User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Scream FAC[edit]

I can go through the Scream's refs and correct the work and publisher names, if you don't mind. —Mike Allen 22:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do because I don't know what is missing. Can you take a look at ref 9? I think this was brought up in the GAN but I can't see what is wrong with it. The guy just said it was malformed. I have to watch all of freaking Scream again with the commentary on plus the documentaries I no longer have to get timecodes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't ref 9 the IMDb one? —Mike Allen 22:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It's a DVD reference "es Craven (Director). (December 20, 1996). Scream (film)- Commentary by Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson. [DVD]. United States: Dimension Films." but it uses an IMDB url.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
In IE9 and Google Chrome the ref displayed the IMDb URL at the bottom of the ref. I don't know, it does that sometimes when you copy and paste a title, so deleting the title in the ref and writing it manually fixes it. I don't know what causes that.. 23:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok, I saw the url but didn't realize it was abnormal. Thanks Mike.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Now I just need to somehow prove musicfromthemovies is reliable or find a new source that makes about 3 different points. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
How are you meant to do references from video with time stamps? The guy said I had to do time-references which is going to be a huge pain in the ass with the commentary. Are you just meant to keep duplicating the same references but with a different timestamp? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"Are you just meant to keep duplicating the same references but with a different timestamp?" -- Yes. :-\ —Mike Allen 00:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought - would it be possible to handle the videos as you would books, and use shortened citations for specific timestamps with the full video cited and referred to? Just treat it like you would with different page references to a book, only instead of "Shakespeare, pp.114–122", it could be "Director's commentary, 1h12m". Might be a bit fiddly to write up manually but it would look a lot cleaner. GRAPPLE X 00:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

What would the code for that be? </ref/> Scream (film) - Commentary by Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson, time.1:14:25</ref/> ? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - though you could shorten it to "Craven; Williamson, 1:14:25", and link it to the citation further down the page by means of a manual anchor in the full citation, though that is quite a bit of work. User:Belovedfreak did a lot of manual anchoring in Beyond the Sea (The X-Files) if you want to see what I mean, though that level of detail is above and beyond what's needed really. Plain text would work just as well, provided it was clear enough as to what you were referring to each time. It would reduce a lot of clutter and repetition as you would only need the full details for the video once. GRAPPLE X 11:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And again, I do sincerely compliment you[edit]

...on your very careful edit at The Dark Knight Rises. We may have had a minor difference of opinion, that I think worked out alright, but I want you to know how much I respect your work here. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
And again: Very astute edits just now at Captain America: The First Avenger. After some of what I've seen elsewhere with others contributors, it is very reassuring to see an editor like you.
I was reading below about some of the frustrating difficulties with Wikipedia, which I have encountered myself. Just know that at WikiProject Comics, where I spend most of my time, I'm happy to say I could name at least eight or nine good, solid responsible editors, including yourself. I find that very hopeful. With further regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. The WikiProject Film guys are good but you tend to see the same handful of editors doing fixes on films. Such a small amount of people considering the thousands htat must use this site is underwhelming. Plus your work never ends. I made a suggestions here about locking articles when they reach a certain threshold such as Good Article and Featured Article to help take some of the load off editors because at the end of the day, there a re a lot more people who want to mess stuff up than there are maintaining it and eventually the ones maintaining it will get fed up and leave.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Spidey sequel[edit]

Generally, when we already have an existing film series page any talk about a sequel goes there because it's a reflection of the success of the series (though, technically, the success of the preceding film directly relates to the green light of a new sequel). For example, we don't talk about Quantum of Solace being a sequel to Casino Royale on the CR page, because even though that's a reboot and it is a direct sequel to that film, it's part of a larger series of films based on the character. It's just more appropriate to cover it on a film series/franchise article because when you start covering early development it's going to bog down the preceding film's page with information about a completely new film, whereas it won't do that on the film series page because the page is meant to house info on multiple films.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:EddieBrock-Bonding-and-First-Appearance.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:EddieBrock-Bonding-and-First-Appearance.jpg. 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) 17:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted Captain America edits[edit]

I wouldn't know how to source that information, there's pictures on the Framestore website of the Two-Face work. Dneg wise we didnt generally have alot of that kind of info on the site or anywhere else. There are sources but they're in magazines mainly. I know all this because I worked on it, my name's in the credits but thanks anyway for removing information

August 2011[edit]

It's not my fault you haven't been keeping up with production from the start. And you cannot use the movie website as a source. Sorry. CloudKade11 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Err, unless you have a source to back those names up, they don't stay. It doesn't matter how long you've followed the production. Also do not remove official warnings from your page, they're given for a reason and so other users can see quite clearly when you have been disruptive.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been an ongoing revert fest for months. People still believe IMDb is the number one reliable source for films. I fucking just gave up. Tired of it wasting my bandwidth with that article. —Mike Allen 23:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
A user at The Dark Knight Rises brought up a lack of editors because users were leaving, claiming it is because users were demanding evidence that Anne Hathaway is Catwoman. I was tempted to go on a tirade that people are leaving because your hard work can be undone in 3 seconds by some bored douche. But I decided against it. It's like I've worked for ages to get Scream to wher eit is but I can go away for two weeks and it will be screwed and you then have to cycle through a few dozen edits to check that one of them wasn't useful. It's not worth the hassle most of the time.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes I ask "why am I here". The more I look around Wikipedia the more I come to realize why people say don't trust Wikipedia. —Mike Allen 05:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a respectable goal but Wikipedia fails to take into account the fact that the majority of people are asses with too much time on their hands who find changing single figures in sneaky edits somehow fulfilling. For a start, anything that reaches GA or above status should just be locked to anyone who hasn't passed autoconfirmed status. Hell, even further than that to show you've understood the basic principles. It's like having a job when you have to pick apart edits because someone did something stupid that can't be undone then someone didn't undo that but added something useful, then something douchey again. It's nice to get a good article going since people around the world will come to it for info but when you're fighting an endless war against bored people...It's like Sisyphus pushing the rock up a hill. Except his eternal punishment is to push revert only to have his revert reverted. FOR ETERNITY! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remediesMike Allen 10:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I added my 2 cents. I'm sure there are other things that can be done but its just bad users that seem to be bringing it down for me. the problem is you see a Blue name and just think "established" user, until you check their profile and see a horde of warnings or 3RR arguments.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I'm unlisting Final Destination 5, CloudKade can fucking do what they want to it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I should have kept my word and unlisted it too. Now I have been spoiled by reading the twist. Shit who knew the series would add a Saw-like twist in its fifth installment. Sigh. —Mike Allen 05:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
OMG Death was playing dead in the room the whole time? Thanks for spoiling it Mike! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
No, more like a Saw IV twist. :P —Mike Allen 06:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't even remember what happened after Saw III, they all just got so bad and every film somehow takes place before, during and after every other film. I've not watched an FD since....2 I think so I might just go read the twist. Unlikely I will get to see it in Cinemas.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dark of the Moon[edit]

I complement you for your hard work on for the article Transformers: Dark of the Moon. You've managed to keep watch for all vandalisms (especially for the Critical Reception area) and you've rewritten the plot with short but concise details. I've actually been reverted a few times by you, but I've come to realize that my edits that have been reverted by you are for the better, and it would be very un-encyclopedic if my edits were still saved. Thank you for your hard work for the other films you've monitored also. Fanaction2031 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If I've been abrupt with my you in my edits it's only because I get a little fed up doing the same thing across several articles and eventually I just end up reverting without bothering to explain what is wrong, undoing minor things like the critical reception that people change because they like a film. You've done a good job building up the article, I know it takes a lot of effort to find all that information.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution[edit]

