User talk:ThuranX/Archive 6

Re: the template is go.

Hey bro, thanks for keeping me up on the template :) ... => Harish101 00:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

Normally I'd reply in my own user space, but I'll make an exception. Sysops have no special standing to offer opinions about proposed arbitration cases. Try not to parrot a pure me too, but if you've got an observation that hasn't already been expressed then go ahead and voice it. Durova^Charge! 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Aquaman

Thanks for kind words. I was actually still building the PH when you posted on my talk page, to get all six freaking volumes in! It's a sickness. I'm addicted to editing.

RE: "I don't think my sarcasm was too much" — I'd have to agree with you that as sarcasm goes, it was very mild. I'm just not sure that any sarcasm helps, since the recipient is going to get irritated by it — that's part of the whole point of being sarcastic. Don't get me wrong; I think CmdrClow was wrong in splitting the article sans consensus, but I think it was honest mistake. I could be wrong, but I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt.

As I've said before, it's good working with an articulate and reasonable soul like yourself! --Tenebrae 05:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

I noticed you just reverted an edit I did in The Dark Knight article. I have been a Chicago journalist since 2000. I have been reporting accurately on The Dark Knight since day one of filming. I can point you to hundreds of news articles around the Web from other legitimate publications that have referenced my reports. My news thread on The Dark Knight here has a good deal of verifiable information that is not in the Wikipedia article for the film. What is the best way for me to include this information such that I meet Wikipedia's policies? --AdamFendelman 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't cite your own website. Please read WP:COI and WP:SPAM. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Annie

I ThuranX. Seeing your edit to Annie's userpage, can I suggest your recommendation go at the bottom of her page? I just think that someone who isn't responding to normal edits at the bottom of someone's page (like I am now) may be less likely to respond to something continued on in another topic. It simply doesn't seem to occur to her that people would like to talk to her, maybe she isn't even scrolling down having seen the "new messages bar".martianlostinspace ^{email me} 21:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that it's necessarily a better idea, but it's a very difficult situation: she simply isn't responding in a way many good faith editors would.martianlostinspace ^{email me} 08:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ex Machina

Please note that the modifications I made to the Ex Machina (comics) article are not limited to removing unnecessary items from the Timeline section. The timeline does not need to include every incident that Vaughan has chosen to portray; rather, it should contain a) important events in Mitchell's life, b) events pertaining to Mitchell's powers and other superhero-related stuff (thus, Automaton), and c) events pertaining to real-world phenomena that have their own articles.

I have reverted your reversion; please consult with me if you still disagree. Thank you. DS 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Rush

Somebody else has already removed the template, but that seems fine, since the contradiction has been resolved. :) It looks good! --Moonriddengirl 12:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Open wiki

I'm usually right there with you on most things. Wikipedia:External links says open wikis are to be avoided except in very narrow circumstances that would certainly require consensus agreement among editors. I'm not saying this particular wiki doesn't meet those criteria, but we have no consensus that it does. --Tenebrae 16:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: this AN/I thread.

Yes I saw that and there is no need to point this user to WP:HARRASS for feeling a little offended and over eagerly reacting to the situation (that would be a little ABF-ish). I believe the response I gave will assure this user that the situation does not require administrative attention and there is no need to continue to post on the talk page or discuss the somewhat incivil comment.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Punisher

Ah ok, sorry about that. I should of checked the talk page before I moved it but for some reason I didn't this time and just acted as I saw it was named that. Silver Sonic Shadow 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your friend

I've arranged for him to take a vacation. Nobody should have to put up with crap like this. Sorry you had to experience such things. Raymond Arritt 03:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Iron Man

Here's your citation you wanted for the Iron Man film wiki. In case you didn't know the Air Force does in fact have many land troops.

pic 1 pic 2 pic 3 pic 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scatr99 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Punisher 2

I have reverted your move of the article. The title you moved it to is only a working title for pre-production, not the intended release title. Until we have citation that it, or another title, is the release title, please leave it at Punisher 2. Articles about the movie continue to call it Punisher 2, and while there are statements that it represents a third incarnation, unconnected to the 2004 film, that's changed before, as has the working title, which was briefly called Welcome Home, Frank, as a working title. As details continue to change, it makes no sense to continue to move the page, update all links, and on and on. Thank you. ThuranX 13:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies! It seems I wasn't the only one. I'll be more efficient in the future. --Soetermans 20:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, is this the only source for the working title? The "source" is Diva, which doesn't sound too authentic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, explain to me again how to use the move feature. I could've sworn that once an article was moved and edited thereafter, it couldn't be moved back. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

noe, you jsut hit 'move', add a new, or old, title, and put it back. if someone were to edit the OLD page, for example, if someone moved off The Punisher 2 to TP:WZ, and then went back and edited TP2, it would be more difficult, but jsut 'reverting' over a redirect is easy. I've had to do it multiple times, and have done it again. Until there's a citation that War Zone is the legit title, I want to keep it at TP2, although a move to 'Untitled Punisher Film' would work as well. ThuranX 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Official site seems a little hard to dispute, even with their previous snafu. How long was Welcome Back, Frank on the publicity page? Also, I was reminiscing and reading this and was wondering where Ace got to. Any idea? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

He's not on much anymore. He got tired and worn down wit hthe project, I can't blame him. I'm tired too some days. given the multile supports for TP:WZ, with the official site as citation, i'll go move it. ThuranX 20:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had my days, too. I think I edit a little more leisurely nowadays, especially after Spider-Man 3 feeling like a waste of time after seeing the film and not being too thrilled with it. I don't check my RSS feeds and Google Alerts, so Alientraveller's usually able to beat me to the punch for superhero films. I tend to science fiction films more, though... just created Franklyn today. I'm trying my damnedest to finish off Fight Club (film) -- there's an insane amount of academic studies for it, and I'd like to set a new precedent to show that a film's themes (intended and unintended) can be explored. As for future films, WP:NF makes merging easier -- still have an agenda here, though. I've actually been able to ask nicely a couple of times for merging, like here, and for Spawn 2. Hopefully, I'll be able to enter the non-film foray with my revision of Watchmen, which is on hold due to school. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, all that work was completely fucking pointless. It's now a giant mess. I wish people would just learn how to do things right. that jerk knows how to do it, he did it before, but he rushed, and fouled it all up. I"m gonna let HIM sort this crap out. ThuranX 20:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

well i have my own fair share of trash talking same as you, but its pointless and uneducated way to address an issue †Bloodpack† 21:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

