User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 7

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Project X

Hi

I see you reverted my information that added to the page of Project X (2012) film. I was curious to know why you did that. I put the information there because it is information that many would be interested in and I gave a credible link. Let me know, thanks

Sevenlee

It didn't belong in the lede, the source was speculating not saying it was the truth, and the director has said that it wasn't based on any particular event because the Delaney party wasn't the first time such a thing had happened, it just got a lot of coverage. The information just wasn't relevant or notable and definitely didn't belong in the opening of the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is very much notable and relevant. As soon as I saw the movie, I instantly thought of that case and searched on the internet to find out if it was based on it. I found many sites with people asking the same question and there weren't many answers. Perhaps it wasn't the first party of its kind but the parallels to the Delaney party were just too uncanny to be ignored. Even the news interview at the end of movie was almost a spitting image of the famous one Delaney gave to Australian news media. Sure, it may not need to be in the first part but I think a mention somewhere in the article is warranted. There are many people searching for this information so I would say it's definitely relevant. Sevenlee

Then with notable sources (not that Texas thing), a brief mention could go in the critical reception section saying "some reviewers felt the film was inspired by the real life event of whatever..." It is not the only out of control party to ever take place and copying a moment from an interview doesn't mean the whole film is based on that event. It in no way belongs in the lede, because it is opinion and those involved have said that it is not based directly on that event. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dredd box office gross

Hello Darkwarriorblake. You reverted an edit by a user who corrected the box office gross of Dredd. I'm not saying that you are incorrect I'm saying that your source is incorrect. I agree with the user mentioned here since Box Office Mojo's predictions are much more accurate. I know it has the status of a good article and an edit war can make it lose this status. Please try talking with other users before reverting the box office gross if you want to. Than you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man why are you being so hostile. How can it be not a box office bomb when it's earnings are less than it's budget. And if you don't believe the source is incorrect i'll give you a good example. The budget of the film Lincoln is given to be more than 80 mil on Boxoffice.com. While on Box office mojo it is 60 million That's more than 20 million dollar difference. I'm not disrepecting your or anyone's opinion KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that I've read your userpage and understand that you are much more experienced than me. I know you go through a lot of trouble to keep Wikipedia well-sourced. I respect you and your opinion but you should understand that i did start a discussion on the talk page of the article but no one commented. Instead my edit was reverted. First thing I want you to know is that if I wasn't completely sure that my edit was correct I would never have reverted your edit. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Dredd was a major box office bomb. The 30.9 mill-36 mill it earned was much less than its 45-50 mill budget. It's fact and very constructive. It was a box office bomb. Stop deleting it like an idiot — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaWhiteMan (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be so hostile to another user dude.It's good to be bold but there are certain limits to it. I kept my cool even though my edits were reverted so many times. No matter what always be respectful to others otherwise others will disrespect you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Expendables 2

The Good Article Barnstar
For your significant contributions that helped promote The Expendables 2 to good article status. I was sorry to see you're semi-retired, but if there's one thing this movie would approve of, it's coming out of retirement for one last big job. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I am still around, Im just trying to focus on improving articles I already had now instead of taking on new projects all the time, your upgrade of this film to GA is a nice step in me completing that goal. Thank you!Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Project X (2012 film)

The article Project X (2012 film) 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Project X (2012 film) for things which need to be addressed. —Andrewstalk 03:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Happy

Season's Greetings, Darkwarriorblake!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD | Talk 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • Also best wishes for your 2013 and happy editing whenever possible :-) MarnetteD | Talk 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Arkham series

Hey. Are you up to take Arkham Asylum and Arkham City to featured status? I am planning to do it sometime next year. If you join me, it'll be fantastic. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 06:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to nominate Arkham City for FA, I don't mind helping out in some capacity with Asylum. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm its too soon for Arkham City. I'd recommend wait until mid-2013 (The game is still too new). But that's just my opinion. I can help you with Arkham Asylum. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 05:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrix article, new article section/layout?