I've added your talk-page post to the main page. Thanks and come back helping us. Blackvisionit (talk) 11:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Eddie Brock[edit]

Aside from the two or so instances in which he was present but unseen (as when he pushed Peter onto a subway platform), those were her first full appearances. He described in flashback in #300 how he turned to weightlifting after he was disgraced, so it would be appropriate to say that he had the strength of a weightlifter prior to joining with the Symbiote, since in his earliest appearances, he was already Venom. Nightscream (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall Peter recognizing him at all, but it was explained after the fact (a continuity or story insertion, if you will) that Brock was a Daily Globe reporter who was reporting on the Sin-Eater case during Peter David's "The Death of Jean DeWolff" storyline that ran in Spectacular Spider-Man #107 – #110. During the course of that storyline, Emil Gregg, a mentally disturbed young man who lived next door to the real Sin-Eater, Sergeant Stan Carter overheard Carter's voice as Carter recorded a taped diary of his Sin-Eater activities, and these "voices" convinced Gregg that he was the Sin-Eater. Brock later reveals in Amazing that he was the reporter who wrote the exposé of Gregg's public confession, so when it was eventually found out that it was Carter, and that Gregg was a compulsive confessor, Brock was disgraced. But all of this wasn't revealed until Amazing, so it took place "off camera" during the Sin-Eater storyline. Much of this is detailed in The Death of Jean DeWolff article. Nightscream (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Venom Page[edit]

I put back in the parts of your edit that do not conflict with the article content and the talk page consensus regarding what you edited. If you would like to do something other than the consensus, I do not have the authority to allow you to do so, so you'll have to use the Venom talk page, not mine. --Darktower 12345 05:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Transformers Dark of the Moon[edit]

I agree. All my good articles were reviewed by experienced editors, but it looks like this guy joined for the sole purpose of passing it. He didn't even make any comments in the review. Bullshit. I can skim through that article and find a dozen grammatical errors right off the bat. --Boycool (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


Would you mind if you can re-write the film plot for Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King? The other two LOTR films also need rewriting but I don't want to put you under too much stress and work. Or you can choose any LOTR film. I'll try to re-write some of the plots too. Fanaction2031 (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I don't particularly remember what happened in those films but I'l try to trim out anything that doesn't seem important. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Planet of the Symbiotes[edit]

So we probably got off on the wrong foot a little, but I had to put that aside when I saw you made a page for Planet of the Symbiotes! It's one of my all-time favorite miniseries! --Darktower 12345 18:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of miniseries missing pages here for some reason. I'm currently trying to do this: User:Darkwarriorblake/Venom (comic book series) for the Venom series of comic books, its been going on and off for like 2 decades so I think it deserves an article but I'm not really sure how to go about writing about a comic book series.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Though having just read all the Venom comics, its probably for the best that I was introduced to him through the TV show. A lot of his stories were awful. Every other word out of his mouth is about how much he hates Spider-Man. And he has a mullet for some reason. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sllllurpppp, I'm gonna eat your brain Spider-Man!" (Paraphrasing, but wouldn't be surprised if it was word for word somewhere, hahaha.) --Darktower 12345 18:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes generally it's "It's Spider-Mans fault", "eat your brain", "suck your marrow" or "eat your bones". He's really a bad character in these early comics, I've never read them before, know all his stuff from games and TV which handled him a lot better. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cheesy as is was, it was a breath of fresh air back then to have a villain out to rip off his limbs and eat them when compared to those out to "foil" Spider-Man. I think the raw violent intent contributed a lot to all the spin-offs, even though they were mostly half-hearted. I guess it depends on the reader. --Darktower 12345 21:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It might not have been as bad back then because you read it monthly so you had 4 weeks break between reading about him. I read them one after another so hearing the brain speech time after time after time was a lot worse. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Heres to Darkwarriorblake and his tireless work for Transformers: Dark of the Moon! Thanks for keeping the article in great shape, and overpowering the vandalism! Also to your tireless work on the plots for The Lord of the Rings film trilogy! Great stuff. Cheers! Fanaction2031 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Aww thanks Fanaction, not had one of those in a while Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


Blake, I saw an article about CinemaScore today and recalled the discussion that you started at WT:FILM. Check out the article here! Hope you're well. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. I still question the validity of the system they use and how they gain the results. A studio WANTS user feedback for marketing purposes but to me, it just seems like real-world IMDb with a scoring system that is widely open to interpretation and misuse. No kid is going to rate that Justin Bieber thing low for instance, even if it is crap they will love it and rate it an A. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is a matter of whether or not the film is crap. The results are from people who decided to go on opening weekend for whatever reason (fandom or love of the star), and the grade reflects if the film met their expectations or exceeded them or fell below them. Since they're the first wave of the word-of-mouth trend, the grade reliably indicates how the film will do at the box office in ensuing weeks. So sometimes audiences and critics are in agreement, sometimes they are not—particularly with fan bases. Twilight: New Moon got an "A-" grade where RT and MC reported bad scores from critics. It's just another measurement to use to reflect the populist judgment of the film, since one has to be pretty familiar with changes in box office figures to understand potential trends. I think it's much better than IMDb, which can be horribly hijacked, both on purpose and incidentally by a consistent Internet demographic. The grade is from people who have actually spent money to see the movie, which helps tremendously. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough you do have to actually SEE the film to rate it unlike online where you can just skew away. As pointed out however, it doesn't guarantee what way the wind will blow. If 5 people see a film on an opening weekend (unlikely obviously) but all rate teh film A+ (how you decide what is an A+ and A- I dunno), then it will be a highly marked film with no money. If they're placing so much emphasis on it I don't see a problem using it as long as it is made clear that it is audience opinion. EDIT And this allows us to retain the distinction necessary to stop people including IMDb scores. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Huge request[edit]

I've been asking others, (Boycool, Igor, regular editors of the Dark of the Moon article etc) to help me reach the article to an FA status, and I'll also need your help, Darkwarriorblake. Since I've recently nominated it, and it was opposed to death, I'm going to really push the article to it's limits and make it an FA with others helping me, improving the prose, information, and the overall style of the article. If you do help me, I promise I will do something in return, such as helping your article, Scream, reach it's FA status, as I've seen the old nomination of the article. Cheers! Fanaction2031 (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


Why was this removed? The only thing in common with the source material is the name. The setting, characters, literally nothing from the original work is shared with the film. (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Planet of the Symbiotes references[edit]

"EVERY other article eh? I'm afraid I'll need a citation for that."

How about the featured article Superman or the good article Spider-Man? They have the references how I had them, and so do all of the other comic book articles I have edited. I would actually ask you to show me an article (of good or featured quality) that does not have its references like I did.

"Your method disallows repeat ref usage"

That is true and that was my mistake. That problem has been corrected.

"makes it difficult to edit and read while editing for a second"

It is a little harder to read while editing, but you get used to after a while and then it is a non-issue. It actually makes it a lot easier to edit because then the reference is with the sentences it refers to.