SO was your entire attitude, Cutting and Pastign to make a point in stead of doing things right. ThuranX 22:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh, sorry to see that ugly business you had to deal with regarding the page move... hopefully, the studio can flat-out confirm a title, especially this one, as to avoid any more moves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• See "uncontroversial moves" in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=159739851 . Judging by the above discussion, there seems to be a dispute going on. Please who are all the parties in it and their opinions? 4 paragraphs above, who is meant by "that jerk"? See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Anthony Appleyard 04:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hulk (comics)

You might want to poke your head in, on the talk page and article. That's all I can fairly say. --Tenebrae 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks. Well, sometimes there's not much one can do. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:COOL

as per your edit summary ---> (Undid revision 159467048 by Bloodpack (talk) that's NOT a fucking move.) †Bloodpack† 21:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's the law

Re the AN/I discussion surely by now you've run across Carbonite's law. Raymond Arritt 05:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the chuckle: Delete. I get so tired of deleting all these recreations by all these Creepy Crawler/EJBanks/BatmanFan etc. sockpuppets. Why can't something be done about him? Wryspy 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Your reply: SALT & Eject into space. Wryspy, because murder is a crime, and ignorance and assholery aren't. LOL.

FYI: When we report him as Creepy Crawler, though, we tend to the get the reply that records don't go far enough back. When pointing out a CC sock (and this sure won't be the last time), direct whichever admin evaluates the report to the chain of CC socks listed at User_talk:EJBanks#Confirmed_sockpuppets. Wryspy 06:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Oops, I thought it was stating that he had just been blocked, rather than saying he should be. My apologies, I've rv'd. Wizardman 02:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably best that someone else handle it, I think. Wizardman 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Captain America

Wiki articles should be written for the general reader. That's a guideline. Not everyone knows what the Avengers are in the context of Marvel Comics, so stating the obvious is often quite necessary in articles, especially the lead section. WesleyDodds 03:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert a second time. ThuranX 03:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, just explaining my rationale. WesleyDodds 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Animated DC Films

I understand that some of the animated films are on the DCAU template, but when compared to the Marvel films template which includes animated films, the DC one seems incomplete. There's more than just the DCAU films too. The Teen Titans one, The Batman vs. Dracula, and the 3 new ones as well. I have not seen a complete DC animated template. So maybe we can discuss it rather than remove it? Thanks in advance man, and good job on these articles. God bless.RoryS89 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

I thoought of a separate template. If you like the idea, I'll make it. Thanks for the advice man. I pray I'll get the details figured out okay on some of the series, as many seem related yet aren't (the three new animated films for example), but I think I have all of it covered. What about the inclusion of in-production films, like this animated one I've heard of that bridges Batman Begins and The Dark Knight?RoryS89 17:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

I set the template up a few hours ago. Well the animated Nolan one has no page yet, but it has a premise. It's 6 short stories set in between film 1 and 2 and set in that Batman world. And it's an anime. And I left the three new DC films that are based on Superman, the Justice League, and the Teen Titans respectively, as single films. While the Superman one is produced by Bruce Timm and has similar animation styles, they say it is non-DCAU. As for Justice League, it has a different GL and Flash, so it is definitely separate. I don't know about Teen Titans. Since the Superman one is out and the other two will probably come out some time between Christmas and February/March, they all have pages. But apparently this new Batman movie and an upcoming animated Wonder Woman flick are all part of these new DC animated movies, though they have yet to receive pages of their own.RoryS89 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)RoryS89

Getting started

I've just read your note which is no doubt relating to my editing of an entry written some time ago about myself. I should explain that the entry only came to my attention after it was pointed out by a collegue in work (BBC) that it existed but was slightly incorrect. This did not bother me, but some offensive vandalism I discovered a few weeks back did! So I took the liberty of changing the page back to how it was and updating/beefing up the information given while i was there. There is now a NPOV on the page which is understandable but slightly unfair - can this be removed? It's certainly a neutral, factual article, in the style of the initial article. Also, as a typically lazy journalist who uses Wikipedia all the time, I feel I should make the effort to contribute, something I would enjoy anyway. Can you link me to the most concise beginners guide to regular contribution? I could specialize in the people and places of Northern Ireland, specifically relating to it's music and arts (and also a little sport). There are certainly some glaring omissions at the moment I would enjoy writing about (and I promise it's not anything i'm involved with!!) Kind regards. Rigsy

Personal attack

I highlight what I take to be the personal attacks in what you wrote :"His only non-user talk edit today seems to be this, which reads like that autogenerated screed text... I forget the website it's on, but there's a site that let's you put in a few nouns and select a 'point' and length, and it autogenerates the argumentative letter using lots of 3 cent words and hyperbole. If so, then he's trolling from the get-go. If not, then he's REALLLLY off in his own world, and he'll no doubt set off all the alarms and warnings, resulting in another long block soon enough. ThuranX 01:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)" EffK 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

And, for your benefit, I show this: The WP Troll article says/said :"Intentionally posting an outrageous argument, deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error. Often the poster will become defensive when the argument is refuted, and may continue the thread through the use of further flawed arguments; this is referred to as "feeding" the troll." Your basing yourself upon the Arbcom decision may excuse you technically from the personal attack, but the fact that the Arbcom ignored the 3rd party verification of my position simply shifts the burden of wrong to Arbcom. the 3rd party attempted to reveal to Arbcom that the "deliberately constructed.. fundamental..obfuscated flaw or error" was not mine. As I believe in Wikipedia and other social principles, the injustice made by ignoring such verification and witness cannot be left un-done. If you really, after reading the 3rd party, whose statements I have posted to my user page, continue to believe in the Arbcom justice as voted, then I suggest you immediately call for Arbcom to deal with the injustice or justice, such that my supposed trolling be confirmed as trolling, with all the consequences. I would however suggest that upon seeing the 3rd party report, that you join with the sense of justice inherent to that witness, and rather apply to Arbcom for a complete revision of its earlier convictions made against me. Personally I can say that the open-season upon me, exemplified by your intervention, and the lifelong bans, make of my effort towards ever having contributed to this Project, a punishment. As ever I have to note that generally the digital situation is that all edits are immortal, and that nothing that contradicts social norms is other than evidential, whether in WP or without. I, as anyone may, reserve the general right to re-produce all actions outside of Wikipedia , under fair use. Good day, EffK 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

