User talk:Bignole/Archive 2

Vandalism reports

Thanks for reporting a vandalising anon editor, who has now been blocked. Reports of users vandalising articles are best placed on Administrator Intervention against Vandalism rather than the Administrator's Noticeboard. David | Talk 17:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Response

thanks for pointing out that superman returns thing. i just saw it the one time in theaters and was doing it all from memory. anyway, i saw ur attending florida state. awesome. im going there in august for a computer engineering and electrical engineering major. how long have been going there? im a freshman. just curious. ColdFusion650 21:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jason Lives

I confess I am a Wiki newbie, so I'm hoping you'll clarify your edit summary on Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives. I stumbed across this article and thought I'd try to take out the POV - it's not a movie I care much about, so I figured I was neutral. To me, the only clear POV was in the critical and fan response section, though I agree with you that the whole article could use a re-write. I figured it was OK to remove the tag because I didn't see any real discussion on the POV issue. Seems to me that the article calls for a "needs re-write" tag, if such a thing exists, more than a NPOV tag. Please let me know if there is some larger Wiki protocal that I should know.--Qball6 22:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Horror Wikiproject

Sorry I ain't replied to your message, been busy. The Horror Wikiproject really is mostly based around horror movies and fiction. 'Halloween' the 1978 movie's article is a good example of what a decent horror article can be. Just don't help them trivia sections grow, but add info into the body of article. Help however you can, even if really minor or really major. Feel free to reply to ask questions. LuciferMorgan 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My User Page

You wrote:

"sorry, just admiring your page and clicked the link and saw that it had increased since you first posted it)"

No problem, I'm flattered! -- Renesis13 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your WP:RFI inquiry

Hello. I have come to your userspace because you filed a report on Wikipedia:Requests for investigation pertaining to User:CmdrClow. I have left the following message on that user's talk page: [1]. If there is anything else that you need done, or if you have any questions or comments about the actions taken in your case, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, accessible by clicking the "Talk" link in my signature. Thanks, Zsinj^Talk 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Pirates

$225 million is reported here as well: [2], [3], [4], and [5]. BOM's numbers are only edited by the site's webmaster. The reason they provide no sources is because they are an actual news site that gets info directly from the studios. The-numbers.com doesn't. Crumbsucker 11:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the-numbers.com's source link or interview with a studio head? If you go to their's site, they actually say they get info from regular users. They also say they use Internet Movie Database, which is one of the most unreliable sources on the Internet. They also name hsx.com (which gets info from BOM) and Yahoo as sources.[6] So tell me where that $150m number comes from? BOM directly interviews and quotes studio heads if you read their Sunday afternoon reports. Crumbsucker 12:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Because they are fan edited, all you have to do is register. That's not true at all. I'm not sure where you're getting that. BOM is the most reputable boxoffice site on the web. You said The-numbers.com lists their sources, but I just looked at profiles of some other films and they do no such thing. It's interesting: they have A Scanner Darkly budget listed as $20m, but Linklater himself said it was only $6m. They have X2 budget listed at $125m, when it's actually only $110m. They have Pearl Harbor at least $10m too high. And they too have budgets listed for films not out yet (Spider-Man 3, Transformers, Beowulf) Crumbsucker 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BOM.com and The-numbers both rely on fan information to be provided to them. That's not true at all. BOM's provides info from direct studio sources, and occasionally trade and newspapers for budgets. They are the most reputable box office website and its creator is regularly quoted in mainstream newspapers. The-numbers.com is just an amateur site. They are apples and oranges. If the Numbers.com guy says Variety (a film industry trade paper) gave a budget of $450 million for the two Pirates sequels, it's more than likely that it is the correct budget. The Hollywood Reporter (another film industry trade paper) reported this figure as well.[7] As for Superman Returns, the budget that BOM gives includes prior pay or play money from Superman Lives and money Warner got back from tax credits. That is the explanation Variety gives at the end of this article on Warner's Poseidon.[8] Crumbsucker 05:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If this is the most "reputable website" on said information why do they incorrectly label things? They didn't. Variety and Hollywood Reporter gave a budget of 450 million for the two films. The-numbers.com admitted the budget on his site was probably wrong, but hasn't changed it. Why not? Crumbsucker 10:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman Returns

They have been given a 3RR warning and I've reverted again. Please report them if they don't stop. I'll add my support to your report. CovenantD 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of weasel words doesn't make it any less of a revert. CovenantD 17:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I mentioned the PA and accustations of sockpuppetry also. CovenantD 17:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean 3

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Pirates of the Caribbean 3. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again.