"Don't undo it again Spidey or I'll be forced to give a warning"

A warning for what? Correcting your mistake? Spidey104 18:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That it takes more effort and people don't always do it doesn't make it a standard. Otherwise my method wouldn't work, in fact the several places I've done it, someone would've undone it, such as with Fast Five. When you have an article, especially repeat references, searching through paragraphs for the original is time consuming and irritating. Trust me on this as I edited the Scream film series. My version gives you a clean list where ALL the refs are and you are undoing this on a whim based on your 'experience' with good articles where the placement of references would have no bearing on its ability to pass. I'm going to undo it, again, continue and you will be getting a warning for edit warring over something that is your personal preference.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
1) Your argument for a need for repeating the citations would be acceptable if they were going to be repeated in the article. They haven't been and there is no reason to see them being repeated since the article is basically finished.
2) My version gives a clean paragraph where all of the information necessary for that paragraph are in the actual paragraph. Paragraph cohesiveness seems more important than reference cohesiveness, especially considering my first argument.
3) This does all come down to personal preference, but you can't use that argument on me without applying it to yourself. You prefer your placement.
4) You might want to check which one of us has actually broken a rule worthy of a warning. Spidey104 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The article IS essentially finished. This doesn't change anything, that was my referencing style, I wrote the article, that's how the references were done. Your changes are unnecessary, the references are neat, organized, out of the way and it is unlikely that the few there are will need changing and if they DO, you just click references instead of plot. How hard is that? Or click Edit the whole article. If it is down purely to preference then the one that was there should stay unless a cogent argument is raised for replacing it. And no argument is good enough to warrant references in any main text because it is a nightmare to read/edit and should be discouraged at all costs. I've given up on editing some articles because it is irritating to decipher parts that are body text and parts that are any number of different referencing styles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Concise paragraphs with all necessary information, including the references, is a better organization. The whole point of the {{Reflist}} template to go in the references section is so that references are in-line with the information they are about. I understand your reasoning, but don't think it is as strong/good. That said, I think you sort of agreed with me that this debate really comes down to personal preference. To that end you argued that your way should be used because you created the article that way. That type of thinking is contrary to how Wikipedia works. Spidey104 00:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I argued merely that my method came first and unless there is a reason, there is no argument for changing that method. Your method is especially unworkable in larger articles where a single reference may be employed multiple times. Hunting down the original reference in a large body of text is difficult, altering multiple references at one time is a nightmare. The Ref Name function makes finding any source ref in my method a lot easier. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Spidey, what exactly is wrong with that referencing style? It's called list-defined references which is an accepted style to use. Which ever reference style was used first in an article, should continuously be used. Like Dark said, it does not change the output of the refs, it only makes it easier to edit prose. Also I don't think something like this is severe enough to warrant a report to AN3 as this could have been settled here. —Mike Allen 04:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
@Dark about this. Refs will still work if moved out of the reference section, however that does defeat the whole purpose of using LDR. ;-) Just wanted to clarify that. —Mike Allen 04:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yaeh Mike, I know they will still work. That's how I originally did Scream (film series) but then it became incredibly difficult to work with the text and/or references. Just becomes a little mind-boggling to separate the two while in edit mode. For me anyway. I know lots of people don't use that method because they're editing one section and adding the ref means editing more but its just come to be what I prefer doing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Also allowed me to group refs under comment headers, so I could group reception references, casting references, and so forth. I much, much prefer doing it that way.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Mike, thank you for providing the mediation I asked for. I was unaware of the convention to use whichever reference style was first in place. Dwb, I apologize for accusing you of claiming ownership of this article. It seemed that way to me because of being unaware of that convention Mike brought up. (I also didn't know about list-defined references because I have never seen them before this discussion.)
I also should have been more implicit in my request for other articles that used that style rather than only implying the types of articles I was asking about. Do you have any examples of articles that use that style in the Comic Book WikiProject which are not created and/or heavily edited by you? Spidey104 13:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't even know where to begin looking. The only comic articles I'm actively involved in are Eddie Brock, Venom (comics) and Symbiote (comics) and I'm not hugely involved in the latter 2. The majority of people use in-line references, I assume because they don't know about list-references and because it can seem easier to just copy a link and paste. It only being a problem for future editors who need to copy edit or improve work. I can't remember who taught it me, may have been MikeAllen or I might have just seen it while exploring other film articles because I used to just use in-line references as well. In fact I may have got it from Scream 4 which MikeAllen worked on. For comics I wouldn't really know, I just checked the few that have made it to GA and FA but none used it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Just curious. Thanks. Spidey104 14:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
As a film example, I'm currently trying to improve Bunraku (film) and I can't find what I need to edit because I'm wading through in-line refs so I'm having to CTRL+F things to make the process faster.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at the 3RR board[edit]

Hello Darkwarriorblake. Please see WP:AN3#User:Darkwarriorblake reported by User:Spidey104 (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see the result of Wikipedia:EWN#User:Darkwarriorblake reported by User:Spidey104 (Result: No action). Try to find a compromise or find a way to bring in outsiders to give their opinions. WP:Third opinion is a possibility. A continued 2-person war over the references might lead to both parties being blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The fabulous editors of GLOW[edit]

Little wrestling joke there....

I did not know about the change for the DVD. Thanks for the head's up — I'll see if I can find some press mention of it somewhere. And you are exactly right: For posterity and historical accuracy, the original theatrical version — which like those of any other film changed for TV, video, etc. — always exists in some vault somewhere. (Movies that aren't "lost," like many silent films, etc., of course.)

I did pick up Iron Man 2 on DVD, so I've got that for reference if anyone needs.

And as someone who appreciate good grammar and clear language, may I just compliment you on "going off the dvd." It makes me cringe whenever I hear someone saying "going off of [this or that]." Thanks for holding the line! --Tenebrae (talk)

Dude, you're good. And yep, that confirms in my mind a change was made for the DVD. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You have to wonder where the YouTube uploader got a copy of the movie before it came to DVD and shortly after it was playing theatrically. Barring a pirated copy of the movie itself, it might be a pirated copy of the DVD production work.
You're a dedicated editor. We both are, but I just want to say, given all this extraordinary extra effort you're giving, y'know ... kudos. We may not be volunteering to rebuild Haiti, but we're giving a lot of time to building a free, worldwide encyclopedia, and I'm pretty proud of that.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
One of us might be; it's doubtful both of us would be. I would say that since the blue glow is not such a pertinent detail that its meaning would be changed if it were just called "a mysterious object" that the safest, most conservative choice, without any doubt built-in, is to just call it "a mysterious object." It's accurate, and a description no could could disagree with as being inaccurate or misleading. My two cents, for what it's worth. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Blake. I put together an advisory page based on my experience researching film. Check it out here and let me know what you think! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Plot re-write[edit]

I know you enjoy trimming plots down, so i'd like to direct your attention to the film My Fellow Americans. I've done some trimming myself, so if you'd like to take a look. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:09 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly enjoy it, but it needs doing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing about fiction[edit]

Isn't the following the correct way to write fiction here (underlined is what is changed from past-tense to present-tense):

Brent and Tara Abbott

<removed "Status">

Brent and Tara are the teenage son and widow of a man named Harold Abbott whose health insurance policy is revoked by William Easton on a technicality, contributing to his death. They are captured and placed in one of two cages at the abandoned Rowan Zoological Institute[1] at the end of William's series of tests, with Pamela Jenkins in the other. Once William reaches the end, Tara and Brent are given the choice of sparing his life or ending it. Despite expressing anger for her husband's death, Tara listens to the pleas for mercy from both William and Pamela, but cannot bring herself to kill William. However, Brent can not forgive him and triggers the device himself, causing a group of needles to swing down into William's back and inject him with hydrofluoric acid. Pamela, Tara, and Brent watches in horror as he dissolves from the inside out.