I've started another discussion on the new section/layout of the article. I've recently added a significant amount of info on pre-production into the Production section, and I'm considering breaking the Production section down a bit. Your opinions in that regard and general comment on my newly added info are appreciated. Anthonydraco (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday cheer

Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes 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 you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Some baklava for you!

even though we rarely agree i am impressed by your energy, dedication and painstaking endeavours ! — ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 22:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Wachowski Brothers"

Edit war? Eek! Excuse my naïve actions - I have never edited Wikipedia before, and just happened to notice that in the Speed Racer (film) article, the phrase "the Wachowski brothers" was hyperlinked to the page now titled The Wachowskis. I was merely trying to amend that, as the phrase "the Wachowski brothers" incorrectly implies that both siblings are male. Even though this movie was produced before Lana Wachowski came out publicly as transgender, the gender-neutral phrase "the Wachowskis" does not call in to question the sometimes confusing situation of referring to transgender people in the past tense. I can see that you are an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor, and I wholly apologize for any overstepping of boundaries I have committed. However, allowing these changes to stand is not what I would consider disconstructive.

Again, I apologize for not complying with Wikipedia's rules of common courtesy, as they are completely unknown by me. Thank you for your time.

Earthynotes (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)earthynotes[reply]

(talk page stalker) This has come up before over at WT:FILM; the agreed-upon solution was to treat the credits the same as those for stage names, name changes, etc—a film article's credits are given as the film itself gives them. Although the Wachowskis are no longer the Wachowski brothers, they were credited as such for Speed Racer (among other things) hence the seeming incongruity. Cloud Atlas and future productions will use "The Wachowskis" as that's how it is and will be portrayed on-screen. GRAPPLE X 01:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying this. I was unaware of the exceptions that applied to credits to works of art. Thank you for the insight! Earthynotes (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)earthynotes[reply]

Merry Christmas

Tenebrae (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. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I noticed that you are still 'minding the shop' - Merry Christmas, Dark Warrier Blake!

Greetings! Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Hi! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|
gives you this puppy!
Puppies promote WikiLove and I hope this little fellow/girl (your choice) has made your day better.
Remember! Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever. Merry Christmas and a happy 2013
05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your example and guidance during 2012 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good! (very close) It was the first, "The Bourne Identity" –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 13:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]



VANDALISM??

VANDALISM??

where did vandalism? up a Country is vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MervinVillarreal (talk • contribs) 01:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you repeatedly edit against discussion, that is considered vandalism, you're being deliberately disruptive because you want it your way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

then the other person also wants his way or am I wrong? MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other person is putting them alphabetical and including hte result of the discussion, the only reason to put the US first is personal preference, and personal preference is not how it works. You've made clear from your opening discussion here and at The Dark Knight Rises, you believe it is wholly American and nothing else and you are not going to stop until you get your way. If you have a valid reason for putting the US first then state it, but you don't because you haven't got a valid reason for doing so beyond the fact you just want it that way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not because I want to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Z_ (film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception

why America is on first? if is for supposedly alphabetical order ..MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before attempting the "but it's done this way over here" argument, because that is a fucking stupid argument that people need to stop using. Just admit defeat in the face of an established consensus which is against your unsupported preferences. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 02:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oh men,you stay out of this fucking problem. MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You're accosting a friendly editor with baseless bullshit and ignoring everything that you're being told. You are "this fucking problem" and I'm staying out of nothing until you start being constructive and useful. GRAPPLE X 02:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shut up please ... :'D and do not insult me​​!

remember, The Dark Knight Rises <3 MervinVillarreal (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

consensus

you ignore me? you don't think continue the consensus? try not to be so ... as you think I am MervinVillarreal (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Cast billing

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Cast billing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From your experience, do you think this will pass?

Dear Blake,

I need to ask you a few things. First, I've been almost alone doing 'The Matrix' film article, and I'm not sure if I can keep this up too long after the vacation is over. So... I'm gonna ask for your experience a bit regarding making it a GA. Do you think the contents we have now in each sections are enough? Some sections like Casting, Pre-production, Music, and Filming (if unsourced contents are removed) are really short. I don't know if they require significant amount in each section or GA reviewers allow some to be short if the sources are rare. (The film's so old now.) I've been digging for sources, but honestly, I can't keep this up much longer, because there are only so many online; reliable physical sources in English are almost non-existent in a non-English speaking country like mine. Supposed that if I just give up now and remove everything tagged 'citation needed', and just have the Language Guild improve its English, then ask for GA evaluation, do you think the article will stand a chance?

