disagree with. You will attract more support with kindness and defending your opinions than you will from being angry and attacking others opinions. I know you have valid points, and you have good opinions, but your delivery is hurtful to your argument. I hope you can look past all of this, and at least enjoy your holidays, and know there will always be a discussion you can be a part of. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Shut up ТимофейЛееСудаn. Coming here politely accusing me of things you have no evidence for and threatening me with a WP:DR process. Did you notice how I didn't link to the discussion at the Help Desk? Because I'm looking for information, not trying to draw a crowd, I'm not Forum Shopping, if I was forum shopping I'd have gone posted it at the Video Game project where Id have more success. I'm not trying to game anything, I'm trying to gain proper input from people who aren't 'gaming' the system by being the only people active in those topics, and effectively enforcing their will using a guideline that doesn't say what they think it does. My opinions were well thought out when I posted at NFC COntent Review, you ignored them, closed the discussion then posted against my file blatantly using the arguments that I had very effectively broken down at NFC Content Review. I used the FULL NFCC guideline and explained how the file met each and every one, and you outright ignored everything and cited the exact argument I take issue with. Not ONCE, have I gone to these other places and said "go here, give your opinion" so go start your WP:DR process so that we can bring up your blatant abuses of policy and poor ability as an editor. That's twice you've closed my discussion now, and your latest closure openly accuses me of doing things I haven't done, things you have no evidence of, shopping for a consensus when I'm actively trying to find the right area to gain input about the correct application of that policy that you and Masem have so readily distorted. I want you to start a DR because it will show off just how wrong you are. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Your'e honestly both wrong to be fair. Let me explain why...and I am explaining because I care. Darkwarriorblake went there for questions and opinions mostly... but User:ТимофейЛееСуда had the adacity to vote anyway. If anything it probably wasn't fair to vote delete if you believed he was forumshopping in that page. You and another editor wouldn't have noticed that FFD and noticed it if he wasn't "forumshopping". Both time the editors felt like being very unwelcoming to his own opinion and thought that they had to vote for the page anyways. Honestly that doesn't sound fair when all he wanted is opinions...and more so on opinions on keeping the file. No it isn't wrong per guideline...but is a pretty bastardly thing to do. Definitely near Christmas. The best thing to do is for you to have stayed out of the TFD because I am sure you knew that would provoke Darkwarriorblake and Darkwarriorblake obviously made a mistake linking it to you and then talking it on the help desk (which he is right he did not link it. Somebody else did.) Unfortunately Darkwarriorblake you aren't acting right all the time too. Saying "shut up" because you are angry is not being civil. Yes these editors are sounding a little high and mighty with you. No I am not a big fan of it either....but a lot of the comments you have said to these editors are against assumming good faith (accusing them being bullies etc.) and making you look bad. I can understand you are being peeved but it's not making you look good too. Please control the anger before it controls you and turn back to your smarter self again. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry!

Please don't take offense on me saying you need to assume good faith though. I have seen editors that I worked with blocked weekly because of accusations and uncivil behavior to other editors. I just don't want that to happen to you, dude. I hope you had a Merry Christmas outside of Wikipedia. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's ok J, I'm just frustrated that 3b does not say what they say it does but they keep saying it. But I got a bad ass new phone today so yay. Get anything good? DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I got a keyboard for a iPad I already have. So yeah. That was pretty cool. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you got The Amazing Spider-Man 2 on the watchlist. It is a article that I hoped to fix up just like the original article but I might be too late. The time I decided to fix up the original article. I am not sure it is before viral marketing came up. So yikes! Yeah if I decided to add a lot of the important stuff (hopefully after I maybe FA review the original film) I will have a lot of work with it. It does need work. I am not impressed with the article honestly. I am dissapointed. Just like the work with the video game article of the movie. Although the movie itself (judging by the trailers) looks more entertaining than the original. I am excited for it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have it on my watchlist, I don't have the time unfortunately to take on big new projects, especially with popular films that wiwll attract a lot of edits when it is released. I had that issue with Prometheus and it took up days of my life debating over all kinds of things. The talk page for Prometheus was so bad it got mentioned by a news site. What I tend to do is if i find a good source, I will bookmark it for later and work through them all at once instead of adding bit by bit. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 00:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Why so Serious?

		The Joker appreciation award.
		I award you for improving my page the way it's supposed to be by letting you live. May my legacy live on in this page. - The Joker

Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Featured Article Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to promote Dredd to featured article status! Congratulations!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to promote Dredd to featured article status! Congratulations! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I must ditto Triiiple's sentiments. Congrats! I know you've been working hard to get it to FA status. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you, that was a looooooooong nomination but clearly the Xmas spirit was on my side, a good film and it deserves a Featured Article. I assume cool dudes like yourselves have seen it already, but if not do yourselves a favour and watch it! Thanks again! DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually have not! But it is on my list of films to watch. And I understand your pain with the long nomination. I haven't started the nomination yet, but I'm trying to get List of The New 52 publications ready for a featured list nom, and finding the sources for the collected editions are very time consuming. But I'm close! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Comic articles are ridiculously hard. You'd think someone as popular as the Joker would be easy to find sources for, because I know he appears all over popular culture, but damned if I can find a source for it. I'm looking at buying The Joker: A Visual History of the Clown Prince of Crime when it drops in price as its a book all about him. You can find comic sales figures but only for some, and rarely analysis of those sales, you'd think someone with such a rabid fan base would have better coverage. When you nominate it though let me know and I will review it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 18:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that is really weird. You know he exists in pop culture, but you can't source it. So frustrating. And thank you so much! I'm going to try really hard to get it nominated tonight, but if not, by Sunday. The issue that I stated is, I have to source the collected editions, and I could group some with solicits, but by the time they release, the content, release date or title has changed from what it was in the solicit, so I'm forced to use their individual pages on DC's site. When I do nominate it, I'll post it in a new section with the link to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