--Pcj 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it appeared that you had added the link, forgetting to login or something, then logged in to adjust it. You should still use the Preview button, though.

--Pcj 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3

Mine doesn't have any such gap. The bullets line up fine. In any case, adding an image directly onto a line, especially a bullet, is never a good idea. I've moved it further down to compensate. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Firefox and normally sized pixels. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

1024 by 768 resolution. I removed the width parameter for the talk page border. Prevents stretching. Anyway, it's probably IE formatting wrong. The extra spaces are supposed to collapse unless separated by two line breaks. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

talk pages

So you know, it is totally fine to remove your own comments from a talk page when nobody else has replied. violet/riga (t) 20:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's more "where is it said that you can't?" violet/riga (t) 20:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines simply states "Avoid deleting comments on talk pages, particularly comments made by others." As a guideline this is not going to consider all circumstance, and me deleting a comment that I had made less than three minutes previous is fine. violet/riga (t) 21:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to explain edits on the talk page. violet/riga (t) 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody had responded, the message was now irrelevant, and it had only been there for under three minutes. It may as well not be there, so I removed it as I am entitled to do. violet/riga (t) 21:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it's not my talk page! The bottom line is this - it is totally fine to remove a comment in the manner that I did. violet/riga (t) 21:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think this is worth continuing as it's pretty obvious how trivial the matter is. violet/riga (t) 21:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

spider-man 3

Yeah, but the poster at the theater changes colors when you look at it. It isn't a mishmash of the two costumes. Could you at least make the poster the 'all-black' variant? --DrBat 13:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User: 81.79.40.148

You removed this user with reason that they have been blocked, but they have not. Could you explain, please? Thank you. Bignole 17:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this, the vandal has been blocked. Is s/he still active?--Firsfron of Ronchester 17:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The user was blocked, but the admin did not put the template on his/her talk page. I have now done so. Happy editing! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 17:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dark Knight and You

Hey. I noticed you kinda...made a weird edit to The Dark Knight. You feeling okay, dude? I mean...I wouldn't expect you to make a Juila-move like that. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the histories, you have that backwards. What happened was, I think, everyone became a bit too..."excited"—feh. arguably not great news, but I digress—and someone moved it to "The Dark Night". Then someone just copied and pasted the contents to what was already a somewhat biased redirect to The Dark Knight Returns. In the end, that GIPU probably had the most sense of all. He mentions Batman, both books and the new movie. Then someone else changed the movie title to "The Dark Knight (film)" as it should be. Thus, it all worked out. Now the only possible probably problem is that the title "The Dark Night" redirects to this movie. Ha. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. I've felt the whole "I must be losing it" thing on Wikipedia, too. Long story short, mistakes were made, but the end result is a good one. Redirects, disambigs, etc are all here to direct people to the right article(s). "The Dark Knight" does it's part. Thank goodness for that one good GIPU. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding using brackets and parentheses in quotes, see Using Sources: "Within quotations, use square brackets [ ] (not parentheses) to add your own clarification, comment, or correction. For example, the material enclosed in square brackets in the following sentence was added to clarify the quotation: 'He [Hamlet] changes significantly after seeing Fortinbras and his army.'" Another academic source: "If you need to change anything else in the quotation or add some comment within it, indicate your change or addition by using square brackets [this], not parentheses (not this)." From the Wikipedia article on brackets: "Square brackets are used to enclose explanatory or missing […] material, especially in quoted text. For example, 'I appreciate it [the honor], but I must refuse'. Or, 'the future of psionics [See definition] is in doubt'." Unless there is evidence that parentheses are to be used over brackets, please changed back. --Erik 17:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix; I apologize for sounding anal about brackets and parentheses. Just trying to run a tight ship when it comes to that particular article. --Erik 17:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries, I've had my share of mess-ups, too. I was the one who tried to copy the article from Untitled Batman Begins sequel to The Dark Knight (which already existed as a redirect). Obviously, I found out that the history page needed to be moved with the article. It's obviously fixed now; it was hard to back off and let someone else revert my mistakes. There's still one issue with the article, though: the talk page leads to Talk:The Dark Knight instead of Talk:The Dark Knight (film). Any idea on how to fix this? I've dropped a request at Requested moves, but I wasn't sure how else to proceed. --Erik 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