HollywoodChicago

What will it take to blacklist the site and purge Wikipedia of the promotional Adam Fendelman and HollywoodChicago.com? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've placed the report on my watchlist, and depending on how the report develops, we'll take further steps. I'm tired of this person's lack of journalistic integrity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Site owner has removed the proposed deletion template from his site, so I've put it up for deletion to set the consensus for its removal. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Psst, since you've edited after my message, I'm assuming you might've missed my heads-up. See above. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic Four film series

Hey man, I didn't know who else to discuss this with but not long ago, I did a lot of work to this article and I was wondering how much of an improvement it is considered to be. Just wanna see if I haven't done all this for nothing, and what could be improved. Hope to hear from you. Take it easy. -- Harish - 10:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Appreciate the feedback. I'll work on some of the suggested points here and there over the coming few days. -- Harish - 21:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey man, I had time to work on this article, but I was a little unsure of what you meant when you stated "The two films' summaries need to be cleaned up for tone as well; both contain run-on sentences with multiple dependent clauses despte a lack of commas and punctuation.". Would you clarify that, please? -- Harish - 20:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just seen you did it yourself, very nice job. -- Harish - 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulk

I understand, but in the cite you deleted Arad referred to the film as a "do-over". I must have forgotten to remove it as time went on and the Penn interview came up. Alientraveller 18:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, the film is a sequel, but it is very different. I'm not sure if you've read the script reviews, but the film really follows Hulk, but it is radically different in two elements. Overall I prefer to keep the two seperate for now, because overall this new Hulk film is really part two in Marvel Studios' attempt to create a Avengers franchise. Alientraveller 20:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's a requel. I've been putting a lot of care into the article: I think it's fantastic a Hulk fan like me is getting two unique takes on the same character within a few years. You're doing well with that rewrite. Just a note that in the Evolution of the Hulk featurette on the 2003 DVD, Stan Lee said Jekyll/Hyde and Frankenstein's monster were the inspirations for the Hulk. Alientraveller 20:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice.

Bus stop has recently requested an unblock on his user talk page. In this request, he brings up the Who is a Jew? article, arguing that even though he was opposed on the page, his ideas were implemented earlier. He argues in part that he should be unblocked as his ideas were, in the end, positive contributions. Now, I have the article on my watchlist, but I don't really follow it, so I really have no idea if this is the case. However, I feel that it may be good to notify someone who might, because in all honesty, I've seen this user present cases in a skewed manner before, and if this isn't true, I'd certainly hope that someone would speak up about it.

On another note, he appears to end the request with a plea to a new attitude. As much as I'd like to believe this, the rest of the comment seems to show that he's still rather hung up on the whole thing.--C.Logan 07:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that; it appears his request was flatly declined. Just thought you should know, anyway.--C.Logan 09:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PR startled

Hello - if you ever (really) think I've slurred or otherwise denigrated any ethnic or religious minority, please tell me. PR^talk 20:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're welcome for telling him not to troll you. So glad you've got any manners to thank me. And yeah, you ARE a bigot. ThuranX 21:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know about the AN/I. This is amazing. Doczilla 01:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

Frater210 at his talk page just linked to a forum in which he is collaborating with other users to harass you and me. This incident needs to be reported. Do you know what needs to be done? I can find out, but I imagine you'd know best how to address this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a report. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd love your feedback

I'm currently in the process of a nomination procedure for administrationship. I would love your feedback regardless of your "vote" so that it will help me gain a better understanding of things which I am weak in. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Wisdom89 Wisdom89 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

The Original Barnstar I award you this for your thoughtful, responsible editing, your diligence against vandalism, and your articulate comments in talk-page disputes. Congratulations from my humble self. --Tenebrae 06:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And thanks again.

		Comics Communication Barnstar
		For your outstanding efforts in speaking up for the truth, educating fellow editors, explaining project guidelines and goals, striving to resolve differences, and generally facilitating communication about comics-related articles and between their contributors, it is my great pleasure to award you this Comics Communication Barnstar. Doczilla 07:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats bro! Although I dunno about that "level-headed" thingy (on previous disputes). Just stay cool. Peace †Bloodpack† 15:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Kal-L

I did put a redirect on the top dab before you changed it. Even though WP:HN doesn't mention this, do you mind if I re-replace the current dab with {{Distinguish2|Kal-El, the mainstream Superman}}, which produces, Not to be confused with Kal-El, the mainstream Superman. This newer hatnote was suggested here. You mind if I perform the change? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Im not sure what your issue with Sesshomaru is, but another talk page edit entitled "You're an ass" or similar and I'll block you for violating NPA. I see another user recently highlighted some civility issues on your part. Deiz talk 12:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Infobox template

I cannot seem to find the actual infobox structure that shows the font colorings of the Heroes template. Do you know where it is? I've looked at most of the items marked 'Heroes template', but none of them shows where the text is white on a black background, which is all very pretty, but not very encyclopedic. This is an olive branch as well as a request for assistance. Help? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, your Diff is precisely what I was looking for. I knew that the infostring included the html color codes, but either my browser or OS isn't seeing them (which is unusual in itself). Even in the Diff you provided, I could see your clean-up of the coloring, but I couldn't see any of that when i was looking in the edit window myself. I had thought it was something grandfathered in from the first Heroes template and was hiding somewhere.

As well, I concur as to the coloring being meant to reflect the eclipse motif, but we both know that's not very encyclopedic. I wonder if there is going to come a time when someone argues that since this is an online encyclopedia why it should not be all the pretty. I am of two minds on the subject, and I am not enough like Tony Sidaway to just make the change and build consensus through mass edits.

Anyway, thanks for the help, and I hope this helps turn a corner is how we edit together. I do frankly respect your ability as an editor, and I want you to know that I work just as hard to make good edits. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding personal attack at 11:54, 12 October 2007

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:Sesshomaru, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Get stuffed. I made a compromise edit on your behalf, to the template you chose to edit to. Here you put it in. Here it's reverted by Doczilla, and not for the first or only time. Here I spend two edits getting the text Doczilla wants in the template yu wants. My thanks, after five days, is your antics. ThuranX 20:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that Sesshomaru continues to cry out about his treatment. that he continues to object to all edits made in support of HIS edits on the page shows he's not interested in consensus, but in eliminating all opposition. It's childish, it's bad form ,and I have no intention of allowing such behavior to be rewarded. You'll notice he's thoroughly unable to explain why he objets to his own edits, other than that I didn't support reinstating all of them. ThuranX 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

NPA / Civility - 24hr block

I'm really not interested in the details of your content dispute, there are ways to resolve such disputes without creating talk page sections entitled "You're an ass" and following it up with "get stuffed". 24 hour block for repeated incivility after warning. I understand Wikipedia can be frustrating, but that doesn't give anyone, no matter how dedicated, a free pass to personal attacks and incivility. Deiz talk 05:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ThuranX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

That I use my own talk page to reply to an editor interested in manipulation of pages and editors, who actually demands changes to his own editing from other editors is my choice. That I choose to use a phrase like 'get stuffed' is brusque, and blunt. It's hardly 'incivil'. At no point were Carlin's 7 words invoked. On his page, I didn't write anything more explicit than 'you're an unmitigated ass', which was highly approiate given the editor's behaviors on the page in question with edit warring. That he goes after the compromiser after going after his opponent shows his character, and shows why AGF and such fell to the wayside.