I notched that is what you did for the List of Scream characters and what I believe is the correct way per the in-universe manual of style guideline. But the Saw characters page does not follow that at all. I'm going to re-write it (or change the words).. but I can imagine fans will not be happy to see their precious "Status: Dead or Alive!" removed. :-D —Mike Allen 02:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're meant to write in present tense so the changes you've made seem right. EDIT I never believed in the "status" thing because it seems very fan article and I don't see how it benefits a casual reader at all so tough nuts to them if they don't like it. EDIT MORE You missed one word, "Pamela, Tara, and Brent watch in horror"Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks that's what I thought. Sigh this is going to be tedious to change the tense for this whole article -- but I do have a lot already saved in notepad that I did. Did you see that I redid the Saw, Saw II, Saw III pages. I'm not to worried about Saw IV, Saw V at the moment.. ;) I am now starting to work on the Saw franchise article, using Scream and Friday the 13th franchise articles as a guide. Although I did do something different for the box office section (and probably will the critical reception), see here. Erik was able to get me a good offline source for the franchise also.—Mike Allen 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I wouldn't bother with any of the films beyond III either, can't believe how bad that series got after the first three. Don't know who thought it was a good idea to kill off your main character and then continue but they needed firing. There are lots of good film articles that seem underdeveloped for their stature, like Scream (film) was before I started, and Ghostbusters.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
And if you've already started rewriting the list I'll leave it alone, rather thando it and then you have to redo it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Um where did the last names of the Fatal Five people in Saw V come from? I don't remember their last names every being said. —Mike Allen 06:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No clue but if Scream has taught me anything, people like to come up with fake names for characters. I don't have a copy of the film on hand to check fo you but I will look into it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

OK found them, at 71 minutes 20 seconds it shows a wall with the victims on it and paper underneath with their names but unless you have a HD source its not really clear what those names are. I can make out Ashley Kazon and that Mallick is the first name as it is written Mallick Something, unless for some reason they wrote only his backwards. I don't know if someone DID pull the names from a HD source but I cannot make out Brit's last name, looks to me like Stevenson so that clashes with Steddison. I will try to find a HD source but I'm not sure I'll be able to for this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Got the names, Charles Salomon, Brit Stevenson, Ashley Kazon, Scott Mallick (It's written as Mallick, Scott on the document) and Luba Gibbs. No I will not download the 1080p version to read their driving licenses. Thing is like 11GB big. Also here is a pic for you, not sure if you could source it or not but it will help you prove it if anyone tries to change it back. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Ahh ok. Thanks. Simone's listing had the name Bethson. That name was only used in the Saw 3D marketing, on that website that was created (supposedly) by Lionsgate. The Jigsaw survivors wrote blogs and Simone's name was "Bethson" or something. I don't think that should count as being her name when it was never used in the movies. Just a FYI. Anyways I got the page updated. —Mike Allen 23:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
If you're committed to overhauling that article it might be worth adding notes for the names with timeframes instead of as it is now where it says "there name is indicated on a document seen by Agent Strauhm", which I think is incorrect anyway, the names are listed on folders containing the documents that Strauhm takes, you only see a few of the documents with names on. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Not right now. There's so many Saw related articles that I would like me make encyclopedic, but I'm only one person. :( I'm working on the most important first - the first film and franchise.. since those articles are the ones with the most traffic. (Note: I do see that the character page gets a few thousand views a day. That's a lot of research to get that article in good shape though....) —Mike Allen 00:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

List of Scream characters FLC[edit]

Hi. I saw you created .../Archive 2 a couple of days ago (and many thanks for what you said there), but it isn't visible at WP:FLC yet. Am I overlooking anything? Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know, I thought it was automatically listed, I might have made a mistake there. Thanks for letting me know Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Added it, duh, lol. Thought it was an automatic listing. Thanks again.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a social life[edit]

You seem to spend a lot of time on wikipeida BreakingDexter (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's called mobile Internet. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But don't you have better things to do with your life BreakingDexter (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I do what I need to when I need to. I'm a computer programmer so I can do this while I'm working when I CAN'T be doing anything else. Do you not have better things to do than waste my time? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Judging from BreakingDexter's contributions it's not just your time he or she likes wasting. Exok (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How the fuck am i wasting your time? BreakingDexter (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Friday the 13th[edit]

The posters for Part 2 and Part 5 do not actually match the way the film's titles actually appear. In the first sequel it actually says "Friday the 13th" and then "Part 2" bursts through that moniker. In "A New Beginning", "Part V" never pops up. The poster bills it as "Part V", but the actual film only shows "Friday the 13th" and then when a Jason masks bursts through that moniker "A New Beginning" appears beneath it. That is also why the articles are titled as such.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM September 2011 Newsletter[edit]

The September 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 16:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011[edit]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Captain America: The First Avenger, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. SudoGhost 19:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

I'm curious as to why you've made about 100 edits to T2, but have written nearly zero edit summaries, nor discussed your changes on the Talk page. When doing such a major overhaul, it's hard for the rest of us to follow when we can't immediately understand what you've done and why. Please leave summaries. Thanks.--TEHodson 00:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I know it is a pain monitoring Transformers Dark of the Moon as they don't leave edit summaries. I wasn't bothering because I didn't think anyone was involved with the T2 article and I stopped trusting them when I checked and people were sneaking in vandalism under claims they were doing something else. But I will try to remember to add summaries when making significant changes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


Regarding runtime for Real Steel, it is like the other infobox fields in being pieces of information that is not likely to be challenged. I understand that it happened with The Terminator 2, but for the most part, it does not get disputed. It's just an extraneous citation, and I don't want to give the impression that an inline citation is required for that particular detail. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking more long term. I've noticed with LOTR articles recently but with others, vandals like to mess with runtimes buy small amounts to leave them relatively unquestioned and in the case of this film, 10-20 years from now, like with Terminator, the runtime may be lost via extended editions and such *unlikely for this film but still* and Erik Jr. will be struggling to prove which is the true runtime. Will a ref work if you hide it inside a comment? That way the ref sticks but isn't visible. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
No, we can leave it. Like you said, it's not harmful. You have a point about vandalism, though I would think that many contemporary reviews of a film will mention the runtime. THR says 127 minutes, Variety says 126, I'm sure other reviews will have similar figures. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It's weird, though, to think how long our contributions will be around, huh? At least until Skynet resets everything. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Technically they will only be around until someone replaces them with IMDb trivia. I did make a suggestion at that (Why is everyone leaving Wiki) project that articles that reach GA or FA status should be locked from editing by unregistered and new users but I don't know what happened there, obviously that didn't happen. But it'd be nice if they hung around as the definitive source on whatever film.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It's the noble concept of anyone being able to edit. :) See this for the concept being invoked in reality. I can relate to your thought process, though. Here, I proposed annual reviews of Featured and Good Articles, though it may be that doing only FAs would be more realistic. Obviously the discussion didn't take. You want to revive it at WT:FILM? After all, there has been some cleanup of the FAs and GAs and hopefully a movement toward collaborating on new FAs. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we had a discussion along those lines in the last few months. The major issue is that we won't always be here or we aren't even here all of the day and in tha ttime, people can do a lot of negative things. Unless every Film members added every FA/GA to their watchlist, they just can't be protected. I don't know the background behind lots of Wikieditors leaving but I can't see much wrong with asking a user to register to edit a GA/FA article. I like building the articles as obviously lots of people read that work but the thought of it being a never ending slog to check and make sure it isn't being sneakily vandalized makes it seem less worthwhile. If they could make a streamlined process for checking FA/GA that would be good though. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
That's part of the reason why I would like for there to be coordinators, to make such preemptive plans. For example, there could be a "spring cleaning" day where a bot (perhaps CinemaBot) can notify WT:FILM about doing an annual review of the Featured Articles. Maybe the bot could be smart enough to pull the relevant year-apart diffs. If an article is truly final and comprehensive, there would not be much change, and differences would blatantly obvious. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
A bot that can alert the project to a significant amount of edits/changes to an FA/GA would be handy, so if a contributor no longer monitors a particular article, those edits will be flagged up for closer inspection. But yeah, a yearly inspection might not be so bad. Fight Club seems to have a lot of people monitoring so even though it passed a long time ago it is doing OK. Aliens on the other hand is (i think) GA but it looks pretty messy IMO, like things have been changed a lot since and it's impossible to tell whether or not it was for the better without fully reading both, at which point you might as well just do a full review of it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fast Five[edit]