It's only fair usein places where it's necessary to illustrate a scene or some other aspect. Decoration for a userbox isn't covered. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not fair use in that instance, it's just decoration. Read the license.

This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

• for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

It's not being used for identification or critical commentary. Trust me on this. I've seen it repeated hundreds of times across many userboxes. Fair use images can usually only be used in the article namespace. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That's better, though someone might complain about it being a derivative of South Park. That's not very likely, though. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it was an altered screenshot. The art is simple to copy. That makes it even better. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Venom

I've noticed a bit of a revert war going on regarding linking to Venom (comics) at the Spider-Man 3 article lately... why not take it to the talk page, see what you can't resolve? --Erik 23:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Spidey 3 Cast

Maybe we should use the forward slash, that is the way the other Spider-Man pages distinguish characters. It could be assumed that it would be the best way to go about things, to follow how the previous pages note them. Bignole 21:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. Maybe we should start saying "Pwn" instead of "own", too. I want to pwn a car, et cetera. Give them an inch...you know the rest. Direct me to articles I can fix. This is bad grammar no better than not spacing after using commas or caps abuse. I'm really surprised you'd cave like this after all you went through to keep spec out. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The one with Richard Pryor

English is not my native language, re-work the phrase as you see it could be done properly, i would apreciate it. Thanks.

Budgets on Spider-Man 3 Article

That makes sense, but where did you get the numbers for the X-men 3 budget? Maybe the budget comparison information shouldn't be included if there's uncertainty about other films' budgets. --Erik 16:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I reviewed the box office data at The-Numbers.com. What you said makes sense; I'm fine with the way it is now. --Erik 16:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Incredible Hulk Page

I have removed the protection tag on the Hulk page. If there is further vandalism you may revert it.

Fourth villain in Spider-Man 3

I suppose I didn't think that the previous edit to the plot outline was accurate (not to mention sloppy), highlighting the symbiote as the villain, which contrasts Ziskin's statement. I mentioned the ambiguity because Spider-Man isn't a villain to himself without the influence of the symbiote. I put back in the fact that Spider-Man "himself" was a villain due to the symbiote's influence, so the plot outline seems to make sense now. Let me know if this is agreeable, and feel free to make any minor edits. --Erik 20:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your first comment had line breaks like this:

I don't think we need to be vague about the fourth villain, because Laura Ziskin has already stated that one will be Peter himself. The #5 reference goes to the interview where she says,

"And Ziskin promises one foe will be Spidey himself.

"He'll have to battle villains within," she says. "I love what we've done with this character."

We need something more than just "fourth villain". Bignole 20:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's IE or not. I haven't noticed this with any articles or talk pages, and I'm using Firefox. Hope that helps. --Erik 21:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Smallville list of episodes AFD

Having had a look at the "season" pages which you have cited, I have decided not to change my vote - the list definately needs to be tidied up into a standard list of episodes, but not deleted because the "season" pages are really only episode summaries, rather than offering any additional information about directors, etc. Bob talk 18:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I still think having a short list of episode summaries from all seasons on one page and in a table (albeit an untidy table at the moment) is potentially useful. I image what the list's creator is aiming towards is something like List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, which is a featured list. It might also be worth having a quick gaze at something like List of Blackadder episodes as well, for something which I consider to be a good list. Bob talk 18:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly think that either should, or will, be deleted. As long as the list of episodes has very brief summaries of episodes, then it poses no problem for the season pages, as these are clearly designed to be longer, more detailed descriptions. Bob talk 18:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Both