List of the New 52 publications FL candidate

Hey Dark. I was able to finish it up tonight (long, long night). Anyways, if no one has gotten to it before you, I'd be honored if you would review it like you said. Thanks so much. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The New 52 publications/archive1 - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Prometheus 2012 film portal discussion proposal

Kindly see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#What_portals_are_appropriate_at_Prometheus_.282012_film.29.3F. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness.Keep up the good work! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, DWB. This is a neutral notice that since other editors at In a World... are inserting their views in boldface ("Include"; "Oppose Inclusion"), it's possible you might want to do so as well for visual consistency and so that your view is not misinterpreted or misconstrued. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Here

Lead with citations. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Anything without citations can be challenged and removed. Needlessly saying Dredd didn't deserve a FA status. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body of the article and the content is cited there. Of course you can always feel free to go tell the FA moderators how to do their job. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You really wanna mock me? I know people like you insult others. It gives you a lot of pleasure doesn't it. Don't worry you'll get the same treatment by someone some day. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not mocking you, you were insulting to the article and I pointed out that there are multiple reviewers who didn't feel the lead needed citations in it, and while I'm not going searching for it, the policy is not to use citations in the lead unless necessary. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)KahnJohn7. You might need to read up WP:Otherstuffexists. Also Return of the Jedi is a bad example. The Star Wars original movies before it were FA in the past but then contested. Same with that one as a GA most likely. It is outdated. Last but not least. Read WP:Lead. The lead doesn't really need to be cited most of the time for it's a summarizer for the body of the article. Only if it says something the body doesn't say. Does it need to be cited. (for example: The many titles for the The Avengers (2012 film)) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok well I was mistaken. But he better apologize for mocking and insulting me and treating me like others are below him. His behavior displayed arrogance. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!!!

Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the time and effort you spent reviewing The Wolverine. Cheers!-- TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 December 28

Please join the discussion for Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 December 28#File:Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.jpg.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scarface (1983 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sophie's Choice (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) 08:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Voice of Batgirl

It's not Kimberly Brooks.... It's not Laura Bailey.... It's Kelsey Lansdowne.

• SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=754386977911361&set=a.458863280797067.130302.429312543752141&type=1&theater

You're welcome. - Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael J. Scofield (talk • contribs) 12:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham Origins

Note: the Polygon source cited for the WGA award has errors. Use the WGA (or any other site) for more reliable information about the award: http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=5381 or http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/batman-arkham-origins/details. (first timer - feel free to remove this comment) 204.101.11.5 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what hte error is, I'm not removing the "writer" credit because it isn't in the Polygon source, its because we can't list every credit, we don't have to list ANY credits, but the top credits they have are listed, they are nominated for an award for writing, noone is being short changed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're not going to list the credits as they appear, then why list them at all? All three of them are listed as writers in the side panel. You could just list their names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.11.5 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

God of War III FAC

The image has been moved. --JDC808 ♫ 09:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey!

Hey! Happy new year :) Would you mind taking a look at my latest FAC? — ΛΧΣ^{21 Call me Hahc21} 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This is for successfully submitting and achieving the goal of the moving the three Star Wars articles to their common names. Something I attempted to argue a few years ago and was thwarted. Luckily the editor who pretty much led the opposition at that time hasn't been active for nearly two years. WTG!! JOJ Hutton 02:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Joj, I was surprised that there weren't more fanboys about, but I guess Star Wars interest is on the wane between films, the LOTR articles are fairly dead right now also. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Kudos indeed. The misnaming of the 1977 film with a title that didn't exist until three years later was the single most prominent unencyclopedic screw-up on WP. - Gothicfilm (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WEll you can understand why a majority thought that way, there are people alive today whose first Star Wars film was that god awful prequel, but I'm glad it went through, it was inaccurate and ugly as a title and I honestly expected a much harsher fight to get it changed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I also commend you for your efforts on renaming the Star Wars articles. Keep up the good work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving two "Star Wars" disambiguation pages through redirect.

Could you please do me a favor? Could you please move both the Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (disambiguation) page and the Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (disambiguation) page back to The Empire Strikes Back (disambiguation) and Return of the Jedi (disambiguation) over redirect? I read all the warnings you gave me about moving a page against consensus, and if I do that one more time, I would be blocked from editing without further notice. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Batman: Arkham Origins

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Batman: Arkham Origins you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We have a bot do these now? Huh, I guess I have been gone a while. Anyway, the article's close; I just had a few minor issues I noticed so it's on hold now. Tezero (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you like my assistance on the comments Dark? Don't know if you have to declare anything or if I can just start helping, but will if you need me! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You can take a look if you want Favre. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind you that the GAN will be closing in a few days if you don't start working on my few remaining issues. Tezero (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Uh, I responded again the other day. It's almost done. Tezero (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Batman: Arkham Origins

The article Batman: Arkham Origins you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Batman: Arkham Origins for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Batman: Arkham Origins

