Thanks for the note of confidence about keeping the Untitled Batman Begins Sequel article clear of uncited edits. I was wondering what you did to revert that was different from the change I made? I'm still venturing into Wikipedia-editing land. Erik 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's my pleasure to keep things in shape. I was bothered by the "rumor mill" feeling of the film article. Obviously, Wikipedia is supposed to be well-informed (and cited), but it shouldn't be a source of breaking news without serious validation. Batman-on-Film has seriously struck me as a ridiculous source of information -- I'm not even sure if it should be an external link. I'll do my best to keep unnecessary changes out of the article. --Erik 02:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your message on my User Talk, my edit to {{The Batman}} was neither an experiment nor vandalism (as I believe you described it in your reversion). Rather it was responsive to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics discussion [here] regarding the unweildy size of the box. I appreciate that you do not agree with my edit, however please refer to the Wikipedia guideline for assuming good faith in the future.
I have not reverted your edit at the moment pending further input on the WP:Comics discussion page I've linked, but I suggest you discuss the box there to help bring editorial consensus to the issue -Markeer 15:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need some assistance in moving the "Untitled Batman Begins sequel" article and history to "The Dark Knight", which is the new film title, according to the ComingSoon.net article. I created The Dark Knight article before I tried to move the article over, but Wikipedia won't let me move the article, due to the creation of The Dark Knight. How do I fix this or request an admin to fix this? --Erik 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "The announcements were made today by Jeff Robinov, President of Production, Warner Bros. Pictures." I've requested a move from The Dark Night to The Dark Knight; the problem is The Dark Knight article was created (before I even tried) as a redirect to The Dark Knight Returns. Hopefully, the change will be implemented soon. I've retained the rumored names for the Joker for historical sake as well. --Erik 03:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding civility, I'm going to ask you here (rather than on the subject talk page) to please edit or remove your comment on Template talk:The Batman: "Your actions are vandalism. Claiming consensus based on a third party talk page isn't acceptable, and isn't good faith. Reverting after being asked to this talk page is even worse. Don't waste time acting like a victim"
My edit was not vandalism.
I at no time claimed any consensus, only stated that I wished to reach a consensus (please read my specific language above suggesting discussion to 'help bring editorial consensus').
Wikiproject Comics talk page is not a third party talk page, it is a wikipedia talk page created by editors interested in comics It is indeed intended with good faith in mind as wikipedia works best with many editors. However, I grant you that discussion on the article's talk page is always best which is why I moved my comments there.
I made no reversion after being "asked to that talk page", or any reversion at all. I made one edit this morning to the page, and based on your objections I have attempted to only discuss this since then. Please refer to the time stamps.
Regarding acting like a victim, please avoid personal attacks even if you disagree with me or my tone. I assure you I have given my best effort to using a polite tone in discussion with you as it is both of our intention for this userbox to be the best it possibly can be. -Markeer 16:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ThuranX, please try not to assume bad faith. The tone of your recent comments about the {{Batman}} and {{Superman}} templates is needlessly confrontational, defensive and/or sarcastic. Take a look at WP:COOL and realize that the edits aren't about you: everyone is working towards the same goal, to make the templates as useful and aesthetically pleasing as they can be. We're not all going to agree completely on the results, but if we treat each other with civility and work towards consensus I hope we can come up with a result that's satisfactory to everybody.
You are not forbidden from working on the template, as your user page currently says. If members of the comics WikiProject are failing to listen to your arguments, it is because the defensive and sarcastic tone of those arguments drowns out their content. Try restating your arguments in a calm, reasoned manner rather than focussing on who reverted whom and other personality issues. Make it about the template, not the personalities.
And, for the record, I'm not a member of the comics WikiProject. I'm just a fellow editor who happened to have Batman on my watchlist, and noticed the changes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't clutter my user talk page with defenses of AMiB and Markeer which blame me, on MY user page, for their decisions and hostile attitude. ALL I've done this whole day is try to get them to listen. ALL they have done is ignore me, insult me, and make it clear to me that you and they and the entire WP:Comic project is nothing but a sack filled with jerks.ThuranX 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to suggest that I'm also sarcastic and maybe they are too isn't any better.ThuranX 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest that they (AMiB and Markeer) were sarcastic; I was talking about comments like this one and edit summaries like this one, which I can't read as other than sarcastic. My intention was not to defend anyone, but to give you advice in a manner that I hoped would be more effective than, say, posting {{agf3}} (which I think would have been justified in the circumstances). I'm sorry that you consider it unhelpful.