Hello Bignole. I'm not sure what your proposal to keep both is but I'd like to know. Could you give me a link? As long as the list page and the individual episode pages are kept I'll be happy. That stargate list Bob mentions is the kind of featured list I'd like to work towards. - Peregrinefisher 23:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if the DVD info is merged with the main Smallville page, merged because they don't contain the exact same info. I definitely think the summaries need major changes so they are NPOV and not just teasers. I tried to move the first few summaries towards this. It's true the season pages need a lot of work. A lot of info on the list page isn't in the season pages, mostly writer and director. Wikia is sorely lacking in bunch of its episode pages as well. I disagree that the episode pages are destined to be deleted. My prediction is that the list page will win out, just because of all the other pages like it. Because of this, I think effort should be put into the list page as it's the one that will stick. It's following the same format as the featured list of article pages, so I think that's what wikipedians prefer. Again, I'm sorry for the premature redirect but I really think that's going to be the ultimate result. As far as fancruft being added to the episode pages; we must remain vigilint but any Smallville page is going to have that issue. That's not a reason to delete a page. - Peregrinefisher 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The DVD box says the type of format but maybe that's not important. I just added it becuase I wanted to make sure that every bit of info in the season pages was contained in the list page, anticipating it becoming a redirect. The reason the Simpsons page is just a list is because there are so many episodes. You'll note that each Simpsons episode has its own page. As far as linking to the season pages from the list page I don't think it's a good idea, it's not flexible. Stacking the episodes one on top of another creates a lot of formatting problems. Some episodes have 3 or 4 writers and others just one. Some episodes may have several notable guest appearances and others 0 or 1. What if you want to add the production code as I've been doing? Unless you add it to all entries at once it will look strange. With individual pages you can add at your leisure. I don't find it easier to edit the long season pages. You may be able to edit just a subsection if your edit is that kind, but if you have to edit the whole page it takes a bunch of scrolling and can be difficult. - Peregrinefisher 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you think the list page can stay could you remove the Afd tag? We should probably archive it and link to it from the top of the list page. I also think our talk page discussions are of value and could be put on the list page's talk page. I won't go copying and pasting your words but if you agree you have my permission to copy and paste what I said as well. If the discussion is now "are the individual episode pages kosher" we should probably discuss that next. - Peregrinefisher 03:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess I just disagree. Most list of episode pages have individual episode pages for popular shows and I don't think Smallville should be any different. I'm sorry if you think this is not a good reason but I think it is. We should create a discussion to find consensus. If the consensus is get rid of them I won't fight it. - Peregrinefisher 03:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The list of Smallville episodes deletion problem

I'm sorry, and it does seem bad, but I'm quite busy right now and I don't think I can spend any more effort trying to figure out what is going on with it right now. I hope I didn't make things worse. If there's something really quick and easy that you would like me to do, I could probably do that, but otherwise, I think I'm out of this for now. Again, I'm sorry! Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Emily ^{(Funtrivia Freak)} 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

image tags for GIF

hi Bignole,

my assumption would be to use the same tags as if it was a stationary image that we are dealing with. So if it was created by someone who has not died since 70 years + lifetime, the work is probabably copyrighted. however if you created it yourself, choose a tag that you find suitable. Maybe if you could provide me a link I could take a look in order to help you more specifically. with kind regards Gryffindor 13:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the image. I would say it would still be covered by the regulations concerning screenshots, see [9]. IMO the clip is so short, it might as well be just a screenshot. Agreeably this case is not very clear, but lack of any other tags I would still go with the screenshot copyrighted tag, it comes closest to it. I am sure others would disagree with me. Gryffindor 21:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not blindly revert