1. per numerous threads on AN/I, a full retinue of warnings is required before blocking, and none was provided. 2. 3. Blocks are preventative not punative. What basis is there to suggest I'll continue to be hostile? Especially since block was made after I logged off for the night, check contribs. 4. My only disagreement is with this editor, who continues to play games in reverting his own edits, then reinstating them, rather than edit in a genuinely AGF'able manner. Check my other edits for the same time period.

Decline reason:

You were indeed warned to be civil; you chose to ignore the warnings. Preventing you from being incivil for 24 hours is a legitimate block. — jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ThuranX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block expired, and his seems to have also blocked my IP for longer? that's totally Punitive, to sneak an IP block behind my account block.

Decline reason:

It wasn't anything shifty. It was just the autoblock which I've removed. If the block on your account has expired, you should be right now. Sarah 05:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hulk rewrite

I'd be glad to take a look when I get a chance, since it's very long and I'd need to read both it and the extant version with an eye to detail. I'm sorry to see all the above; you've certainly been civil and collegial with me, and I've never known you to write intemperately in talk-page disputes. I'm sure this is a one-off circumstance. Heaven knows I've sometimes said things more harshly than I'd realized. Hang in there. --Tenebrae 06:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph breaks, dude! Paragraph breaks!   :- )   --Tenebrae 06:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...it was around 3 a.m. and I was bleary-brained. I was referring to the Thor talk-page post here, and I was just to make a lighthearted comment. Which I really shouldn't try to do at 3 in the morning. No stress. --Tenebrae 18:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes

If you're looking to keep each episode article, I suggest you use this link; [1] Entertainment Weekly reviewing each episode helps create notability for all of them. Alientraveller 19:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wanted to get your opinion

Do you think I've been taking the necessary steps to gaining more experience on the Wikipedia namespace? Trying not to be a lurker anymore! Wisdom89 08:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ra's al Ghul

Hey thanks for checking. I don't usually edit things based on my own perception. I thought for sure it was explicitly laid out in the dialogue. Maybe I am thinking of a documentary or something where Nolan said that's how it worked. Either way the credits list Liam Neesan as Ducard and Ken Watanabe as Ra's al Ghul. I think it's too simple to say Ken Watanabe just plays a body double.Rglong 00:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were done. In any case I don't feel like talking to you anymore. I appreciated the fact checking, and like I said, I personally don't normally edit based on my own interpretation, and I also correct others when they do so. So thank you, we all have to hold each other's feet to the fire. And now it's over. I don't like the way the article was written before, but presently I don't care enough to pursue this debate, and it's really not that important anyway. Have a nice day.Rglong 01:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

CIVIL

If you keep ignoring evidence then I will have YOU banned. Stop making articles innacurate.Rglong 01:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide solid citations that Ra's is an inheritable title, instead of using YOUR interpretation, that's original research. same on X-men:Last stand. You have no citations supporting the 'kid omega' = quill/spike thing. You're again engaging in OR, or, in this case, perhaps Synth, wherein Character resembles quill, director can't remember name, but thinks it's spikr or quill, so thus the character must be Quill. How do we know the character wasn't successfully licensed from the cartoon producers, and is really Spike? ThuranX 02:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There were already citations from the Zak Penn interview in which he EXPLICITLY states the character was always supposed to be Quill and that the name Kid Omega was a blatant error in the credits. However, the nazis here won't allow that interview because they don't like the website it was on, which was a forum community to which Zak Penn belongs, and they removed them all. As for the Spike thing, that's ridiculous. If you took two seconds to listen to the commentary, he obviously only misspoke when he said Spike, and is quickly corrected. Spike has got nothing to do with it. You are the one being totally farfetched, and you're just coming up with ridiculous scenarios that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Also the Ra's al Ghul article is a completely different situation, I had never intended to base it on my "interpretation" because I thought for certain it was explicitly stated in the script, but I ended up agreeing with you and fixing it. So stop acting like this is all related and accusing me of being unreliable in all situations, just because I happened to make a mistake in one case. And stop threatening people who are genuine editors and trying to do their best with disciplinary action. That never, EVER cools down a heated debate, and if you knew anything about this community you would already know that. If I were a real vandalist I would just erase the whole page or write dirty words all over it. Which is exactly why this article in particular makes me really fucking angry, because certain people are treating anyone who attempts to change the Quill segment in good faith, whether they are wrong or right, as vandals, and that's bullshit.Rglong 02:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've taken this to AN/I, so I'm out. ThuranX 02:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

And I would add, to Rglong, that referring to other editors as "nazis" [sic] for abiding by the policies, guidelines and standards of encyclopedic research is uncivil in the extreme, and his cursing and insults do not suggest a calm and reasoned mind. Someone so virulently insulting to other editors does not belong on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae 05:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I get your feedback on this?

I am kinda concerned that the connecting of the characters' abilities from Heroes to the list of comic book superpowers is OR by synthesis. I posted my concern here. What are your thoughts on the subject? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Quill

Thank you for taking a stand on research standards, Wikipedia guidelines and simple etiquette in the recent X-Men: The Last Stand situation. Your calm in the face of incivility is right and proper, and shows how one can turn the other cheek while keeping up one's stand.

I've made the reference to Kid Omega / Quill at Quill (comics)#Film and at Quentin Quire consistent with that in X-Men: The Last Stand. Given your time and vigilance on this issue, I thought you'd want to know.