The article Batman: Arkham Origins you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Batman: Arkham Origins for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your tireless efforts to help raise the quality of Batman: Arkham Origins to GA status, and taking care of the nomination and comments for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! To you as well. Glad to have worked on it with you. Things seem to get done on higher profile pages when you have semi protection for the duration of the item's pre-release and through its release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I did try to push for automatic article locking at the Film Project for high-profile targets for the duration of their initial release period but it didn#t gain much traction. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 21:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice, and while I support you, I don't think it would get very far (unfortunately). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is

Are you having any issues adding these links to pages? I tried moving the reference from Origins Blackgate on it coming to XBLA to the Arkham series page, and got hit with an edit block. I'm aware of the RFC but that was more of a bot adding and replacing links over to the site. Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I added one yesterday, not today but if I notice anything I will let you know, I've not had any trouble personally. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 19:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I generally have not either. This is the first time I've ever had a problem with it. I, too, will keep you updated with any results to the edit block (and I'll try adding it again to the page). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay definitely not an isolated incident. I have to reread that RfC to see what the harm was. I don't think they blacklisted it, but preventing edits with this filter is highly inconvenient. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It's blocked, that RFC was not advertised properly at all or I would have gotten involved, absolute inanity, blocking a site used 27,000 times on here because they may have used a bot to add links that preserve other links? Unbelievable. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm strongly considering taking this up somewhere, because it's ridiculous. Just because a bot did mass edits, doesn't mean user edits who add them properly should be effected. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

yeah too block all because of a few is ridiculous but at the end of the day they're not even bad links they're archives Marbury make sure our work isn't lost. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 13:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 February

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

• On the Joker (comics) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Joker (comics)

Hi, I just noticed you removed a reference from this article with the following edit summary "deleted reference as useless, doesn't say anything that is in source and just has a random page number and two names, doesn't say what it is actually from". Actually, this is a standard reference format, not just for Wikipedia, but for scholarly works of the past few decades, if not longer. The following explanation is given on the page WP: CITE:

"A short citation is an inline citation that identifies the place in a source where specific information can be found, but without giving full details of the source – these will have been provided in a full bibliographic citation either in an earlier footnote, or in a separate section. For example: Rawls 1971, p. 1."

In the case of the reference you removed, the full bibliographic citation is tagged as "ref name="BronzeAge2"", and currently appears as footnote 26. For future reference, an easy way to find the full citation for a footnote is by using "find" with the author's last name. Happy editing!--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Kudos

Hello DWB. I have seen 1000s (probably more) of variations on an editors signature. The way that you have included a link to a FA discussion is one of the cleverest and most useful that I have come across. Well done!! Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Marnette, I figured it was a better option than just asking for input at the relevant projects which rarely nets a significant result. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 19:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Skyfall BO

This is a neutral notice of a discussion concerning this film's box office section.Spinc5 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 February

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

• On the Joker (comics) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting the Joker

Good evening,

I will copyedit the The Joker over the next few days, per your request on GOCE.

TheFurorDivinus (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Venom (comic book)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Venom (comic book) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Al Plastino

This is a neutral notice to a WikiProject Comics member of a discussion at Talk:Al Plastino and an edit-war over fringe science and family/friend editing of Al Plastino. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Venom (comic book)

The article Venom (comic book) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Venom (comic book) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Scream

Hello There, May I know why you reverted my edits. The one on Scream 2 is nor a pre nor post release poster, but rather a DVD cover (and a low quality one at that) I believe an actual release poster is better suited (you can find the actual posters on this link), also the file I uploaded on Scream yes it's the same but a HQ one. I can see there is already one in there, how can I do to merge the 2 images (as one is png and the other one is jpg). Please explain to me how can I do this, so that we don't have an argument. Thank you in advance.--HorrorGeek (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the Scream 2 one, itmay take a while to refresh. Posters are Non-free content and you can't have high quality versions of them on here, that's why they're small and reduced in quality. At the bottom of image pages is a link that says "Upload a new version of this file". DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 23:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that, so if I re-upload my scream 1 png poster in there, will there be any problem regarding the png/jpg thing? That is if it's OK With you. I would also like to upload scream 2 poster on a small png file, if that's all right.--HorrorGeek (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added the ImpAwards Scream 2 poster just now, like i said you can't have high quality versions of these files, and no, the upload will block you changing file type from JPG to PNG. This is the current Scream poster, this is the one you added which is the same thing but much darker, I don't see the benefit from replacing the current with the one you want to add. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, I hope you too can understand mine as well, I only added those images as I thought they were in a HQ. Nowhere in here does it say they can't be png/HQ. The ones I uploaded meet and respect the aforementioned criteria, hence why I uploaded them. Now I'm not gonna revert your edits and change them back, I do, however, would like your permission to replace them with HQ/PNG versions, I know there's a way you can re-upload jpg images with Png ones, I just don't know how it works since i'm fairly new here. I really hope we can get to an agreement as to this, seeing as we're both horror fans. Thanks! --HorrorGeek (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It does say they can't be in High quality, it says it right here "Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." and Wikipedia:Image use policy says use JPEG for this type of image. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 00:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is

Hi, sorry for the delay in responding--I was on a rather long break. As far as getting it allowed again, I'd just start another RfC on the same page. I don't really have an opinion on the matter, but if you need help with any of it, let me know. I'd say you'd want to a pretty large response, so it would need to be widely announced. Let me know.Hobit (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Next Arkham game