I fixed a template link while also removing the image from Superman Returns. If you wanted the image back, would you mind just putting the image back, rather than breaking the template as well? Also, I removed it because the homage image because it was illustrating...the box office results? The image was already well illustrated at the List of Superman Returns plot elements and trivia page, in my opinion, and didn't need to be in the main article. But that's just me. Hbdragon88 22:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Episode pages.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. thanks/MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 12:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In response to the mass message on episode articles, I'm gonna post what I just posted in Talk:List of Stargate SG-1 episodes:

...this might have more bite if it wasn't a generic message that you just cut and pasted to multiple talk pages. If you try to force your view on the whole episode article thing you'll just end up looking like a dick. Also, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes is a guideline, not a policy. Policy pages are clearly marked as policy, this one is clearly marked with the message "A consensus was reached to accept the guidelines below." I'm not going to say that episode pages are a good thing or not, that's a debate that many feel very strongly about, but to accuse the editors here of not knowing what they're doing and basically belittling them is not how you should go about things. -- Ned Scott 13:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sentences

The sentence did not make sense. Like I said, someone who knows needed to post the information. It wasn't my obligation to do some work because someone else failed to do it. I edited a sentence that did not make sense as it read. Doczilla 16:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It did not say there was a dispute over the ownership of Smallville. The placement of "by the Siegels" in the sentence threw that off. Doczilla 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest Budget

I attached a ref link to the budget amount. Then why the info was removed!!!

Sympathy

You definitely have my sympathy about this weirdness over the Smallville character basis. Normally, when I see two people fighting on and on about something like the wording of a single sentence, I'd just call them both nuts. But you're right. I cannot fathom why KenA goes on and on about something he doesn't have a quote to support. He wants to insert a sentence that just isn't accurate because the Siegels haven't said what he wants to say they've said. If he ever comes up with a legitimate quote otherwise, he wins, and that's fine because we'd know the article was accurate. Anyway, it's the weirdest squabble I've seen in Wikipedia, because it boils down to fighting over a single sentence, as little as a single word. Good luck with this. Doczilla 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. And I'd say that our own earlier little disagreement (see above) about the wording of a sentence in that same article, which you and I quickly figured out how to fix, illustrates that I'm definitely a third party to the dispute with KenA. Doczilla 16:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Music Used but not Included in the Superman Returns soundtrack

In your talk, you mentioned

We'll need sources for that music bit you added. Otherwise it will be counted as "original research" and will have to be removed via Wikipedia's stance against "original research". Bignole 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Supermann"

Please don't bite me coz I'm a new comer from China. I hate to say it's original research because some of my friends who knows music contribute a lot to the findings. What I did most is to probably compile and tie in to the movie timeline so that others can look for the music easier. Later on, I found some other websites confirming my findings at the following websites:

(1) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348150/soundtrack (2) http://www.soundtrackinfo.com/ost.asp?soundtrack=5564 (3) http://www.hollywood.com/movies/fulldetail/id/2439035

Please don't remove my virgin contribution. I think sharing the music knowledge is quite important.

From novice user:Supermann at 11:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC+8)

Don't give it to me, reference it in the article. I was merely stating that you should put citations next to your work on the page. I didn't plan on rushing to delete anything. But, you should be aware that there are many editors for that article, and some may think that it's inclusion is not necessary and delete it on principle, regardless of cites. To be on the safe side, I would hurry and cite the music to at least give it some foundation, it will be easier to fight for on a talk page if you can prove that it's noted in other places. To do a proper reference place "< ref >" at the beginning of your internet link and "< /ref >" (except don't put the spaces in there, I only did that so you could view it) at the end of the internet link. Place the whole thing next to one of the songs. It will appear like this: . Bignole 03:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

hi there. I'm really not good at learning these web languages. However, I did try. Would you please take a look at the update I make? I put the ref next to the section heading. Many thanks. And by the way, how to add the time next to your name during "talks"? Right now I have to hand-type it. And do I need to reply what I wrote again at the discussion page of your user page. Will you be notified that I have replied to your comments at my talk page? Thanks Bignole. Supermann 12:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC+8)