And I promise I'll read the Hulk rewrite! It's just a lot to take in at once. Keep up the good, solid work, my colleague! --Tenebrae 13:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Another infobox issue

Someone has told me that supplanting hte word portrayer for actor renders the script governing the template unable to show the actor or the word actor. I have no experience with templates, and I think that maybe my Apple OS and Safari browser make seeing the script nearly impossible. Short of rewriting the script, is there a downand dirty way to fix the problem? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you link me to what your'e discussing? ThuranX 03:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Holy cats, I didn't even realize I didn't put it at the bottom - my apologies. As for the link, i think that it's where you made the change with the coloring before, here. As I had mentioned, User:Ophois had commented on my talk page that my substitution of the word 'portrayer' for the gender neutral 'actor' somehow breaks the template. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't really spend the time tonight, but can you explain why we'd want to make that change? Portrayed by is a common manner of the statement, if you're going to use a noun referring to the profession of the person in front of the camera, why not change it to actor, which has of late become gender neutral? Portrayer is a bizarre term. As for the template itself, at a guess, just click 'edit the page' and change "portrayed&nsbp&by" to "portrayer". ThuranX 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I guess i was unclear: My edit replaced the word 'portrayer' with 'actor', not the other way around (and the change wa made for the same reasons you noted). Problem is, the substitution appears to have broken the template's ability to see the word actor and use it as it did the word portrayer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AH... ok. let me try somethings really fast... if you see no change, they didn't work, and I went to bed.ThuranX 04:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not the word, it's something else... but, the portrayer thing might be part of it, though I don't see why, it's the other stuff that creates the links and such. Ge the template team on it, there's one somewhereThuranX 04:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimates edit

no problem Captaincanuck65 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

as for the rest of the ultimates stuff, i didn't add that info, it was already there, i just rearranged it so it flowed better. but, just out of curiosity, it seemsed like a lot of the stuff you removed was just basic info that anyone could pick up from reading the books, you have to cite even that?Captaincanuck65 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"yeah, you go public first."

Done.

Comments about Brandt

Um, I think you misintepreted what I said. If you are referring to my recent edit summary, that was referring to myself in the context of Alec's joke that I was a Brandt sockpupet. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. JoshuaZ 04:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a clear personal attack. Calling me Brandt in a rubber suit? Unlike you, I oppose Brandt's actions. You don't. IT's clear who that was referring to. ThuranX 04:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, you are welcome to believe what you want, but if you are interested in actually knowing the truth, I suggest you look at my history of dealings with Daniel Brandt. A google search of my username on WR will assure you that Daniel Brandt and I are not on friendly terms at all. I also can't see Brandt being a productive editor here for as long as you have without becoming a strong advocate for himself and blowing his cover. Nor do you have any of Brandt's characteristic grammatical quirks. Finally, if I thought you were Brandt I wouldn't have said so in an edit summary, I would have blocked you indefinitely and asked questions later. JoshuaZ 04:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe you, never will. I have no respect for you what-so-ever. ThuranX 04:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Odd, and I have so much for you... you generally seem like a good editor. And again, you don't need to believe me, you just need to do the right google search. Here, I'll even make it easy for you and provide you with the link of the pertinent source. JoshuaZ 04:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Was I not clear the first time? All that link does is show me you're a giant hypocrite of the 'misery loves company' variety. I still have no respect for you. Such sites have no redeeming value, not even as evidence of wikipedia criticism, not even in their creators' own articles, yet you continue to support such. There can be only one conclusion: You don't care what happens to others. ThuranX 04:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand. I'm trying to help Daniel Brandt, and the link of him bashing me repeatedly doesn't indicate otherwise but does indicate that what? That I somehow want to help Daniel harass other Wikipedians so I'll have more people to join in my terrible lonely misery as the only person who has to deal with Brandt on a regular basis? I'm confused. Even if that were all true how would that make me a hypocrite? Also, does this mean that you now agree that there are editors who have been harassed but who are not in favor of hard link removal? JoshuaZ 04:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. You support Brandt. Perhaps not in an active way, wearing a 'i heart DB' way, but your seek to give his site credibility and access via Wikipedia, and that's still support. It was easier to block links to Stormfront than to DB's sites, and you want it to stay that way. Heck, now that I mentioned it, you'll probably want to run out and restore those too. You're putting free speech on a pedestal here, one higher than the Supreme Court gives it. SCOTUS limits free speech where it impugns the rights of other people, you see no such limitations. As the servers and corporation follow Florida law, they're obliged to follow the decisions of SCOTUS as well. YOu can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't get up in front of the KKK and shout 'we need to lynch <$this guy>', and you can't broadcast the same. What you expect wikipedia to agree to is no different. You claim you've been harrassed by this; All I see is a bunch of people whining about you on a message board. Need I remind you that User:H went through much, MUCH worse? the GNA called his house, offered to rape and/or kill his wife and child. They knew where he was, and showed zero compunctions about doing him actual bodily harm. Whatever his nation of residence has that matches the FBI, they got involved, and yes, I'm omitting details out of respect. You seem to think that's an acceptable price for Wikipedia. I do not. There's nothing you can do that will ever make me think you're worth any respect. At all. Ever. I think you're as low as DB and DM, and the GNA. You're not going to change your opinions, so I think there's nothing left to say. ThuranX 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You truly seem to be a victim of many delusions. If you ask around, I think you'll find that nobody at Wikipedia shares your version of reality. Ask around; do yourself a favor. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Not following around anyone in particular here, but I have to ask, didn't JoshuaZ ban Brandt??? Milto LOL pia 05:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is insane-- I have to ask. Did ThuranX think JoshuaZ was Brandt ahead of time and I just got lucky with my joke? or did my joke convince him that Joshuaz is Brandt? lol. --Alecmconroy 05:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So now wanting to ban the linking of sites which attack wikipedia editors makes me delusional. This section is absurd, and nothing but a gang up of personal attacks on me for opposing the promotion of such sites. That no one here has actually stated that they want such sites banned from being linked here, and since some of those attacking me continue to abuse me for saying 'if they're out to ruin an editor's life, we shouldn't have it linked', I can only conclude that these are the editors who are deluded, not me. This is ridiculous. I keep saying I support blocking these sites, and I keep getting 'well, you're Brandt', or 'you're crazy', or 'you're too stupid to edit here', or 'you're delusional', or 'well, that wouldn't even help it, and you're naive if you think it would', and on and on and on. I just went through an outing here, I know what i'm talking about, and yet I continue to get shit upon by a bunch of fools who have no clue what it's like, or what the real world outcomes of such actions are like. ThuranX 11:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Confused by edit summary.

While we're still doing the entire edit summary clarification thing, regarding [2], you are aware that you started the conversation on my talk page about the Brandt matter and that I replied to you here which started thet matter yes? And I'm really curious as to what you think constituted a personal attack anywhere in that discussion so I know not to make them in the future. JoshuaZ 14:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well my way was right after all.