My advice — which I recognize may not be welcome — is to take some time to cool off, and try to raise your concerns about the template on the talk page later, in a calm and reasoned tone. If that does not satisfy your concerns, you can file a request for comment to get a wider perspective on the matter. For now, remember that there are no angry mastodons here, and anger is neither helpful nor productive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Your advice is NOT welcome. ThuranX 22:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for backing me up regarding the Iron Man Terrence Howard rumor. I'm honestly surprised, like Mad Jack is, that the rumor hasn't appeared on the article at all, unless I missed some kind of revert the past week or two. Hope it stays that way. --Erik 06:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few things to consider within the show. They are factual, but only witnessed if you carefully look at the footage. Clan rHrN 15:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just to let you know, there is no page called the burden of proof. However, seeing it makes me wonder if it wouldn't do a lot of good for those of us who pay attention to the future comic-themed films to pursue a 'Wikipedia:Burden of Proof' page, or find somethign with the same purpose and create a linking header template for adding to such films, instead of what was previously done at the The Dark Knight page by Erikster and myself, putting a comment warning of the need for citations. Thoughts? ThuranX 17:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, give me a little time to look around wiki, and if I find nothing, I'll try to comp up some text for the template box, post it here, and after agreement, create a subpage off my userpage for staging, and we'll work from there.ThuranX 17:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so comping seemed easier to jsut do IN the webpage. Please look hereUser talk:ThuranX/CitationTemplate, and give me feedback. I've tried to phrase it confidently and politely.ThuranX 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or not. I've got to find a place for it, because the citation templates are for creating citations, not for asking for such citations. I'll ask over there, find a place for it.ThuranX 18:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmm, looks like i missed a few. I'll look into the template more though. What's the "X?" refer to? and I'll fix it, agreed.ThuranX 23:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, think I fixed it. I tested it by adding it to my talk page and checking in preview. I checked a couple other templates to check what I'd missed. Apparently, I'd lost a box closer in there somewhere. It should operate properly now. As to the 'hissy fit', that's an inaccurate interpretation, but I've abandoned the pages, and I'm no longer interested in whatever those pages become. I've decided to focus on smaller, short term goals on wikipedia. ThuranX 23:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I noticed. Sorry if my characterization if off, but just look at your talk page header. Anyway, good work all and all. I really this will help out with articles. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel more consensus would be preferable, but if there's a page that really needs it tonight, I guess run with it! We'll see how it's taken once it's out in the articles. ThuranX 03:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go for it, let's see what happens. ThuranX 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I intended the template to be on the Talk page, not the main page. I'm not sure if putting it on the article itself is confrontational or not. On a page like the Dark Knight, I understand the up-front placement, but I do wonder if that won't be taken wrong by other editors.ThuranX 04:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you worded it very nicely. It doubt anyone would take offense or want to remove it—for non-vandalous reasons—any time soon. Honestly, though, I also sometimes wonder what good templates do on talk pages. Look {{controversial}}. Someone can just, like, look up any "controversial article" and edit it at their leisure. No sign of a problem. No thought to facts, tension or disputes. With something like this, especially, I'd think that it's critical we place it on the top front page. Even a simple change to the cast would need some sort of source. Plus, it's not so much a "matter of fact" or "this needs to stay (out of sight)" thing like..."this got a grade A! lol". The template would be largely useless after all the facts have been gathered. However, right now we can't even prove Holmes is in or out. That's...bad. Then there's this between stuff and the Harvey Dent casting. It's not Spider-Man 3, but if the casting of the Joker is any example, this is an article which needs a majority of it's edits to include citations. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 04:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Then I guess we run with adding to the article page, and if people take offense, we'll talk about it on he template's page. Shoudl we copy and move this conversation over to the template's page?ThuranX 04:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'd technically just be dumping it there. A lot of articles, templates, et cetera probably started from conversations like these, but you don't see them on the talk page. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 05:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ALright. If needed, we can always link to this section of my talk to show purposes and intents, and so on and so forth.ThuranX 05:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The template looks good to me. I was busy traveling from Seattle to St. Louis, hence my lack of response for a while. This is a good idea, but how will it be decided when to implement it or not? Pages like Spider-Man 3 and Transformers could use this kind of template, but for some film articles, the usage may not be so self-explanatory. --Erik 07:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Jamdav86, a long-time, semi-regular contributor to Wikipedia. I have not seen you around most of the time I've been here, but I have now become aware of you regarding your navigation-box discussions with fellow Wikipedians.