Hi. It's good to be working with you again! Re this diff, the clarification I really wanted was the meaning of the phrase "market numbers", rather than the numbers themselves. I think it means number of countries, but am not 100% sure. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh OK, yes it means the number of markets that were being recorded at the time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Horrible Bosses GA[edit]

I thought Scream 4 was nominated for GA? Anyways, if no one gets to Horrible Bosses by this weekend, I'll try and review it. But just glancing at the references, there are some that are " (Variety)" and then some are "Los Angeles Times (Tribune Company)". Personally I prefer the second format but it appears most of the refs are in the first format, so they should all be consistent. —Mike Allen 03:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference? Going to the top of the chain for the publisher you mean? And I doubt anyone will get to it by the weekend, Fast Five, like Scream before it, has been up for like 2 months. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about Scream 4, I don't recall it being up for GA. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I mean instead of having it written:|publisher=Variety; have the work as Variety and the publisher as Reed Business Information, who actually publishes the magazine. I guess it's correct to say that the magazine Variety publishes the online site,, but all the refs should be in the format of listing the url as the work, etc. I don't know about Scream 4, I put on my userpage that it was a GA nomination, I guess I was just planning for it to be soon. Like after the DVD is released and the commentary can be listened to. —Mike Allen 21:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall it having a copy edit or anything so it probably wasn't up for GA, maybe you're confusing it with the first film? I'll work on the refs for HB. The Scream 4 article is gonna need a lot of updating anyway depending on how detailed the dvd/blu ray is because it seems like that production was mega boned. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you ever see this? LOL —Mike Allen 23:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's almost sad how badly this film got treated. I read somewhere that every Weinstien Co film bar The King's SPeech has out flopped this year and we've got Piranha 3DD to go yet which looks like it's not going to end well. When you look at what most decent films earned this year and that Scream 4 made less than 100 mill TOTAL, that is some serious mismanagement. But to lock the guy who CREATED the series (and the first is a really good film even if I think the rest were crap) out of control, you've lost touch with reality. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I was reading some interviews by Wes and there were things he wanted in the film (the opening crime scene) that Bob did not. Apparently Bob is a real dick to work with.. Btw, review is done. I think we are in different time zones. —Mike Allen 04:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm in the UK so you're at least 6 hours behind me, up to 8 I think. Made the changes to Horrible Bosses as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Horrible bosses bluray.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Horrible bosses bluray.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Han Lue?[edit]

He's referred to as Lue on IMDB. I couldn't find any for Seoul-Oh, in fact. The official document doesn't mention a given name, and nor do some other refs I checked. Hope this helps. --Stfg (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

IMDb is sadly completely unreliable. See Tower Heist's cast list that I sourced from the official website and the IMDb link for it. To save you the trouble of reading it, IMDb has Cole Howard (really Charlie), Rick Malloy (really Dev'reaux), Gertie Fiansen (really Claire Denham). I watched all of Fast: Tokyo Drift (even though I didn't want to :( ) and he is only credited as Han, I didn't notice any on-scren Lue. In Fast Five however, the main cop guy brings up their ID's on a computer; he lists Gisele Yashar (And I know that's her name as it is shown on-screen in...2 or 4 by a federal agency), and Han Seoul-Oh. It seems odd that one would be real and the other an alias, but that is the only actual confirmation I've ever been able to find for his surname, no official sites ever list him as anything but Han. If it keeps up I'm just going to remove any mention of a surname whatsoever, but at the moment, Seoul-Oh is the most legit name found that can be backed up. EDIT To be honest,looking through the films now, I'm not even sure if Leticia Ortiz is real, she's always credited as Letty and she is shown in the FBI database as Letty, Ortiz. Poeple seem to love making up fan names, they add them to the wikia for the particular subject and then people take that as gospel. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
If anyone questions it in the future, I'll give them a slap with this Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


Well, I am awaiting Arkham City, but for Arkham Asylum I'm just removing NFC that fails the criteria for inclusion. The same problem with album covers exists in film articles. I just happen to be waiting for Arkham City and ventured over to Arkham Asylum a few weeks ago and noticed the album covers. I did the same to Gears of War and Gears of War 2, which had the same issue after I was waiting to receive Gears 3.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll look over some game articles from time to time just for that reason, because I know they get flooded with images all the time. I removed the soundtrack images a few weeks ago and the guy that uploaded them put them back with the reasoning that "the FUR is updated". The FUR wasn't the problem. It was the fact that there is no critical commentary on soundtrack cover art and unless it's an article for the soundtrack we don't need the picture. I left him a message this time explaining it further, but I'm sure someone else will add them again down the road as they do to all the articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I pre-ordered mine from, so I'll hopefully have it waiting for me when I get home from work on Tuesday. I'm not monitoring the article itself. I just come back from time to time to check to see if anyone has put the images back. I wouldn't know where to begin with keeping a game article on track. They do a lot of things that seem counter-intuitive to me, at least compared to how we do things on film articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thor speculation[edit]