Which citation style do you think we should go for? It currently contains citation style 1 most.

And do you have more sources for the article, especially for casting, pre-production, filming locations, and music? Online sources are welcomed; physical sources will be invaluable. The one I'm looking for especially is The Matrix Revisited DVD. Nick R said he would dig it up and watch it again, but I haven't heard more about it in a while. Only one additional offline reference provided so far. Any sources to expand/cover those short sections are desperately welcomed.

Do GA reviewers consider the standing of the contributor? I've been doing it almost alone recently, and I don't think mine is that high. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Blake, for the answer and the time you took to reply me. I'll keep the paragraph you've added on my talk page as a reference when I work on this. It will definitely come in handy. Anthonydraco (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Blake, I'm back. Thank you for the link to The Matrix Revisited. Now I have a lot of materials. Well, but now that I have them, they present another problem. Since the materials cover broad subjects, and the DVD is like 2 hrs long, I think I should put in the reference which section it came from, but the citation template {{cite AV media}} didn't provide the parameters where I can add time or chapter it came from. Do you know the parameter name for it in citation style 1? Should I go for Short Footnote Citation style instead, since it suits citing one source but from different pages? You said you would teach me to add time code and such. Is it this SFN citation style?
An admin once told me that a citation style should be consistent (one style), though. So now I'm not very sure which style I should go for. The article currently contains citation style 1 most, but there are also a few using SFNs. The SFNs cites contain specific quotes, however; and I don't know how to change it into style 1 while keeping the quotes. Do you know the parameter for the quotes in citation style 1?
Well, looks like I rely on you again. Sorry about the bother, and thank you for your time. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Should you want to review the materials I've got from The Matrix Revisited DVD, you can see my talk page. Anthonydraco (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To cite the video you would use something like:

{{cite AV media| people = The Wachowski Brothers (Director) | title =''The Matrix Revisited'' (''The Matrix'' bonus material) | url = http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/ | medium = DVD | publisher = Warner Bros. Pictures | location = United States |date = September 21, 1999 | accessdate=January 2, 2013 | archiveurl= |archivedate= |deadurl=no |ref={{sfnref|Matrix Revisited|1999a}}}}

Depending on the credits of the actual Matrix Revisited material (there might be credits at the end of it for instance, in which case you could just cite the actual Matrix Revisited video using the above template instead of the DVD on which it appears. Put it with the Bibliography references at the bottom of the page. Then when you want to cite a part of the video, use:

{{sfn|Matrix Revisited|1999a|loc=01:32-1:56}}

Where "loc" is the time of the video where your information comes from. SFN refs are used for citing books and things so they are OK in your article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done adding the references. Thanks for teaching me how. Took me half a day to add them all. Anthonydraco (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it might not matter for GA, but if you ever think of taking it to FA you will need to add the time codes for where the information is from though.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You need time code for FA!? NOOOOOO!!!!!!!
T_T Well, if it means that way, then there might be a flood of different citations in the footnote section. I collapsed them into chapters to reduce the numbers. So I dunno if I should flood the article for now. Are you pushing Prometheus for FA? I've checked the criteria, but I'm not sure what they meant by consistent citation format. Can SFN go with full citations? I noticed that Prometheus and The Matrix are similar in using both. Anthonydraco (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neway, thanks for the Barnstar. May I edit your typo and add missing punctuations? I wanna show it off somewhere. :D Anthonydraco (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Watch

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." I fail to see how MY contribution was considered "VANDALISM". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.78.142 (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC) or perhaps you're unaware of Wikipidia's SUPPOSED policy of assuming good faith rather than immediately assuming vandalism "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." 98.242.78.142 (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, even personal attacks? GRAPPLE X 03:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as VANDALISM can be considered HARMFUL."