Thanks for the cleaning up. I prefer your polishing very much. I like those bulletpoints created by asterisks. I just moved the "ref" from "Rhino Records" to "songs" because in that source material there's no mentioning of Rhino Records at all after all it's only the credit to the movies, not to the soundtrack. Also, thanks for teaching me how to sign my name using four tildes. Supermann 04:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Futile

Your attemps to compromise free speech are futile, Bignole. I will continue to exercise my rights as an American and post any and all opinions. As you can see, some people are on my side, such as RR3. RR2 22:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-delusion is a sad thing. Don't worry, Bignole. This guy will end up banned soon enough. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern geocentrism

The information was not deleted form the talkpage. It was refactored to User:Lucaas' userpage as per the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. ---ScienceApologist 01:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The entire discussion was copied to his talkpage and was removed because myself and at least two other editors had come to the agreement that the discussion was completely irrelevant. The current discussion happening on the page is much different and actually substantively deals with the subject of modern geocentrism. The removed discussion dealt with unrelated topics including the user's distrust of the Big Bang and inflation. --ScienceApologist 01:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

When Lucaas was talking about the observable universe he was speaking about his addition to the article. This discussion is still on the talkpage However, after that discussion he began a tangential discussion that was related to his general evaluation of science and cosmology. I removed this discussion with a link to his talkpage letting the reader know where they could find it. There was nothing to summarize because the discussion wasn't about the article anymore, it was about Lucaas' ideas regarding the Big Bang and inflation. You can read all about it on his talkpage now that you have restored the content. To reiterate, the talk that was relevant was kept at Talk:Modern geocentrism. This is why it is in line with talk page guidelines. --ScienceApologist 02:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning noted and well-considered. I can understand the confusion. --ScienceApologist 02:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Two-Face

There's a debate about an image over at Talk:Two-Face#Straw_Poll. I'd appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. ThuranX 03:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Warnings

That you cannot remove warnings from your talk page is stated on the article at Wikipedia:Removing warnings but the page itself says it no longer applies since it is out of date! Lucas

Policy on editing User page

An administrator told me that you are right warnings should not be removed when currently relevant. Out of date ones however can be removed. After all there is the history page specifically designed for archival. --Lucas

The removal of out of date warnings was, the administrators suggested, to be done by the user not an administrator.Lucas

Warnings

Yes, they can be removed, but you should read that the user in question should never be the one to remove them. You should contact another administrator to remove them. They should assess the situation and note the dates of the warnings and your conduct since them. The fact that a week has passed is not valid enough to warrant removal of all warnings. Bignole

Well, since your first warnings (for 3RR) was August 10, I think you should find out what a relative time frame is best appropriate before removing. Bignole 15:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should check that, I was told by the administrator that I had to wait for the end of the issue that had arisen and that I, not an administrator, should remove them.Lucas

Response: Smallville season 5

Yes, I was originally going to do it that way to save the history from being so long but found it easier to edit each individually rather than scroll through the whole list in one edit. Thanks for the comment, though: I didn't think of vandalism. I'll certainly consider your suggestion, if I make any other multiple additions for Smallville seasons in the future. Unfortunately, I didn't see your comment until I was already finished season 5. Thanks for your help! Angleterre 05:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Hulk

The image looks like it comes from South Park, but I guess you made it yourself? - Peregrinefisher 22:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Freddy Krueger

I don't know if you know, but Freddy did reside at 1428... cause it's in The Final Nightmare. Someone even linked a screenshot from nightmareonelmstreetfilms.com to the Freddy Krueger page that proves it. Sorry dude. --The Skunk 10:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Smallville episode pages

Talk:List of Lost episodes had a similar discussion to ours and reached a consensus after mediation for "principles covering editing of Lost episode articles" (top of talk page) that allowed for individual episode pages. Would you consider changing your position? - Peregrinefisher 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing

Everytime i edit something latley you keep going back and changing it. I'd like to know why and I'd like it to stop because it's starting to frustrate me. I'd like an explination, thank you