I must say that I have been shocked by the confrontational attitude you have towards other members of our community, in particular the Wikipedians contributing as part of WikiProject Comics. I am perfectly willing to accept that your spiteful attacks were made out of ignorance of the concept of WikiProjects. Therefore, I direct you to the page Wikipedia:Wikiproject so that you may learn what a Wikiproject is and what they do to assist articles in making them as good as they can possibly be. I also suggest that you find out about Wikipedia:Wikiproject Comics as well.
I also see, from looking briefly at these user pages, that you may also be ignorant of WP:CIVIL, and advise you to take note of what that page says about Wikipedian practice.
I understand that you are frustrated that pages you have worked hard on have been changed without prior notice, but that is the way of Wikipedia. I hope after reading these articles thoroughly you may contribute more positively to Wikipedia, and perhaps join Wikiproject Comics so that you can put your opinions in a place that is easier to access for other people. Many thanks for your time. --Jamdav86 19:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ThuranX, I understand that you now regard any attempt to challenge your behavior as a form of bullying; however, removing non-vandalistic comments from your userpage is generally regarded as uncivil. Please see Help:Talk page#Etiquette. I feel that I have no choice but to formally warn you:
Please stop. If you continue to remove warning messages from your talk page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you continue in this belligerent, uncivil behavior you will be blocked. Wikipedia has many channels of dispute resolution; please consider using one of them instead of persisting in this conflict. Thank you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, no one is more aware than me that the Character Changes page is not meant to reflect subjective interpretantions or Post-Infinite Crisis changes. However, despite the fact that the JSA Classified story was meant to tie in to the JLA Classified story from the previous month, the former obviously takes place many years after the latter, and Post-Crisis, as demonstrated by the presence of Fortune's half-face mask, Gypsy's new costume, and the JSA having temporarily disbanded. While Fortune being depicted alive without explanation in the JSA Classified story was likely due to the writer not being aware he had been implied dead by Gail Simone in the Villains United Special, the fact that his face is still scarred means that whatever explanation there is for him having survived likely has to do with him having used his powers, rather than having been resurrected from scratch somehow. Besides, he never should have been listed under Deaths. He should have been under Unconfirmed Deaths from the beggining, where I put him. Not only did we not see him hit the ground after Knockout pushed him off the helicopter in the Villains United Special, but we also have to take into account that if anyone can cheat death when falling off an aircraift, it's a man who can manipulate luck. Hell, Major Disaster is under Unconfirmed Deaths simply because he is very strong, despite the fact that his neck was snapped in plain sight. Finally, quoting Pudge himself: Well, in mypossiblysoon-to-end life, I've never been more certain of one thing. I should have not called the redhead's chicky a slut. Within the context of Infinite Crisis, no one besides Fortune could have been aware of his exact fate after falling off the plane, ergo, Unconfirmed Death. --Ace ETP 04:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dude, chillax. I already said OK on your talk page. I fully believe you. I THOUGHT, erroneously, that JSA was also Pre-IC. ThuranX 21:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, good edit. Why not keep your eye on the article. It can use a fresh perspective, particularly on that aspect of Ford's life, which is plagued by edits such as this one that followed yours.--Mantanmoreland 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged it for watching.ThuranX 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I recently cleaned up the new Schreiber reference in which he supposedly addresses Batman rumors. I am deaf, so I wasn't able to follow the video interview at LatinoReview.com to get the information I needed. Did he say that he'd "love to do a Batman movie"? In what context? Is there anything else that he shared about the Batman movie? I want to find out if there's anything else from that citation that could be useful. --Erik 17:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"I wish somone would nail those rumors down...but... I'd love to be in a Batman movie." exact quote. Hopes that helps. ThuranX 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is based off Chicago. Not New York...Chicago's Crime rate is much higher then New Yorks or New Jersey. Combined for that matter...You have your information wrong...You might want too fix that please. At one point in the 90's Chicago had a crime rate soo high that 989 people would die each year!!! (This unsigned comment added by:75.3.117.184 at (04:57, 21 August 2006)
I have a question. Do people get paid to write on wiki or they do it for fun or other purposes.I can't seem to find anything about Batman being based off New York or New Jersey.