Or have you not read that page? or not CARE? or just get off on attacking users by labelling edits as vandalism?98.242.78.142 (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight Rises

Hello. Excellent job on the Prometheus article! You seem to be very proficient at writing film articles. Could you help me out on The Dark Knight Rises article a little bit, especially with archiving references on webcitation.org? I really think that article has the potential to become a featured one. Plant's Strider (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need to get it to Good Article status before Featured Article and webcitation isn't necessary to pass GA. At the moment I'm starting a new job so I don't have as much free time anymore, I will see where I can help when I can but I wouldn't be able to commit to a project as I don'tknow when I'd be free. Try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film as if you are looking to put time in to improve it, you might find others willing to help in part, or try User:BigNole as I know he keeps an eye on it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dredd video clip

Sorry to just now have gotten back to you, I've only been editing sporadically over the holidays. But to answer your question I don't think gore is a problem after all Wikipedia is not censored. I am more worried about the use video at all. As you know we take our fair-use policy of copyprotected images very seriously and a video clip is essentially many single images. So make sure that the effect cannot be adequately described in prose and is well supported by content in the article. Also the clip should be edited down to minimal length required to achieve to the desired result. Hope this helps, oh and by the way;


TriiipleThreat (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! 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 Happy New Year, 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 New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see a case for it but again just make sure the clip is well supported by content in the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the page move dialogue box defaults on Wikipedia:, not (Article). Anyway I have already requested a technical move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Six

Hello again and a Happy New year. I don't know about the other sites but google mentions the title to be The Fast and the Furious 6 not Fast and Furious 6. That's why I thought the page shall be moved. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see our friend is back.

Mervin seems to be back from his holiday. Have you reported him as you said on Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows? I'll back you up if you like as he is doing the same on World War Z (film). MisterShiney ✉ 18:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as we speak. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little help?

Blake, since you're here, I'd like a little opinion. User VasOling on The Dark Knight Rises article insists on saying it received "a warm critical response" in the lede. And that it received positive reviews from "most" critics. I believe this is against practice on most film articles, and I want to wrap this up as soon as possible. I'm starting a talk page discussion as we speak, but he has a history of edit warring, so I'm not sure if he's going to listen. I've reverted him once already. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've posted. Sorry it took so long. I'd been doing homework and gathering my evidence before I spoke. Anthonydraco (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's added more. Now he's removed "positive reviews" and changed it to "The Dark Knight Rises received *praise* from most critics." I know for a fact that he saw the discussion, but it doesn't seem like he had any intention to participate. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skyfall

Could I ask for your input on the drive-by GA nomination of Skyfall? The thread can be found here. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dying Wish

The ending of 50-years of continuous publishing of The Amazing Spider-Man and starting The Superior Spider-Man establishes real world notability for the new Dying Wish article. Please help me expand it. Thank you!! Spidey104 01:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm, WOW!
I asked for help from multiple editors just in the hope that a few minor additions would hold off the deletionists until I had time to expand it myself. Thank you for pretty much writing the entire article. I'm glad I got the ball rolling for you to take over. Spidey104 03:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffing good job Sir.

I just saw the post you made on a certain page and it had me in stitches. Couldn't stop laughing old boy. MisterShiney ✉ 02:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, now I have to go fix the spelling mistakes though >< Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nellie Bertram

I know what the result of the previous discussion was, but there has since been another discussion, where there were no objections to a spilt. If you object to the split, you should have discussed on the talk page, instead of reverting it for no reason. Thank you.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, you want to fill this site up with heavy plot fan articles because you feel that every event in every episode needs to be added because there just wasn't enough of it in the individual episode articles, artificially inflating their size so you can weakly justify not keeping them on the list of characters and have a Non-free content image, go ahead, not wasting time over it; create it and let it continue to exist in it's bloated form as they were all doing before. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death of the Family, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Batman and Robin and Patrick Gleason (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) 11:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Process

I saw your discussion on FAC talk. I am no longer surprised, but still find it peculiar that discussions can be so illogical, even in the "highest quarters". You are criticising what you think is premature closure of a FAC. An answer assumes explicitly that you are complaining about lack of reviewers.