Per section 15 here, looks like Arbcom agreed with me, not you pro-attack editors. I guess I was right, Wikipedia agrees with SCOTUS, the freedom of speech of a person ends at their impinging on the freedoms of others. Section 15 is exactly what I said all along. Wikipedia should not link to sites whose purpose is to out editors. Hopefully you all will quit Wikipedia out of outrage about how the EVIL cabal is ruining yoru free speech rights. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. That or go fight arbcom, and make the experience even MORE fun by getting banned for it. Whatever, don't come around here. ThuranX 20:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulk

I like the rewrite a lot. Obviously, some edits are needed. I'm confused by redundancies between the two relaunch sections. Doczilla 21:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring retracted

I'm sure you are well aware of our guidance on edit warring, but I feel I have to point you towards it with regards your edits at Thor. Always seek to discuss controversial edits and build a consensus, and always assume good faith in every editor's actions. Wikipedia is not a battleground, so please attempt to refrain from engaging in battles over the text of articles or even the choice of image used. I'm sure you are aware that behaviour which violates our behavioral policies can lead to blocks being issued. Please do not interpret this message as a threat, but rather as advice as to the behaviour all Wikipedians are expected to adhere to as best they can. Steve block Talk 11:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I missed the discussion. I looked at the bottom of the talk page but not the history, my mistake. Steve block Talk 11:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Just one point regarding the timing. 18 hours isn't that long a delay, given that not all users check in every second on Wikipedia, and whilst blocks and advice aren't intended as punishment, they are used to encourage people to modify their behaviour. I would suggest there is no time delay on such attempts. Steve block Talk 12:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulk sandbox

Hi. I've put a few thoughts on the Sandbox talk page, and some examples of how you might streamline for style (as opposed to content). I did three paragraphs or so as examples, and if you think you might want to give the rest of that one section another pass with streamlining in mind, I could take another look and try to help again later. It's all so much, I can only get mind around a chunk at a time. Let me know if this helps. --Tenebrae 21:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely! Everything here is a synthesis of all our voices.

I'm a big one for footnoting as well -- I just left the numbers and things off for quick convenience. Anything quoted or non-evident assertions made, oh my goodness yes, cite away! --Tenebrae 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems fine so far, there's not much I can see apart from a good copyedit before going on the mainspace. Alientraveller 21:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

ThuranX it has come to my attention that you are attacking me. This is disstressing. I cannot figure out why you cannot assume good faith and you insist on attacking me left are right. I have to say at this point that you need to refrain from your uncivil actions at once. Kindly apologize and maybe we can work things out... Shogun108 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee

I think I may need to take a wikibreak myself. No hard feelings on the disputes I hope. You need to follow what you believe and I likewise. Have we agreed on anything yet.. haha. Oh well, it's the wiki way. I guess we'll figure it out. Morphh ^(talk) 3:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll stick with the article, though my edits may be very lite today. Busy pages can sometimes become stressful, so a quick breather to make sure I don't get too wrapped up in it helps. Yes, there were actually several things I think we agreed on. Also, I will support and defend your position if I do see an overly aggressive push to overrule policy or bias the article with a puppet POV consensus. I don't disagree with your intentions or the actions that your taking to address the problem you perceive. I just haven't been convinced yet that they're acting in bad faith or beyond the control of normal wiki discussion and dispute resolution. I certainly think it puts them on notice, so perhaps that will reduce future conflict and encourage them to offer more discussion with regard to their edits. Morphh ^(talk) 14:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow up note: User:Huckabee08 (likely huck08please from the blog - the one who said "hide all of those controversies") was exhibiting vandal behavior (for about 1 hour) and has been blocked indefinitely. We should keep an eye out for a sock puppet. Morphh ^(talk) 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hulk

I'll definitely take a look soon -- I've been peeking anyway, from your conversations with Alientraveller. I'm finishing up a Visual Basic project right now (who knew it'd be so hard to code a Rock, Paper, Scissors game?) and I plan to go home and eat a late dinner. I'm not sure when I'll get to it, but I need to recover a little before poring over your revision. Cool? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

A copy that meets en.wiki coding, I can barely grasp English userboxes, changing the coding between languages as well is too much (I'm terribly inept at computers, hence why I stick to article writing). I would be happy to translate given words from the infobox coding if necessary, but my (extremely) limited infobox/template skills aren't enough. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Ho-hum, after spending two hours and twenty minutes checking through diffs on various pages (back to April - actually providing a diff to the userpage may have helped!) I suppose the fingers do get a little wearied... Cheers. LessHeard vanU 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Depopulation

Yes there is. In PRC legislations, regulations, directives, etc., mainland China does not include Hong Kong and Macau. Kowlooner 03:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau have been part of the PRC since 1997 and 1999. Kowlooner 04:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this on AN/I, where others who may be confused can see it, thanks ThuranX 04:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[3] I apologize for losing it and calling a spade a spade but after two years of dealing with a POV pusher, including three bouts at ArbCom, I tire of repeating the same history every time this sockpuppeteer shows up and finds some admins willing to bend their ear to him. SchmuckyTheCat

Bold moves

Bold moves involving a lot of changes in one fell swoop tend to get flatly reverted and inspire edit wars. I'd say to solicit feedback on the Hulk and WikiProject Comics talk pages, and maybe even go straight to the talk page of whichever user you think might be most likely to start a fight over it. Doczilla 06:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GA/FA

I wrote one GA article about a psychologist, but I walked someone else through the process of typing every edit as a teaching exercise (I'm a professor), so his username is all over it instead of mine. (And yet he hasn't touched Wikipedia since we finished that back in April or May. Sheesh.) I say this only for whatever the information is worth as an answer to your question individually. For purposes of any possible RfA nomination (which I'm really, really not sure about), it's not worth mentioning at all because it's not something I could confirm directly via Wikipedia edit histories. Even if I wind up asking people not to nominate me for admin, though, I really ought to go through the exercise of creating a GA directly. Not that I'd take that up this month. I've been asked to write a textbook chapter, so that's my biggest writing priority until Thanksgiving.

Anyway, thanks for your supportive remarks and your useful question. Doczilla 05:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I never took it as a mandate. I just liked the idea of creating a new GA article.