That sentence is speculative without a reference to support your comment of "the guy playing Selvig has confirmed what is happening in it." Spidey104 14:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not speculation, it is not a scene open for interpretation, it is clear what is happening in it. Even then, we removed what was speculation such as Loki being in direct control of Selvig, reduced to him saying a line and Selvig repeating. It is as abstract as it needs to be. Further changes will be considered vandalism.
Post this type of stuff before you revert with a poor explanation in the future. Spidey104 14:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to post this stuff if you didn't make edits with a poor explanation in the first place. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Says the guy making reversions with poor explanations and accusations of bad faith/vandalism. Spidey104 15:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Please take discussion of the article's content to the article's talk page so other editors may interject if they wish. Also please do not make accusations of vandalism it appears both Spidey104 and you are acting in good faith.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the edit war is resolved now that Dwb has provided sources to back-up his claim. Spidey104 15:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This needs to be made clear, I needed to back nothing up, what that sentence stated is what happens IN the film. YOU should back up YOUR claim that, that is not what happened. He is there, he is invisible, he says the line, Selvig repeats the line verbatim with ominous music. What did oyu take away from that? Clone? Coincidence? Time displacement portal into an alternate dimension? If that was not clear enough for you, perhaps we need a source for the rest of the plot. Not just for Thor but every film on Wikipedia. That you did not understand the ending is not my or any other editors problem. That it has passed through the hands of editor after editor after editor who has not questioned or needed to have the ending explained to them does not justify your individual stance that what happened is not what happened and so it needs backing up with a source. This is not Mulholland Drive, it is incredibly straight forward what is happening and not wide open to interpretation. The ending is not a contentious issue for anyone but yourself. That's where backing up YOUR claim comes in.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Your claim that it is clear is funny for a scene that is meant to be vague and ominous. (Mystery makes things exciting in movies!) My claim that plot summaries can only be supported by what is actually seen in the movie is supported by the rules and extrapolating past that is not appropriate. I have opened a discussion for other editors to weigh in on the issue, so don't bother responding here.
And stop insulting my intelligence or I will report you. You did it the last time we butted heads and I overlooked it that time, but not anymore.
"That it has passed through the hands of editor after editor after editor who has not questioned or needed to have the ending explained to them does not justify your individual stance that what happened is not what happened and so it needs backing up with a source."
Just because many editors have worked on an article does not mean that mistakes don't remain in an article, because no one is perfect. That's why Wikipedia allows continuous editing of articles and does not freeze an article even once it reaches Featured Article status.
I never claimed that isn't what is happening. I only claimed that what is stated in the summary is extrapolating beyond what actually happened and is seen. You should read what is actually written much closer. Spidey104 14:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Hello Darkwarriorblake! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiProject Film coordinator election[edit]

Voting for WikiProject Film's October 2011 project coordinator election has started. We are aiming to select five coordinators to serve for the next year; please take a moment from editing to vote here by October 29! Erik (talk | contribs) 11:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Expendables II[edit]

This article is riddled with unsourced content and half the sourced content comes from blogs and Youtube. We could use your help to straighten it out. #Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:20 15 October 2011

Captain America: The First Avenger[edit]

Hi. In Captain America: The First Avenger, I used the term 'anabolic' in its literal sense, "the synthesis of complex molecules in living organisms from simpler ones together with the storage of energy; constructive metabolism," not to imply steroids, although the source reference tongue-in-cheek (in my opinion) hinted it could be a precursor. The original adjective 'special' was extremely weak and the source prompted me to use a stronger modifier, i.e., anabolic. I don't object to your use of 'specialized' because almost any adjective would be stronger than the original.

The source reference did correctly call the VTOL and flying wing and I do think that reference should be restored.

best regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the VTOL or Flying Wing if that's what they are, I don't know enough about them to know. I read the article on anabolic and descriptively it makes sense, but it would be original research on our end as we don't know what the serum actually does. It could be like the Hulk, drawing mass from some weird pocket universe. I don't think you would need the source to say that a vehicle is a VTOL or a flying wing. But like I said, I don't know what they were, they're just a rocket and plane to me.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that your removing 'anabolic' might be less confusing. Someone else removed the VTOL and flying wing info, so I put a question on the talk page about VTOL and flying wing and we'll see if that 'flies'.
Thanks again. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

FotR film plot[edit]

Hello there, You reverted a recent edit (for the plot of FotR) saying I'd 'broken the page'; as a relative newbie to Wiki codes I'd be really grateful if you'd let me know how I did that so I don't accidentally do it again! It's worrying though, as I did check the preview page several times before hitting 'submit' and nothing was amiss then.
As for the changes themselves, which you referred to as unnecessary, I'd actually corrected a few mistakes in the plot (which are back again now) and shortened the section by 100 words - I thought that would be desireable as it was 'bloated' before? Thanks. Bohwe (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Piranha 3DD trailer[edit]

The trailer was released, watch here. —Mike Allen 11:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I love Ving Rhames's turning-around at that moment—"Double D's, you say? Gotta save them!" Erik (talk | contribs) 11:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
LOL, can't believe they gave him a shotgun leg. Well at least we know the film is real now. Thanks Mike. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I knew they would incorporate the double D's in there like that... Oh and Dimension just took it down from youtube via DMCA. That's how you help market a film. ;-) —Mike Allen 23:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thor and Captain America GAN[edit]

I have not made a request. If you are familiar with the Guild, can you do it? Also any other tips, I have never nominated an article before?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for the advice.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

21 Jump Street[edit]

I have created the article for the film adaption and i'd like your opinion and skills to help better it. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:57 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sweet. I just got into the habit of submitting my new articles to other editors for a reviewing type of thing. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:14 24 October 2011 (UTC)
What Have they Done?! Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:38 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw parts of the second season. Not a loyal fan, but it's way different from the show. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:45 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy cow[edit]

Blake, sorry if I seem crass, but didn't BreakingDexter ask you if you "Had a social life" because you "spend a lot of time on Wikipedia"? Yet he's the one with 11 confirmed sock puppets. Who has the free time to string all those puppets together? lol —Mike Allen 16:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Those were him? He's been hanging around so much I thought he was actually interested in improving. Well good, might stop a lot of useless edits that need checking. How do they tell if someone is a sockpuppet? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, his name is listed under the confirmed socks. They run a "checkuser" and if accounts are all from the same IP then it's probably the same person. —Mike Allen 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Man, I can barely be bothered logging in if I'm accidentally logged out. Switching between 11 accounts seems like a huge waste of time.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Probably a kid. —Mike Allen 17:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your significant contributions that helped promote Captain America: The First Avenger to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your significant contributions that helped promote Thor (film) to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Box-office guidelines discussion[edit]

This is a neutral notice that you were involved in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 35#Overly detailed box office sections for Disney films, and may wish to participate in a discussion about changes to WP:FILM box-office guidelines, at WT:MOSFILM#Box office revision.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Just informing I posted my opinion for Fast Five on WIKI:MOS/FILM. Spinc5 (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


Hey be careful about WP:3RR on The Hangover Part II. I agree the currencies should be converted, since the film is an American film and the rest of the currencies used in the article is US dollars. Might want to take it to the talk page. Admins take 3RR pretty seriously and will issue a 24 hour block. —Mike Allen 23:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else can be done, I'm not gonna take it to a discussion every time someone wants to do something wrong. As for the figures, you may have to re-add them, I took them out to try and satisfy him but then other excuses came up for why it had to eb that way. EDIT I was hoping someone else would revert it but it ended up staying that way for a few hours (i think, memory may be failing me) so I thought I best do it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I never saw you reply back on my watchlist yesterday. :-\ I think it's died down now. —Mike Allen 00:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh well. I've recently created Burt Wonderstone, so if you are interested in it, just letting you know. Not really anything that can be done to it at the moment, but it sounded interesting so you might be into it Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Haven't heard about it, but if it includes Jim and Steve, then I will surely check it out. —Mike Allen 00:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I wish all new film articles looked like that. lol —Mike Allen 01:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I try to make sure they're fully loaded as I really hate getting into the delete, don't delete, move discussions. Plus I'll end up making them as complete as I can either way out of obsession. I would've left it to incubate but the closer it gets to filming I get worried someone else will create it and my work goes out the window. I like the idea of the film and with Murphy apparently back on form in Tower Heist maybe this will see the return of Mask, Dumb & Dumber Carrey. While I like Carell anyway. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
They're planning on making Dumb and Dumber 2 (with Jim Carrey). [1]Mike Allen 02:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
That'll be weird, don't think I've ever seen a Farrelly sequel. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Or really a sequel with Carrey. —Mike Allen 02:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM October 2011 Newsletter[edit]

The October 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Erik (talk | contribs) 15:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject post[edit]