Prometheus was accessed 2 M times the last 90 days and Arkham .5 M. You produce stuff that people are interested in reading and that therefore is very important for Wikipedia. It is also peculiar how the people who work on FAC seem so little interested in prioritizing what is important for the readers. --Ettrig (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, it seems like they need a way to automate the process or at least part of it. Journey is the flavour of the moment and has 2 supports and input already after about 3 weeks, Arkham City is older so gets little input and the input once solved, is not responded to or turned into support or opposition. It's frustrating, under normal circumstances I wouldn't have started that discussion but I was genuinely fed up that after following and waiting patiently for conversations while running two FACs at once, both were just cancelled, like they were running out of space to have them on the list. Sad day, and puts me off relisting them-I listed Scream once when I was a lot newer at it and know now why it didn't pass, but if I can take all the lessons of the last 2 years, put it through GOCE, peer reviews, GA and all the other hoops that need jumping, and it STILL gets delisted, why would any volunteer bother? And I agree that priority should be given to popular content that is being seen by lots of people, it helps improve the impression of Wikipedia which is considered unreliable more often than not. Thanks again for your input. Darkwarriorblake (talk)
As per Arkham City, sorry I didn't respond. I forgot I had commented after working on other things and just remembered today that I had commented. Although I don't entirely agree with the Wii U/OS X issue in the lead (though I understand your reasonings), I was gonna support. When, or if, you nominate it again, let me know, I will support. P.S. I have that same frustration. I had God of War up for FAC (and it was up for almost 2 months), and it had 3 supports and 1 oppose, but it was closed a couple days ago because there was apparently no consenses to promote. The more annoying part was that we were waiting for the user who opposed to look at the article again as we addressed her issues, or at least tried to. --JDC808 ♫ 08:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Darkwarriorblake. You have new messages at JDC808's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Prometheus

You wrote: ' all he says is "sometimes in order to create you must destroy", its personal interpretation what htat means, it certainly doesn't mean you can say they're off to make a new species.'

--My reason for mentioning this in the plot was not so much to say that the Engineers wanted to replace humanity with one of their newer creations, but to add continuity to the story because when Shaw warned Janek that the Engineer's spacecraft was en route to Earth to destroy humanity, she could have known this only because David had reported that from the star maps that he examined previously, he deduced that Engineers were in the process of leaving for Earth before the outbreak decimated them. (Shaw could not have figured this out without David's revelation from the star maps he examined.) It was within the context when Shaw asked why Engineers were going to Earth that David answered "sometimes in order to create you must destroy", and in this case, at least, David certainly meant that Engineers were planning to destroy the human race, whether they want to replace humanity with other species or not.

1) At least David did mean that Engineers were in the process of leaving for Earth with their deadly cargo before the outbreak that killed most of them except the one in the hypersleep chamber, as he clearly reported to Weyland and Shaw that he deduced this from the star maps when he previously visited the control room.

2) Now you claim that this does not mean that the Engineers were planning to create other species to replace the human race after they destroy it, but in this context given that it is clear that David meant that Engineers were going to earth do destroy humanity, it is therefore also clear that David additionally thinks that the reason the Engineers wanted to annihilate the humans was to make room for new species they plan to create on Earth. In other words, David's answer "sometimes in order to create you must destroy" to Shaw's question is concise but it contains two peaces of information, not only why the Engineers were going to Earth, but also why, in his opinion, they wanted to destroy humanity.FormalLogician (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this on several occasions, it's theory first, and second its already existing in the plot, not that exact scene, but Shaw warning Janek that they're coming to destroy Earth and her leaving to find out why they wanted to destroy them. So the edit you want to make not only expands on the plot unnecessarily to say the same thing twice, but it states as fact something that is open to interpretation. The Engineer at the start destroyed himself to create, there is no evidence they're off to wipe out all humanity, it's all assumption. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


OK, in any case, my main point was that without David revealing that the Engineers were planning to go to Earth on the basis of his analysis of the star maps that he found, Shaw could not figured this out by herself. At least this (the fact that David revealed the Engineer plan to go to Earth to release the liquid) should be said in the plot.

When Shaw said at the end of the film that she wanted to find out why Engineers wanted to destroy humanity, this is not repetition, what she means is that she wants to learn why the Engineers found something wrong with humanity (she is religious and she views things within the context of "what sin did we commit?", etc.) Otherwise it is possible that for the Engineers humans were just a science experiment that they wanted to modify by replacing the old model with a newer model, etc, but Shaw sees it from a more emotional perspective.