75.3.117.184 15:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Thanks for the info. If batman was flimed in Chicago why would it be based off New York. New York Has Many more skyscrapers then Chicago better things and more space.[reply]
You win...But what i really dont understand is why they used Chicago to Flim the movie...if its based Of New York it really should be flimed there..Makes no sense to me...75.3.117.184 18:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks For telling me. No need to respond to this i get the point.75.3.117.184 04:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No conflicts so far. I have a bad habit of finding typos one at a time and fixing them so I rack up a lot of little edits. I'm stepping back from the article for a while to let the vandals get it out of their sad little systems. Otto4711 02:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that you are a fellow editor that watches The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 3, I was wondering about your opinion as how to approach the Transformers article. I have no knowledge of the Transformers universe, but the article is incredibly disreputable at the moment. I'd like to work on improving it (as The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 3 have been shaping up), but I don't know where to start. Any suggestions? --Erik 16:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you've done with the article so far. I would've taken some initiative today being a lazy Sunday, but the Internet at my house at college has been on the fritz. (I'm at a campus computer lab now.) When I get the Net back, I'll see what I can contribute. --Erik 23:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was just coming here to ask you to stop acting as if every statement I make regarding your contributions on the Kathleen Harris talk page is an insult or incivility. But now that I read through your talk page, it's clear that at least a dozen times in the past month, you've acted out in the same manner to numerous other editors on Wikipedia. In response to your latest comment:
If you can't work civilly with others, and have to default to insults, then you should probably get another hobby. Wikipedia's fun,a nd it's worth working on. but if you can't even discuss the nature of wiki without jumping up whenever the word 'vote' is used instead of 'opinion' or 'two cents', then you'er too into the site, and should step away.ThuranX 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to state that in no way have I "default(ed) to insults", nor have I been uncivil in my discussion of the topic or your comments towards me. Your suggestion that I "step away" or "get another hobby" are exactly the sorts of comments that come from broaching the line between assumption of good faith and acting as if I am malicious in my intent.
Since you are not able to work well with me, I will ask other editors to help in discussing any issues I have where we may see differently on a discussion page in the future. Good day. ju66l3r 04:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(here's as good a place as any...) I like the split reflection image you made and added to the SM3 page... I wonder though, is there an 'original' comics page image available? That would probably be even better if available, and eliminate the 'middle step' of the cartoon. We've seen other covers and such built into the films as shots, (like the trash can costume shot, peter's back to the viewer walking away in #2). Just a thought... On another note, I added you to a list on my user page. ThuranX 21:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A new section would have been fine. It's easy to archive my usertalk if I feel the need. Oh and thanks for adding me. I really dig that what I'm doing is really appreciated. Now then, the comic image in question is far less relavent, I'm afraid. For starters, the SG cover is not the originator. The bonding, history, character, time of day, positions, etc are all different. Still, I'll let you see your yourself. click here. I do see a similarity in how the symbiote is coating/immitating the costumes of SG and Movie-Spidey, but with the differences outweighing the similarities, I'd rather not complicate things by trying to show all three images. I think i'll change the text in the trivia section and mention this on the article talk page. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, X. The stories are different. The in the animated series, the suit debuts on earth, separate from the secret wars story and bonds to Pete in his sleep. The point of interest and trivia is that there may be an intentional reference to the animated series. It also might indicate that they'll use the animated series origin. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 03:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry your comment on my talk page lost me. If edit conflicts are the problem, the best thing is just to go back, copy your previous comments, and re-post. Happens to be me all the time too.--Mantanmoreland 04:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the solution is simple. Just hit "back" on your browser and what you typed should reemerge. Works for me.--Mantanmoreland 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