I invite you to view my post on the Wikiproject Film talkpage about improving a select list of films. RAP (talk) 2:30 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean characters[edit]

Just to let you know the four characters I added to the On Stranger Tides page are fairly important characters and had important roles in the movie as Blackbeard's zombies so if you don't mind I'm going to add the info back to the page. - --StevenBjerke 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your work on Tower Heist starting in October 2011 —Mike Allen 04:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Tower Heist[edit]

You think I'm making up the 37 top critics number? Here, a screenshot: But if you want, I can give you a list with the name of the critics, the name of the newspapers they work for and the quotes RT used from their reviews. And there are usually more than 15 reviews from "top critics". Aquila89 (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, well this is what I see:
Well, then there's something wrong with your browser, and it shows an earlier version of the site. Give me an e-mail adress, and I send you that list. You don't think I'd make up fake reviews just to mess with you, do you? Aquila89 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I assumed you were seeing or clicking on the wrong section. Instead of sending me a list I have started a discussion here to get to the root of hte problem Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Captain America: The First Avenger[edit]

The issue of the cosmic cube has come up again, your opinion on is welcomed.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Arkham City Plot[edit]

Look, I'm terribly sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I'm going to need to undo your edits on the plot for Batman: Arkham City. The reason why it was that original length is because it kept getting marked for removal by other editors who claimed it was 'too long'. In addition, we don't really need some of the details you threw in there, such as the "pretty funny" quote and "Batman carries Joker's corpse out of Arkham, etc, etc, then walks away" instead of just "Batman carries the Joker's corpse out of Arkham into a breaking dawn".

The reason why so much emphasis was put on the beginning is to help readers understand the background a little better, and explain some things which haven't already been covered in the 'Settings' section. Yes, it was a pain for me to keep reducing the plot from its original length down by about three hundred words to its present state, but even then there were a few who wanted this summary to be as short as Batman: Arkham Asylum's, so it was a squeeze even as it stood. Again, I sincerely feel for the work which you may lose, as I had to endure the same thing about a week ago with the Wikipedia community. However, the plot section needs to stay the way it is, and I'm afraid that all the grammatical errors and repeat sentences your new summary is riddled with aren't helping things. --Katangais (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


I have beat it. I wrote a new treatment on the talk page. It's based on your rewrite, but it's been trimmed some and slightly reworded. I don't think there was anything really wrong with yours.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the exchange is that it's just a joking comment and we don't typically include quotations in plots like that. Especially since it has the tendency to result in more people wanting more quotes from the story added.
As for the vial, Freeze destroyed the second vial after he created the antidote.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Singh D.[edit]

I admit to being surprised by this. I know who Singh is; it took me a moment yesterday to realize that this fellow must be Singh.
If you check online, you will see some reviews for The Fall where apparently he was using his name in this style as well.
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC) (Toronto)

Star Trek 2[edit]

I believe i've just completed my best contribution yet. It only has (film) in the title due to a redirect obstructing me calling it just Star Trek 2. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 2:35 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's nominated for deletion. [2]. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:53 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Determining when a film has left theaters[edit]

Thanks for the quick reply! --Boycool (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey jerk[edit]

So put "Citation needed." Don't just erase it altogether. Wikipedia's for sharing info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Quit your bitchin' Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Man of Steel[edit]

True that. It would have been amazing if it were. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:17 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It wouldn't give me hope for the film Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Burt Wonderstone[edit]

You may want to be careful. User:Robsinden is taking WP:NFF to a whole new level and redirect every film that hasn't begun filming. Burt Wonderstone could fall onto his radar. RAP (talk) 2:14 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it only has to survive a month, filming is meant to start in January. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
He's mentioned redirecting it in the Paradise Lost deletion discussion. RAP (talk) 3:44 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I would like to stick up for myself a little here if I may. I am not going round looking for articles to delete. I did not bring up this article in the Paradise Lost deletion discussion, it was mentioned by another editor as justification for the existence of that article. Whilst i agreed it was a little premature, I am not about to nominate it for deletion, as I feel that there is sufficient significant coverage for it to be borderline notable, and there is no sensible alternative to house the information. If another editor were to nominate it, I wouldn't contribute to the discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I apologize if you feel i'm going behind your back, but i am pretty alarmed at this desire to scout out these articles and redirect them. As before, WP:NFF is not policy, but a guideline that people can follow. And, off topic, are you monitoring my contributions? To me, it feels you're there everytime. RAP (talk) 15:25 9 December 2011 (UTC)
EDIT Didn't see Rob's response, thought you were addressing me Rusted, disregard. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Film November 2011 Newsletter[edit]

The June 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For displaying the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job on The Dark Knight Rises. Despite the influx of edits and cosntant changes to the page, you have somehow managed to keep it coherent and concise without losing taking it too seriously. Sterling effort, mate. You deserve this.
Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Burt Wonderstone for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Burt Wonderstone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burt Wonderstone until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Expendables 2 poster[edit] RAP (talk) 12:52 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a cool poster, though I still prefer the fake one with everyone one on it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Bare refs[edit]

Sorry about that. You guys over at The Dark Knight Rises do things very differently to what I'm used to. I wanted to get the information in there, but because I can never find the full references, I had no template to go by, so I didn't know what was necessary for a reference under WP:Film. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

This is a neutral request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#The Hobbit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Batman: Arkham City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Condé Nast (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) 10:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Thanks a lot Mike, hope you have a happy christmas too.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

C&A GA nom.[edit]

Congrats on Tower Heist. I am currently buffing up Cowboys & Aliens for GA. It hasn't been reviewed yet, so there's still some time to make noticable changes. RAP (talk) 0:53 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to find some time to look at a few things on it. Probably won't get reviewed for a while though. Then again sometimes someone is interested in teh film and does it straight away. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your significant contributions that helped promote Cowboys & Aliens to good article status.--Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Great reply[edit]

Hi D. Your reply to my joke is stupendous. I know that I was channeling Douglas Adams (poorly I'm sure) in my post but your reply makes the whole thing worthwhile. In fact I think that there might be universal acclaim for its good humor. Cheers and have a great 2012 on wiki and off. MarnetteD | Talk 20:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol, you're welcome Marnette, you have a great 2012 too Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A game of shadows[edit]

Hi, Could not really understand the reason you reverted the edits. Can you elaborate. Swapnils2106T 22:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am just trying to highlight the way the makers of that movie have combined the end of the movie with the actual end of Sherlock Holmes in 'The Final Problem'. I guess I am just trying to make the readers aware of how meticulously have the makers of that movie worked up to form a plot similar to the book. Is there a way I can do that? Swapnils2106T 19:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your GOCE Request[edit]