I'm sure you've seen, but just in case, it appears that the new Arkham game will be getting a reveal this week. I'll be on the look out to try and quell any quick page creations that may not warrant it, as I'm sure you will too. Any known info aside from rumors are on the series page under the future heading. Although, I don't think there is anything there regarding the Silver Age game that was revealed a while back, in the event it is that. As well, it looks as though Hush may have a prominent role. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No I've not seen anything, but I don't frequent IGN so I will take a look at that link. I'll try to keep an eye out. That said I'm not a huge Hush fan, he's a typical Jeph Loeb character, take an existing successful character (Batman, Hulk) and create the exact same thing but bad (Hush, Red Hulk). It's even worse because there is already Prometheus, who is the evil Batman. Hopefully they'll go No Man's Land this time. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. A new logo was leaked to Kotaku from a GameStop employee. It was marketing material, verified by Kotaku and IGN in their post, that stated it could not be displayed until the week of March 3. And there was that Dutch writer who stated he was at a closed press event at Rocksteady at the beginning of February, with an embargo on information until March. It looks as though it could possibly be Game Informer's next cover story. And then last night IGN found that piece on the Hush facebook page, but there is some question to the official nature to that page. Also, if you remember Azrael's speech in City, he says that soon "Gotham will burn", which might link to the logo, which sees flames around the bat logo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well hopefully this game they'll learn how to credit the goddamn voice actors >< DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. That would be appreciated! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like the title's getting announced tomorrow in DC's All Access video. If the report is true, the game is Batman: Arkham Knight and I have just made a redirect for it. Depending on how much information is released, we probably can't start an article, so we can make a section on the Batman: Arkham page for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So we have announcement! (Sorry for all the posting.) I'm debating making a full fledged page. I'm sifting through all the info, and there may be enough to do so. If you get on today, let me know what you think. I'll also let you know if I start crafting the page in my space or the Draft space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You might as well make it as if you don't someone else will if they haven't already. There's enough coverage to warrant it i think. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to have free time starting at 5, so I'll try then. If you are free before then, I started a layout in my sandbox where I'll dump some useful refs. Thanks and here we go! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh and I have the image too ready for upload. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've started on it, these games are starting to come too frequently, its like a full time job. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. But at least we can't get the whole "yearly release" thing, because Origins and this are two different developers. But thanks for the start. I haven't looked yet, but will see if I can add anything else. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to make a DYK for the game. What are your thoughts on this? Did you know... "that the Gotham City seen in Batman: Arkham City was redesigned for Batman: Arkham Knight, to allow space for the Batmobile, drivable for the first time in the series?" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never done a DYK so I DNK (do not know) what is involved in it, but it's an interesting fact. Side note, I was lost in the new South Park game which is why I took a while to respond. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 00:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Basically, a DYK just needs an interesting hook that features cited material in the page, to draw readers to the page. If you like what I wrote, then we can use that. Also, tell me how you like the South Park game! I'm debating getting it, possibly if the price goes down, and I actually have time to play it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're a fan of the show you will probably like it. It's amazing how they made it look exactly like an episode of the show and you can explore the city which is up to date with the show, so certain buildings are destroyed like they are in the show. Dunno if I'd pay full price for it, depends if you like RPGs and South Park, I like SP, but not a huge RPG fan. But it's funny. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 21:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Check the video here. Hill is such a bald faced liar, no way was Quinn's pregnancy a phantom pregnancy. They had a song for it in the credits. Why not just admit you abandoned that plot? DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 22:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'll consider checking South Park out. Here is the DYK if you want to watch it. You don't really have to do anything unless the reviewer thinks the hook needs to change. Also, I saw you added/changed the sourcing on Knight. Can you just check all the info I added last night for copyediting? The CVG article had a lot of great info, and I think I got all of it and placed it in the correct spots, but changing it from bullets to prose might not have been the best. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I just watched the Game Informer video. Totally agree. They should have just said that they realized it wasn't going to work, so they crafted the "phantom pregnancy", but they should have at least said they chose not to go with it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I will have a read of the CVG source and take a look at the article, at the minute I'm torn between work stress, South Park and tonight it was the WAlking Dead game plus my Simpsons Tapped Out City doesn't build itself. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 00:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Gracias. Also, Walmart's preorder includes a skin for the Batmobile, so it looks like we are going to have to deal with those in addition to Batman's now. -___- - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

In case you didn't see, the DYK I submitted for us passed and will be on the main page shortly. Expect some higher page views, as well as vandal edits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No prob, thanks for letting me know. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		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)

Idea

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. 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)

Batman: Arkham Knight

Man, the Batman Arkham games are becoming popular for sure. I wonder who else will appear in the Arkham Knight game, besides the ones mentioned on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

According to FaveFan, Hush is meant to be a big villain. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 20:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What about this Azrael from Arkham City. I got a feeling we might see him in that game. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Azrael's message from City seems to possibly hint towards this game. As for Hush, it was "hinted" on their facebook page, which I've come to learn is not official, so take that with a grain of salt. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. I'm having this discussion in Template talk:Infobox video game that you might want to have a look. Seeing as how you had some strong opinions regarding the infobox fields, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts if that's okay with you. --- Wrath X ( talk ) 7:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC

This is a neutral request for comment as a participant in a past discussion regarding a similar topic at Talk:The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug#Critical reaction and WEIGHT. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Iron Man 3

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

Arkham Origins video

Thanks for the encouragement. If I didn't know it's totally useless, I would start a deletion review on the basis that the closing decision is not based on any rational argument. Diego (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Batman: Arkham Knight

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your significant contributions that helped promote Thor: The Dark World to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

For your knowledge

Just further confirmation so you know, in case IPs try to pull the whole "Origins isn't considered canon/part of the series" crap again: it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I read the same article, Origins was not THAT bad, I don't get people saying it isn't canon. If anything the plot was a lot better in most places than City's which was all over the place, and I think they had a good handle on the Joker. And I'd take their version of Bane any day of the week over Rocksteady's terrible version. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I enjoyed it too. Actually got back into it recently to start my New Game+. It was the bugs and just that lack of extra detail that derailed it imo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, would the quotes at the bottom of this article regarding the logo's color scheme fit on any of the individual game pages, or is it better suited on Batman: Arkham? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it seems like it'd fit better on the main arkham page because it discusses all three, where as the earlier ARkham Games it's retroactively giving them meaning rather than being the intent, especially on the first one where they're basically making it up that it had a cool colour scheme rather than just being a basic Batman cover and the second being the result of marketing research. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I thought so as well for the main page. I just didn't know a good place to put it. I thought of making a "Logo" section, but if this was the only info (I couldn't find anything else substantial quickly), it wouldn't warrant it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dishonored-Tallboy-Concept.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. James086^Talk 05:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Park: The Stick of Truth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Earthbound (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) 08:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dishonored and the Reward Board

I was checking the board and noticed this bounty that may interest you since you got Dishonored to FA status. GamerPro64 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all the work you have been putting into expanding and improving South Park: The Stick of Truth. I sense a GA nom coming up! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Favre, this is why I don't edit new articles, I can't stop once I start. For some reason despite teh detailed development its hard to source some stuff like that DLC and the Kinect support, but I've requested a copy edit so I will send it to GA soon. Considering Joker has been on the list since Feb 25th for a copy edit however, I might just try to do it myself then list it at GA. By the time it gets copy edited it'll be time for its FA nomination. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Dang! I didn't even realize this review was happening! It was done so quickly! Well done sir, on making South Park: The Stick of Truth a Good Article so fast. I remember when it was announced and I was just trying to keep the vandals away. Very, very well deserved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks muchly as always Favre! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Looks like somebody beat me to it in thanking you for all your work on South Park: The Stick of Truth! Many of your edits added substantial content to the article, and were well-sourced. You did an especially fine job of fleshing out the "Reception" section of the article, thank you! Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Meteor sandwich, it is much appreciated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits on Dredd

Hello Darkwarriorblake. Apologies for earlier being rude to you. I am just here to inform you that User:An Unexpected Journey has recently edited Dredd. You can see his edit here. You're a better judge of this thing than me so I have taken this matter to you and I don't want ot make any wrong or immature judgment. I hope you will look into this. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It would seem Unexpected has already taken care of it. Thanks for letting me know. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:SouthParkTheStickofTruth-GameplayBattle.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:SouthParkTheStickofTruth-GameplayBattle.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I noticed the Venom article as a good article...and my first guess was you were responsible. I was spot on. Good job, man. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Joker (comics) GAN

You may want to hold off for a few days, until I finish copyediting the article :-). All the best, Miniapolis 23:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It is unlikely to get picked up for a while, and even if it did, it's a good pass as it is, the copy edit is towards improvement in general towards an ultimate FAC. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Just didn't want you to think I was done :-). I work thoroughly, section by section (as you'll see in the history), and am about half done; should be done by Wednesday, and I'll tag the talk page (and ping you) when I'm finished. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 23:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The copyedit is done, and I've tagged the talk page. Miniapolis 19:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A parting gift for you

Just logged in to check a few things after a few months and...

		The Special Barnstar
		I was most delighted to see you stuck with Dishonored after we had passed it through the GA nomination to drive it to featured article status. Well done for all your work there! Sabre (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sabre, happy to do it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Nice job with the Joker's article! Good luck through the GA process and keep up the excellent work. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it's been a long time coming so hope it goes well too! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

FAC

Hey Darkwarriorblake. I just wanted to see if you would be willing to take a look at this FAC. I contact you because you have reviewed some of my previous FACs and I would value your input on this one. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 22:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look asap. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarity on Dishonored

While I agree with you that my edit was slightly awkward sounding, the current sentence is unclear because the uninitiated reader may not know that the Loyalists are the resistance group fighting to reclaim Dunwall. The current sentence, "Corvo is aided in his quest by the Loyalists, a resistance group fighting to reclaim Dunwall, and the Outsider", runs the risk of confusing readers of whether the comma is a serial comma or sets off an appositive. It may sound right to you because you're familiar with the subject matter, but not everyone can instinctively determine this. Either the appositive needs to be set off with different punctuation, such as dashes (which the original version of the sentence had before you changed them to commas), or some other means should be used to prevent this ambiguity. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Wachowskis

You know, I'm sympathetic to our mutual friend's concerns, but they're looking at a huge uphill battle if they really want to push this, and the edit-warring's obviously not a help. Hopefully they've realized that pushing their edits isn't helping their case. DonIago (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

X-Men Days of Future Past - content review

Hi, I noticed you reviewed The Wolverine film article and I want to ask you if its okay to post fan reactions? Someone posted this on the X-Men: Days of Future Past article:

"To further promote the film, Jackman made a guest appearance on the April 28, 2014 episode of WWE Raw. During the segment, Jackman made amends with Dolph Ziggler, whom he had punched on a prior episode three years ago to promote Real Steel. They were then interrupted by Damien Sandow, who was dressed as Magneto. Sandow pretended to have magnetic powers by attempting to manipulate Jackman's microphone; Jackman played on with the act until he threw the microphone at Sandow and gave him a hip toss before he and Ziggler celebrated. The segment received mixed reactions from WWE fans via Twitter."