I seriously appreciate your offer to nominate. I've got to think about this. I mentioned to jc37 that I want to take November to work on some of the things that I think might be weak points for me in any RfA discussion. Even if I decide not to go for admin status, that's useful to do anyway. Personally, I don't want to be an administrator, but I do realize that we really need more admins in the comics project. Doczilla 20:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Panther

Thank you for your edit and your succinct summary that "We are not a video game guide." It'd be great to see that integrated into WPC editorial guidelines and exemplar. Bravo! --Tenebrae 12:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Issues

I noticed you removed the merge tag from Thor in other media. It was placed in good faith so I have re-added it. Also, I find the big capital letters about vandalism at the topm of your talk page provoking. Don't stuff beans up your nose--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify that I am no that ip--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, also I should have checked the talk page for rationale, sorry about that--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 18:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes: Origins

Thank you so much for reverting the Heroes page just now. If i continue to revert Chrisisinchrist's changes, i might be in violation of the 3RR.

Chrisisinchrist believes that since Heroes: Origins production has been delayed that it no longer deserves to be in the plot section of the Heroes article. Im trying to get him to try to discuss it first on the talk page so we can come to a consensus, since consensus building is a really great thing on Wikipedia. Any help you can give to this situation would be great. Thanks. dposse 17:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not blanking out pages. I am moving the information to another section. like i said, i was not the user who made the original changes to the section. someone else moved the section to the television section and then someone re added to the plot summary section. therefore, the origins information was on the page twice and that doesnt make sense. why would we have the same information listed on the same page in two different sections? we need to just decide what section it is going to go in. i will bring this up on the discussion page.--Chrisisinchrist 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Revert

No, all of the criticism is related to his term as Governor. The only criticism that is more recent is his public suicide comments but even this dates back to when he was Gov. The article needs to be in chronological order. It's not clarified in the article that his suicide comments date back to his term as governor but I will add it. If you feel that we should move the recent suicide comment controversy to his presidential run we should do that.

Jeremy221 00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

the criticism section needs to come after his positions to give them better context. You can't know why his handling of the Dumond case was a problem unless you know his professed position on criminals, crime, and punishment. Further, the section includes criticism of comments made on the presidential trail. Interviews in 2007 are in there. It was brought up on the talk page and agreed upon. You've repeatedly reverted to your version without discussion. in Your version, we'd now have to have 'criticism of his governorship' and 'criticisms of his presidential campaign', splitting the criticism into a disjointed mess, and giving it undue negative weight, or we have to eliminate the criticism entirely. Neither option is reasonable. Unless you can demonstrate that his positions as governor and as presidential candidate are significantly different, I see no reason to use your form, and even if there were differences, they should all go into one positions section. ThuranX 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to make the reader "understand" hypocrisy but merely present the information. Huckabee is a Republican, and his actions are against standard Republican policies. We don't need to post his political positions above to point it out. Everything controversial states facts about his tenure as governor. Putting his political positions below his un-Republican records gives context to his current political platform. Yes, he has demonstrated hypocrisy. He gives the impression that he is against illegal immigration yet he supports amnesty and welfare benefits for undocumented immigrants. I will add some info right now. As for the criticism, I said I will add info to show how the criticism dates back to his term as governor. Jeremy221 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Then if his positions are reflective of his governorship, as you're now implying, since his controversies show him going against republican positions during his governorship, then the positions still ought to precede controversies. Finally, if you don't explain his views, there's no way to demonstrate that he's not a 'standard republican'. Further, the tone of your above piece demonstrates a clear bias against the subject, which is a specific BIAS / NPOV problem. ThuranX 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No, you asked me to demonstrate that his positions changed. I merely gave you an example. It is not my job to explain his views. It is not our job to point out "hypocrisy" but present the information. I think putting it in chronological order is the best way and this is the policy Wikipedia is following for the other presidential candidates. I think the best thing we can do is put this to a vote. I also didnt say that his positions are reflective of his governorship. You asked me to give you an example and I did and now you are using that to support your POV.

Btw his political positions are his official positions for his run for President, not his positions when he was Governor. It doesn't matter if they haven't changed they need to go below his presidential aspirations.

Jeremy221 01:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mike Huckabee

Thanks for the fast heads-up. east.718 at 00:23, 11/5/2007

Hulk citation

As a source for which fact? It wasn't immediately apparent to me. Sorry. Doczilla 06:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. That was actually too obvious for me to see it. Yeah, that reference is fine for Byrne's creative differences. Anybody who finds a better reference can replace it later. Doczilla 06:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest moving it over one section at a time to make it easier for people to compare versions. Doczilla 23:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar. Now I have two Original Barnstars, one for each hand in case I need to use them as weapons. Doczilla 04:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

X-Men:Origins

Good citation. And thanks for the chuckle. Doczilla 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nov. 6

I need to take an enforced wikibreak for about 18 hours, just so you know why I might not be getting back to anyone right away. I left a comment on the Hulk talk page. See you on the other side. --Tenebrae 05:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 15:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?

If you want to stop discussing things with me and maintain civility, then please do not make comments about me on the article's discussion page. ← Michael Safyan 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not? that's the place for this, not talk pages. Your assertions go to your arguments, they stay there, and will be responded to there. ThuranX 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Directing arguments against me, rather than against what I have proposed, is an ad-hominem fallacy. Arguments pertaining to my proposal  can be dealt with calmly and objectively, whereas statements pertaining to my person  cannot. Although I do not intend to respond in kind, I can hardly allow inaccurate and pejorative statements about me to go unchallenged; therefore, statements of this nature are likely to escalate to the incivility you wish to avoid and are likely to draw my attention which you wish to ignore. ← Michael Safyan 02:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So calling you on your logical fallacies is a personal attack, but making them against me is legit? Consider this your Uncivil behavior warning. ThuranX 02:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out logical fallacies does not constitute a personal attack; accusing someone of malintent and "POV pushing" does. Calling someone a "kid" pejoratively and talking about someone behind his back is both rude and uncivil; requesting that such behavior stop, provided that it is done in a civil fashion, is not. I do not believe I have committed a logical fallacy on the discussion page, and if I have, addressing it does not require an assumption of badfaith nor a personal assault. I regret that we have started off on a bad foot, and I hope that -- despite disagreements -- we can agree to keep discussions to the topic of the arguments rather than to the topic of each other. ← Michael Safyan 03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, A litany of more things I haven't done, and the wiki-corollary to Godwin's Law, the whipping out of the AGF. When you can rationally discuss this, then I'll talk to you. Your attitude on that talk page started out middling, and moved towards defamation fast. You accuse me, repeatedly, of starting out that thread bad, when it's clear I didn't. You threw logical fallacies all over, and then used the concept of the logical fallacy against me when I pointed them out, claiming my naming of your fallacies alone constituted a personal attack. You're not operating in good faith in any way whatsoever. You ignored multiple calm, civil posts, choosing instead to see my rebuttal to your 'why I'm most qualified to decide this for Wikipedia' list as personal attack, when I specifically named the debate fallacies utilized. That you insist you are, by those qualifications, inherently better than other editors as far as that article, and apparently, all of Judaism is concerned, and find it rebutted and dismissed as irrelevant, you went into hostility fast. You accuse others of personally attacking you. I didn't. That list of articles wikipedia 'ought to have', combined with the list of 'why Michael Safyan is cooler than the rest', made me wonder if you didn't have an agenda outside Wikipedia regarding Judaism. You do. One google search found that. I brought it up, because your view of Judaism outside Wikipedia as an anti-palestinian activist is bleeding out here. You seem thoroughly unwilling to admit your bias can affect your editing. That's a problem, a big one, because it's starting to violate NPOV. ThuranX 14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A litany of more things I haven't done

Which ones haven't you done?