Hi, Happy New Year! I see that Captain America: The First Avenger made GA before we got to copy editing it. Congratulations! Do you still want a C/E done, or may I remove the request from the page? Best, --Stfg (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It could possibly still require a CE but as there is no nomination waiting there is no rush since I don't think it is pushing forward for an FA any time soon. I had a quick read of it, but it doesn't seem massively out of sorts so I would only proceed if you don't have anything else on your plate and if you think it would be a suitable use of your time and effort.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It's no trouble, so I'm doing it now. Just one question: at the start of the Marketing section, we read "Early footage of the film was shown at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con International with director Joe Johnston noting filming had begun four days prior to this presentation at the San Diego Convention Center.[14]". I'm puzzled, as it seems to say filming began just four days bfore a screening :)) So I went to the source (FN14) and couldn't find anything like it. In fact, a ^F search for San Diego on that page gets no hits. What am I missing? --Stfg (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I;m not sure, I wasn't the major contributor User:TriiipleThreat was, I was just one of them and did stuff like the plot. But reading that section and the associated reference I agree that it's not only unlikely that filming began 4 days before but that it is not in that source at all so I would probably remove the 4 days part altogether. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've asked TriiipleThreat to comment here. --Stfg (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The source gives a very detailed discription of the footage starting at paragraph 20, I hope that helps.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It does, thanks. I've clarified the sentence based on that. By the way, the archive of FN14 has trouble loading because it tries to load up an ad that no longer exists, then skips to one of those useless Google pages. Fortunately the original is still there. --Stfg (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for your prompt work Stfg :D much appreciated. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You're most welcome, Darkwarriorblake. I enjoyed doing it. Have a good year! --Stfg (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Film December 2011 Newsletter[edit]

The December 2011 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. —Peppage (talk | contribs) 22:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Saturday Night Live, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna (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) 10:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides[edit]

Care to explain? -- (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that isn't how it works, you need to explain changes to accepted material, not the other way around. Reception sections typically go Box Office > Critical Reception > Accolades. Your changes were unexplained and unnecessary, I reverted them. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No, mate. This is how it works: Editors are encouraged to boldly edit Wikipedia. And while edit summaries are not required, I did in fact explain my edit in the edit summary: setting this in order of relevance. So I did, in fact, explain my edit.
By contast, you are also quite mistaken about not having to explain a revert: That is exactly what you should do. Says this page, at least.
Reception sections typically go Box Office > Critical Reception > Accolades. -- That is entirely new to me. Would you mind pointing me to the relevant Manual of Style page? I distinctly remember seeing quite a few good and featured articles where the critical reception is considered of greater encyclopedic import than box office statistics. Rightly, I might add.
Your changes were unexplained and unnecessary, I reverted them. -- They were, in fact, explained. They were, in fact, improving the encyclopedic focus of the article. You reverted, that much is true. -- (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Some articles doing something doesn't really justify your personal opinion that the Critical Reception is of greater relevance, especially since critical reviews are subjective, sometimes bias or bought, and not considered the benchmark of success for a film compared to the finances. Critical reception only matters to fans and people wanting to know if it is worth watching, unless it has won notable awards. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
My personal opinion is what motivated my edit, and that is exactly how it should be. It doesn't need to be "justified", only qualified.
You, by contrast, claimed authority by some rule you made up ("Reception sections typically go Box Office > Critical Reception > Accolades"). You could at least have been honest enough to just admit that you reverted because of your personal opinion, without even qualifying it at all.
critical reviews are subjective, sometimes bias or bought -- Now that is a personal opinion you should be mindful of when you're editing! Even if you were to include sources backing such a claim in a specific case, it would still not encyclopedically devalue a truthful summary of the sum total of criticial opinion about a film, and imho certainly not below a summary of the film's box office statistics.
and not considered the benchmark of success for a film compared to the finances -- The encyclopedic goal of a reception section is not to "benchmark" the "success" (by any measure) for a film. It is there to provide a truthful summary of secondary sources on the topic. Please don't try to beauty up the article by pushing the reception section lower just because you personally don't agree with the negative reviews the film received. -- (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I actually watched the film and it was terrible, please don't try to make up things I am doing to justify your position. I put it back purely based on the fact that that is how the majority of hte film articles I have interacted with are set out and that there was no justification for changing it, especially since it is a Good Article and it made it to that level without your unnecessary change. I've raised several articles to Good status with sections set out this way, this isn't just some vain attempt because I am somehow invested in Pirates of the Caribbean and people seeing it was crap somehow harms me. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Calabe1992 16:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


As I said to the other editor, threats are unbecoming, especially ones that are cut and paste by someone who is not an administrator. Your reverts are basically pointless since they are linking to an article about a mere shape and not the artifact that is clearly being portrayed in the film. The shape of the tesseract tells nothing about the source material on which the film is based, and is a redundant inclusion on the article's plot outline. Linking to the Cube is relevant given the film's source material, and allows a reader further insight into the material that brought about the creation of the film. Ganthet2814 (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The film is an adaptation of source material, meaning that regardless of different aesthetics or even names, these concepts are being adapted from source material into a film. Displaying access to information showing where the "tesseract" is adapted form is far from inappropriate behavior. Linking to the article for the mere tesseract shape is redundant and unrelated to the film, unlike the Cosmic Cube. Ganthet2814 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Again, the adaptive nature of the film clearly shows that is is the Cube, especially since the Cube's traits of unlimited power, it's aesthetic shape and glow, and it's obsession by the Red Skull clearly indicate. Drawing on your own example, Harvey Dent having been scarred on one half of his face, by your logic, would not make the character at the end of The Dark Knight a version of Two-Face. Clearly, this is not the case and I would expect anyone to recognize that. You do me or the article no service by being incorrect in your assumptions. Ganthet2814 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
And again, just because it's name in this instance isn't the Cosmic Cube, it does fit the tendencies that the comics have illustrated for the Cube's power over the last forty-five years. If it looks and acts like the Cosmic Cube, that is reason enough to say that it is the Cosmic Cube, especially in an adaptation of Captain America comics. You're clouding the matter behind relatively minor alterations the film has made when the similarities are far clearer than the differences are. Just as Harvey Dent is Two-Face regardless of what he's called in the film, and Johann Schmidt is the Red Skull (even if he's only referred as it by proxy), this is the Cosmic Cube. Ganthet2814 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to go along with Darkwarriorblake. The movie never uses the term "Cosmic Cube", so we cannot in describing the plot. Indeed, the only way to know that this item may be analogous to the device in the comic books is through personal knowledge, which Wikipedia can't accept. Additionally, your edit-warring against consensus isn't proper behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

More information needed about File:Terminator.ogg[edit]

Hello, Darkwarriorblake!

It was really helpful of you to you to upload File:Terminator.ogg. However, we need to properly format the image license information in order to keep and use new images.

If you can edit the description and add one of these templates, that would be great. If you're not sure how or would like some help, please ask us at the media copyright questions page and we'll be happy to assist you.

Thanks again! --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity (film series)[edit]

Hello there,

I have created a main page for the Paranormal Activity films as a whole that you can get to here; Paranormal Activity (film series)

I have seen your frequent work on the Paranormal Activity page and I wondered if you would like to help on this page. I would do it myself and I did try to but I'm not 100% certain on how to create certain things like the box that would show the characters and what films they appear in and also the difference in critical reception from different sites.

The reason I created a main page is that the series is big enough to have a main page of it's own now and with a fourth film coming out and possibly more depending on the next one.

But I would appreciate your help on the page, I will try to add things in but I thought that as you have helped on the Paranormal Activity pages already you would be interested in helping to edit this one.

Charlr6 (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, I was just going to check up and see if you did actually get my message about the main Paranormal Activity main over-all page and if you would be willing to help on it? Just the normal stuff on a film series page, one could be a box showing what characters are in what film and if they are in any of the prequels/sequels.
I'll look forward to hearing back from you.Charlr6 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows "Top Critics"[edit]

When you said "we don't include Top Critics because people see different ratings and number of reviews based on where they are viewing RT from", I don't know what you mean. --Superghost987 (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Paranormal Activity 3 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chris Smith
The Grey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Joe Anderson

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Zoo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).