I don't know really where to ask this, hopefully you could give me an answer about posting fan reactions in Wikipedia articles. Thanks!--SuperHotWiki (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Hotwiki, you could mention such a thing happened but I think the detailed description is unnecessary, including the reference to wrestler names and Real Steel, and Twitter fan reactions are not notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! --SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

In case you missed it

See this Every time you continue to be a WP:DICK Im going wait even longer. Werieth (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You will replace the archives Werieth. And you will be reminded of the need to do so every day. The faster you just do what you should have done originally in doing something noone wanted, the faster we part ways. And quite frankly I am being generous with you, at the moment I'm only asking to you to fix the damage you did on the Batman article, that's ignoring the mess you created on The Joker. I would take the compromise and get on with it. And I would do it fast, considering you've already created ONE dead link, if others die I will end up having to remind you even more frequently about getting it done.DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 20:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ill just make a note here, the next time you post on my talk page I will take this to ANI requesting you be topic banned or blocked if you persist. Your not asking, your demanding, making personal attacks and slandering my name. Until you can keep a civil tongue and behave in an acceptable manner Im just going to ignore you and let you throw your tantrum. Once you get it through your head that that type of abusive, non-collegial behavior is counter productive, Ill go ahead and resume working with you. Until you come to to your senses good bye. Werieth (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Good luck getting me banned for providing you with references you need to archive. I've done the work FOR you to fix a problem YOU created. Just fix the archive links, you did it, take responsibility for instead of acting like a child, deleting valid warnings and acting like you are not the instigator of the situation. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 20:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Warning

This edit is WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, displays obvious signs of WP:OWNership and is grossly uncivil - removing links blacklisted for spamming is not "vandalism" and it is not appropriate to represent it as such, or to edit-war the same spam links back in.

If you do this again, you may be blocked form editing. Guy (Help!) 13:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Revised, I see you did not reinsert the archive.is links, your statement indicated that this is a risk. Please don't. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing archives is vandalism. I'm not interested nor do I require your interpretation of such, if it negatively impacts the article it is vandalism and Werieth would be better suited fixing his mistake than having white knights coming to rescue him. And how is telling someone to fix their vandalism an example of OWN? I provided him with the links that needed archiving, I did half his job for him, try correcting his behavior instead of wasting the time of someone proven to make articles better. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 19:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Read the definition of what vandalism is. Enforcing the results of an RfC isnt vandalism. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Review for me

Hey Dark. If you have the time, could you look at reviewing List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films over at its FLC? Would really appreciate it. (And I'll be sure to get to Joker to review it.) - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 14:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I will try to take a look. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 19:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joker (comics)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joker (comics) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Godzilladude123 -- Godzilladude123 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your signature

Note: I have closed the discussion as:

“ Having read the policies, and and discussion below, it is abundantly clear that User_talk:Darkwarriorblake is clearly violating WP:SIG and WP:CANVASS. Further signing of anything on Wikipedia using this or a similar signature will result in an indefinite block for WP:DISRUPT until the signature is changed ”

the panda ₯’ 22:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you leave comments like this on my page again while blatantly ignoring the fact that I've addressed how the signature does not fail CANVAS, I will be forced to report you to the necessary bodies. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase your own comment, just because you claim it doesn't violate WP:SIG and WP:CANVASS does not mean it doesn't. Consensus and proof was very clear on AN. You were appropriately warned to change the sig the panda ₯’ 22:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't 'claim' anything, I pointed out line by line, how CANVAS did not oppose my signature. Those few editors claiming it did while not presenting any evidence (they simply stated it violated CANVAS, they did not explain how it did) are wrong, and I pointed out exactly how they were wrong. YOu chose not to address any of the points I made and decided to act like a jack-booted thug instead. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

But your clear instructions were to close the thread. It was closed as per wP:CONSENSUS AND policy. You've already slipped to Nazi references? That was quick the panda ₯’ 23:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you being deliberate? THere was no consensus, not even a handful of editors citing a guideline that did not support what they were saying. When your actions are designed to both bully the innocent user and ignore the "law", are you just a regular old Police man? DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 23:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violation of restriction as per consensus on WP:AN which you were fully aware of. 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.   the panda ₯’ 22:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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:

Any admin other than DangerousPanda please. Per this discussion, I have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt how WP:CANVAS does not prevent or argue against my signature. Immediately after I made those points, DangerousPanda locked the discussion, ignored the points made and has now blocked me for violating no rule, the signature does not fail the CANVAS guidelines, I implore any admin to please read the comments made and WP:CANVAS and see that this is the case as DangerousPanda has chosen to abuse his power instead of acknowledge WP:CANVAS did not support the argument. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Signature changed, unblocked as noted below. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If your signature is causing so much annoyance, why not change it anyway? What's the big deal? It's clearly not working - nobody's reviewing the article, no matter how hard you spam for attention. Why not change tactics? Bencherlite^Talk 23:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is worth fighting for since it is not in violation of any policy, to simply give up now is to set a precedent that the rules don't have to be followed. Is there a reason you feel your involvement is necessary? I've not spammed anything, since the link has been there I've made [[1]] talk page edits, most of htem are to my own page or Werieth, take your smart ass comments elsewhere. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 23:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Is there a reason you feel your involvement is necessary?" Yes, I'm an independent admin looking at your unblock request. But calling my comments "smart ass" is a really great way to make sure that I'm not going to be the one unblocking you. So I suggest that you just turn off your computer, calm down, come back tomorrow without the attitude or the spammy signature and all will be well. Bencherlite^Talk 23:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem incredibly independent given that you labelled my signature "spammy" when it isn't, when I've pointed out both on this page and the original discussion page, item by item, how the signature is completely ok under WP:CANVAS. It's only aim is to encourage discussion, it is not spam and to call it such betrays your lack of impartiality, and reveals you haven't read the comments I have made or have chosen to ignore them simply because you prefer to violate the rules set out and enforce rules that do not exist. So I won't miss your participation. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 23:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The other option available is that I or another administrator default fail the GA nomination, then delete and salt the nomination page for a period of, say, 3 months, to completely render your signature pointless. Nick (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And what would your reason be for that Nick, given I have neither canvassed nor influenced the process regarding it? DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 23:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Policy and consensus says you're canvassing. That is sufficient to refuse your GA review. Your username is Darkwarriorblake not DWB, which is another registered (though abandoned) account and it's confusing (for me, and I'm an admin) to be looking at a signature and having to figure out what account it actually applies to, so think how it is for new and less experienced users. The most important thing here is that many users think you're canvassing, and it's disrespectful to ignore them and treat them they way you are doing. Nick (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I was not as concerned about the DWB ... after all, my sig said my initials "BMW" for the longest time. It's canvassing and the rest of the elements of WP:SIG that the WP:CONSENSUS at AN was about. DWB, you know well enough after all your time here that Consensus trumps pretty much everything, especially the WP:TRUTH. Sig's aren't supposed to link to guestbooks, jokes, etc ... canvassing or advertising anything isn't supposed to happen either, so said consensus the panda ₯’ 23:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

PER WP:CANVAS

• "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."
  • The links are neutral and non-partisan, designed only to encourage greater and more meaningful discussion on otherwise low-traffic nominations. This improves the process.

• "However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior."
  • The links cannot influence the outcome, nor are they posted anywhere they could. Hell, most of my signatures are on Werieth's talk page, someone I was having a dispute with. I do not post often in terms of discussion except on my own talk page so it's a joke to say I was canvassing.

• "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them."
  • Notices are not sent to users who did not ask for them, they are not pointed to the signature, and messages are not made purely to leave a signature in a location.

• "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. "
  • Signature is polite, neutrally worded, clear in presentation, and brief. It is transparent, open, neutral, non-partisan and not mass posted.

• The following behaviors are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive):

• Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.[1]
• Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
• Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
• Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)

Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.

• • The link is not spammed, there is no campaigning, no vote stacking and no stealth canvassing.

• The links do not violate WP:CANVAS, per WP:CANVAS
• Nick, my signature does identify me, it has my name and a link to this page directly in it so I don't know what signature you are looking at but it isn't mine, it's the first part of the signature.
• Per the existing policy and the fact my signature does in fact both identify me and lead users here to talk to me, I can neither be blocked for violating WP:CANVAS (which I haven't) nor the signature thing which Nick thinks is going it, (which it isn't), and so I request to be unblocked.
• Nick, you have no grounds to stop the Joker GA nomination, nothing I have done has tainted the process. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)}}

Wikipedia needs collaboration not conflict and the fact that some editors find the signature undesirable should be sufficient reason to change it. I am another who does not want to see a puzzle at the end of a comment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• As everyone has mentioned: your signature is not appropriate. While you may not have intended to be canvassing or spamming, the fact that your signature now creates links to the article from 100+ pages that it shouldn't has had that effect, and your continued WP:WIKILAWYERING that it's appropriate despite being told, repeatedly, it isn't, combined with your alleging bad faith on the part of the blocking admin and referring to other editors as smartasses merely makes it more likely for you not to be unblocked. I'd strongly suggest you drop the stick, change your signature to reflect your actual username and talk page link as Nick (and everyone else) suggests, and move on, before "on hold" gets changed to "declined" because you refuse to follow the consensus of a collaborative project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Wait a second. Blake, that nomination is really worth all the trouble? If it's going to be reviewed, it's going to be reviewed. Adding that to your signature really has the opposite effect: less people will be interested in reviewing it. The standard practice has always been to ask someone in their talk page for a review. I've always admired the good job you do on Wikipedia, and I certainly believe that there's no need for you to do this. → Call me Hahc21 03:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I believe I see both sides of the argument, even if I'm not experienced with the art of article nomination: Darkwarriorblake seems to be annoyed by how long it takes to get an article to top status, and everyone else sees the signature as a little too "in-your-face". Meanwhile, admins are not getting any brownie points for making a judgment call against an editor's favor. WP:SIGNATURE has always been open to interpretation, with key points being accessibility and recognizable keyboard strokes.