Also the first scene of the movie where the Engineer destroyed himself to create humanity, no longer applies exactly in the same way because humanity already exists, and this time it is humanity that will be destroyed before something new is created on Earth.FormalLogician (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm not saying they're going to create humanity, I'm saying there is no evidence of what they were going to do, the humanity they knew is 2,100 years dead. You're applying too much theory to a single line said by a malevolent android intent on dicking around with the human crew members. It is enough to say that Shaw knows he is going to Earth carrying the deadly cargo which is already established in the plot, and that the Engineer just woke up and killed every human it could find. To say David says it first is repetitive and if we are required to explain that Shaw learned it from David then we have to explain where David learned it from. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superman: Earth One Volume Two

Hi, can you help me copy edit Superman: Earth One Volume Two article? Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baldwin brothers (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) 11:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

The Man with the Iron Fists

Hey Darkwarrior, the foreign figures of your source BOM add up to a total of 3 million dollars only while it states it to be a total of nearly 4 million dollars. That means their info is incorrect. Im instead going to use boxoffice.com as a reference for the boxoffice gross in the article since their gross figures are sometimes more accurate. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I never said I don't trust BOM I said their figures aresometimes wrong. Play close attention on what I am about to say now. I said "Sometimes" but I never siad I don't trust them. But I won't revert your budget edit because BOM shows the budget of the movies less than what it actually it is. I'm not trying to make the film look like a success. And also agian I used the word "sometimes". KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Batman: Arkham City

There is mention made of Nightwing and Robin being playable in challenege maps, but no prior explanation is given of what these challenge maps comprise. Perhaps the challenge maps/combat simulators need to be explained, and perhaps a distinction between the core story-driven game and the challenges needs to be made. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 16:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Return of suspected sock puppet

I see you have had encounters with User:MervinVillarreal. I suspect he has returned to Talk:World War Z (film) under the IP address 201.210.66.141, which traces to Caracas, Venezuela, same as his other IPs. I haven't dealt much with sock investigations so I thought you could help. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion FAC

I'd like to thank you very much for taking your time to review the FAC. I believe I have addressed all the points you have so far. Have a nice day! --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Man with the Iron Fists

Hi Darkwarriorblake, I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, r to correct or revert my changes if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Bone FAC

Hey! I have nominated Gravity Bone for FA and I'd like to know if you would be able to review it. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21 18:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look when I have a moment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting good faith edits without explanation

Hello Darkwarriorblake,

I find it's always a good idea to provide an explanation when reverting others' contributions. Could you explain why you reverted my good faith (and I thought trivial) edit to Dredd? joe•roet•c 23:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page where it was discussed. Assumes and accepts are not equivalent, she fails by the rules set out in the film and the writer, Dredd decides to pass her anyway. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. I hadn't noticed the talk page discussion, assuming it was a trivial change. I'm not going to get into an argument over a single word in a movie article, but in future, "see talk" in the edit summary is not very hard and shows a bit more respect for your fellow contributors than just reverting. joe•roet•c 08:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, after people repeat the same edit enough I just automatically assume the edit is intentionally ignoring discussion, I forget that not everyone was there for the discussion so I apologise. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venom (comic book)


Neutral notice

As a veteran WikiProject Comics editor, you're invited to a discussion at Talk:Marvel ReEvolution#Merger proposal. --Tenebrae (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's back.....

I see a mutual friend of ours is back. MisterShiney ✉ 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting too much time on him again, got better things to do. If he keeps messing with nationalities shoudln't be a stretch to get him banned again as he clearly hasn't learned his lesson from what I've seen so far. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I am now starting an ANI on him. Give me 10 minutes to finish writing it. I mean, the guy is flipping edit warring on a Talk Page for goodness sake! MisterShiney ✉ 23:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Over the same thing as before as well, he has only one purpose here and he is content to fight with people over it endlessly. What is best now is to just ignore him outright, undo bad edits obviously but let him talk to himself because he is just wasting everyone's time.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll provide you a link when I am done writing it up. MisterShiney ✉ 23:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you ought to know

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MisterShiney ✉ 23:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your IP complaints are going to a public WiFi hotspot used by dozens of people

Have just logged on to WiFi at 111.92.52.111 and saw the complaints from you, and I've no idea what you are talking about because this is a public access point and whoever was using it before could have been anyone. I recommend you look through the edit history of problematic topic areas to identify the trouble maker who may be using this location as a sock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.52.111 (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki with the Iron Fists

Hi DWB, I started the GA review of The Man with the Iron Fists today. Looks pretty solid--a few points need attention, but they shouldn't take long. Drop by when you get a chance, and as always, thanks for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The man with the iron fists box office