As for canvassing...it could go either way. It depends on how it's used. It looks spammy at the moment, but only because of its obnoxious length. DWB probably just wants increased visibility so the GA review is over more quickly, and a non-intrusive link is within policy.
Idea: Similar to the addition of editor review links in sigs, such as

Example (talk • review me)

maybe he could do something short and sweet like

DWB (talk · ) or DWB (talk · The Joker)

which has iconography or hover-text that doesn't flood over to the next line. I could live with those. Just food for thought. Meteor sandwich yum (talk • contribs) 06:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this would be acceptable either. It's clear that many editors feel that any linking to a specific discussion (including stuff like article reviews, xFDs etc) in your signature, particularly when you are a regular editor and therefore signing a lot likely funs afoul of the canvassing guidelines (and also WP:Sig). It's probably true that the excessively long signature is what drew editors attention to the issue in the first place, but now that this has happened and editors are thinking of it, I'm not sure even a shorter signature which appears to violate both guidelines will be accepted. I'm actually wondering if we should just close the GA review. Not so much because it may have been tainted, but because their responses here make me wonder if the article needs a far more extensive review than would be the norm for GA review. (At the very least, I hope DWB understands that their responses here and to a lesser extent in the AN thread have probably harderded people against turning a blind eye to canvassing via your signature.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Darkwarriorblake You want an explicit guideline? WP:SIG#DL says It is better to put information on your user page rather than in your signature. Brief additional internal links are generally tolerated when used to facilitate communication or to provide general information, but undesirable if seen as canvassing for some purpose. This is the primary weapon that is being brandished against you in this argument. Frankly I concur with others to quickfail the GA you've advertised for and to have it salted for ~3 months to remove it from your disruption. I encountered your signature in the wild and the runon of text was enough to infuriate me. Hasteur (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A few years ago an admin used a signature with a similar link (in the blue text). That paragraph of WP:SIG was the same then and it appears to have been acceptable; the signature was used for two months and I can't see a block or warning issued for it. Maybe combined with the length it could be disruptive, so something shorter would be acceptable, but not the symbol as a signature containing an image would violate policy. Peter James (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Consensus Can Change Wikipedia 5 years ago was vastly different than Wikipedia of now. Hasteur (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The weapon being brandished against me is... a guideline which backs up what I am doing? Good going Hasteur, if only you'd been involved in the Administrator Noticeboard discussion then you'd have had my back by parroting policies which justify exactly what my signature is doing. However I struggle to care about anything you have to say, given your response to a signature link is "Warble, warble, we need to block the article you've spent 9 months overhauling from being elevated for the betterment of all Wikipedia because 11 words in a row infuriate me". You can feel free to never comment here again, as we have nothing to say to each other. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not an administrator nor am I even much of a regular editor, but I do like to read the discussions and see what's going on. It took me over ten minutes to make my way to this talk page because I was so completely confused by Darkwarriorblake's signature. At first I couldn't understand how he had the username of an article (referring to The Joker) and then I had no idea why DWB didn't link to anything. When I went to User:DWB I noticed it was certainly not the right person. From a non-admin perspective it appears to me that Darkwarriorblake is being intentionally difficult and trying to obfuscate his account information. New England Cop (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Soooo you typed DWB into the address bar instead of clicking the link? You were confused that a user could be named after a popular character? Wolverine132 is gonna feel that burn. It took you ten minutes to navigate the single link at the immediate start of the signature to get to the talk page? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• There, signature changed. Never mind WP: WER, there's a user to be bullied into compliance with views out of step with existing policy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There, unblocked. Can we please avoid this again? I don't really care about the signature either way, but making a mountain out of a molehill is not good either. I believe in the collaborative spirit of this project, and I'm sure somebody will come and review your article. Or, if GAN is that broke, take it directly to FAC instead. → Call me Hahc21 23:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A belated thank you to DangerousPanda, Bencherlite, The Bushranger, et al. Your blithe misinterpretation of the stated rules and guidelines, and enforcement thereof has helped to ensure that The Joker remains unreviewed as a good article! Congrats on helping to improve Wikipedia by quashing positive referrals and involvement in such reviews, and promoting disinterest from long time users! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations for screwing it up so badly. It's unfortunate you didn't change the sig when the rules were clearly laid out to you. We certainly could have used this review. However, your arrogant behaviour and personal misinterpretation - which clearly continues - screwed it up for everyone. Again, congratulations! We need more people like that! the panda ₯’ 22:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering the signature worked throughout the FA for Dishonored, I feel you are somehow misinterpreting your mistaken beliefs as fact, when I have evidence that such a signature neither diminished the quality of Dishonored's FA review, nor hindered it. Yet you appear to be of the stance that the signature somehow magically drove prospective reviewers away from an even more popular topic. The Joker article, as it is, is the result of my hard work, your only involvement has been to help make sure it has fewer eyeballs on it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Which part specifically?

Which part of overlinking do you have an issue with? I don't think it's an everyday word. It's not geographical. It's not a unit of measurement. It's not a date. --Onorem (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"everyday words understood by most readers in context;" The context for the device is given in the plot, no further insight is provided by the link provided

"In particular, unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article"

"Do not create links in order to highlight or draw attention to certain words or ideas in an article. Links should be used to help clarify the meaning of linked words, not to place emphasis on the words." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. Have a good day. --Onorem (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

WP Film in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Film for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)