Hey I just gave the accurate number because the film was so close to earning back it's budget also you might write it as 19.9 if it is between 19.0 and 19.5. It's the basic mathematical rule. I'm not trying to anger you or insult you or something. Be cool man. But since the film has now earned back it's budget I guess all the controversy is over and I won't be editing the article anymore.Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm happy that the article has been put up for the Good Article status. It might be up there with articles like Dredd. Good work and thank you and others for all their efforts for keeping the article clean. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonored

Hi Darkwarriorblake, the other copy-editor has pulled out so I'm beginning the copy-edit you requested to the above article at the GOCE Request page. Please feel free to contact me, r to correct or revert my changes if I'm doing something I shouldn't. Cheers,

Thanks again Bafflegab, my own personal copy editing super star. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I have a question. In 'Characters', I find "Smith described the character as an amoral figure who grants abilities, but leaves the choice of how to use them up to the recipient.[1]" Who is Smith and what is his significance to the story? Also I found some of the text so far quite impenetrable, especially in 'Gameplay'. Can you check that my changes make sense to you and that the text is accurate? Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:/ that's disconcerting, I tried to explain stuff as simple as possible for the non-gamer. I'll take a deeper look later, one thing I noticed though is the alert states, the way the source describes it I took it as 4 states: normal, suspicious, alert, and searching. You've modified that a little and while it makes sense I'm not 100% if it is still implying there are 4 states, but maybe I am misreading the source. Smith is Harvey Smith, he is mentioned in the gameplay section but if you feel it is confusing and need to add a full name, its referring to that guy. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback - I should really check the online sources myself, but I wanted to do a quick job here! ;-) I realise it's difficult to write from an in-game perspective for non-experts like me.Yes, I think Smith's singular presence in the characters section is odd—unless you're planning to have a paragraph or two about critics' comments on the characters as I've seen in other video game articles like Portal 2. I thought for a moment he was an in-game character! I'll go back and look at it later today. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The actual content seens to make sense, can I ask which parts you found difficult to understand as long term I want to raise it to FA, and as I've learned from the current game nominees, not being accessible to everyone will hold you back. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a gameplay thing about stealth as it read kind of awkward: "Stealth comes from being hidden the player can hide behind objects and buildings,", it seemed like there should be something between 'hidden' and 'the player can'. I also took a look at some other parts of that section to try and make it more clear for non-gamers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most confusing paragraph I found was the second of three in 'Gameplay'—here's the diff of my edit. Please excuse my edit summary... :-D This one was a bit confusing too—'the easy difficulty' made me wince! :-) Thanks for changing that sentence; yes I missed out a semicolon—nobody's perfect! :-D Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do the first few sentences of 'Development --> Gameplay' come from? I can't find this info in either the first or second cited sources, and I want to check its meaning before I clarify this rather obtuse text:

"The missions were designed based on an initial interesting idea which would then be populated with interesting things for the player to do. Paths are defined to access the target areas and ideal paths developed and then expanded. The area was then populated with NPCs which are assigned to patrol routes and functions. The designers would then observe how players interacted with the level using their abilities and powers to test if the area provided a challenge or a suitable challenge for the available powers, and then redesigned the level as needed."

I'll leave it alone for now. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Think I fixed it, I'd balls'd up and used the wrong URL for the reference by copying an earlier template. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I'll have a look later. I've now copy-edited this paragraph and I found the reference helpful. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much more I can do here, so I'm declaring the copy-edit Done. Thanks again for your help above, and for fixing my minor mistakes (d'oh!). As always, I recommend seeking a peer review before nominating for FA status. Feel free to contact me about any issues arising from the copy-edit. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Dishonored is a very special game to me. Thank you for giving it a great article on Wikipedia! — ΛΧΣ21 21:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Hach, the ending disappointed me greatly sadly, I'm big into narrative in my games so a 20 second ending is never satisfying. But it's nice to have a game where there is a lot of development info available. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The ending is quite simple and uneasy. I'd preferred a different ending but meh, the gameplay and storyline is epic :) — ΛΧΣ21 16:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thank You.Prashant  ✉  18:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thank You.Prashant  ✉  18:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring The Man with the Iron Fists to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Development50 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive_7"