• Calling me a "kid" (...I'm done being insulted here by a kid with a holier-than-thou attitude...) [4]
• Talking about me behind my back (I see zero, absolutely zero, value in creatign ridiculous multiple POV forks as Michael Safyan suggests.... His attitude that Wikipedia's readers are too stupid to follow links, and that editors are incapable of writing an article which draws readers to other related topics, is, while not 'incivil', certainly huaghty and arrogant.)[5]
• Assuming bad faith (...you're definitely pushing a POV here. YOu clearly have a significant set of views about Judaism, and youre' creating pages that match that POV to redirect as you see fit.) [6]

Your attitude on that talk page started out middling, and moved towards defamation fast.

In what way have I defamed you?

You accuse me, repeatedly, of starting out that thread bad, when it's clear I didn't.

Please see the page history. I refer to this post, which is the first to diverge from the topic at hand to the topic of my alleged POV.

You threw logical fallacies all over

To what, specifically, do you refer?

...claiming my naming of your fallacies alone constituted a personal attack

When have I done that? To what post are you referring?

You're not operating in good faith in any way whatsoever.

I believe I am. Please point out a specific action of mine which demonstrates bad faith.

You ignored multiple calm, civil posts

Actually, I responded to these posts in an equally calm and civil manner. Where have I done otherwise?

...your 'why I'm most qualified to decide this for Wikipedia'...

I have already explained that, in response to your accusations of "POV pushing," I posted a list of my personal Jewish background to show that a genuine interest and participation in Judaism -- not my viewpoint on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict -- motivates my contributions to Who is a Jew?.

...you insist you are...inherently better than other editors as far as that article...

I have explained my reasons for that post, and I have clearly stated that I do not consider myself better than other editors as far as that article.

...you went into hostility fast...

To what, specifically, do you refer?

...the list of 'why Michael Safyan is cooler than the rest', made me wonder if you didn't have an agenda outside Wikipedia regarding Judaism...

Please see the page history; this edit preceded that edit, which I then explained in this edit.

I brought it up, because your view of Judaism outside Wikipedia as an anti-palestinian activist is bleeding out here.

Firstly, my view of Judaism and my view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are entirely unrelated. Secondly, almost all of the articles were written by the same journalist, who misquoted my statement. Thirdly, sensationalist and controversial pages tend to find their way to the top of Google. Did you, for example, come across this article?

You seem thoroughly unwilling to admit your bias can affect your editing.

I admit that my biases can affect my editing. However, I do not see my viewpoint on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as related to an article on Judaism.

That's a problem, a big one, because it's starting to violate NPOV.

Having a viewpoint is not a violation of WP:NPOV; injecting one's viewpoint into an article is. It is possible to edit both neutrally and objectively, in spite of personal viewpoints.

Michael Safyan 19:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kid is not incivil, you're a teenager. It's not behind your back right there in the relevant talk page section. It's not AGF to find your constant hammering NPOV.As to all the rest, I've addressed what you did, how you said it and so on. I have reverted your blanking vandalisms, and now I'm asking you to go away. I'm not interested in your having temper tantrums on my talk page. ThuranX 22:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism

Hi ThuranX. The Template:Dominionism TfD, on which you commented, has been closed with no consensus (default to keep). Although the TfD debate touched on several issues regarding the form the infobox should now take, much seems unresolved. I invite you to participate in further discussion on this topic. Thank you. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oaxaca

Sorry. Because Oaxaca, Mexico, is a redirect to the city, I assumed that was what was meant. If you don't mind, I'll have another go at making it clearer. Aille 23:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Nonconstructive reverts and edits to ancestry templates by IP address 24.57.196.130

Hi ThuranX, you commented on my report to AN/I about the anon user reverting templates. Would you take another look at it and comment? It's happening still, the user is reverting my changes right away and I'd like to draw attention to the matter. Charles 00:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

'80s Hulk

I guess you're right about the interviews being different from the rest of Wizard (and I'm real glad to see another editor paying attention to that one!). On a separate issue, I'm a little confused. Is someone arguing that the '80s Hulk is less notable than the '60s, or '70s or '90s or any era Hulk? Is it a matter of the subheads? Fill me in tomorrow; I'm hittin' the hay now! -- Tenebrae 04:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I reverted the wrong revision. I was trying to fix the Jennifer Connelly edit, hence "Revert false information". No qualms about Banner/Hulk! My apologies. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

World War Hulk

Please come and take a look at what appears to be another David A. edit war. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes question (screentime vs. on-screen credits)

I noted that you menioned this before in the Heroes discussion page. Is there an MOS precedent you were citing in this regard? As Heroes is an ensemble piece, the cast list (vs recurring) can be pretty involved. recently, i removed the character of Simone Devereaux as a cast member (she's been dead since season one) and included Bob Bishop, as he seems to be a significant, main character in season two. the idea behind my edits is that who is and who is not a main cast member tends to fluctuate, and an overall presence would seem to be a better criterion. thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was already reverted back out. I agree that the credits is probably the lesser of two (and likely more) evils. Former cast members might be worth bringing up, if only to tie the info down, but isn't that a bit speculative? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the advice, ThuranX. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Since the Arbitration now appears open to all those with an axe to grind, I'm hoping you can weigh in with some reasoned and mature thoughts at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Asgardian-Tenebrae/Evidence. One longtime, single-article editor in particular just went ballistic there. Thanks for taking a look. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, and I've done as you suggested here. On the other hand, once you see what's on that page, you may find "ballistic" may be just the right word!  :-)  --Tenebrae (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding tagging by RMHED

After disrupting AfD with inappropriate early closes, and being called on it, this user is now mass-tagging all (or nearly all) episodes of at least three different series. He has demonstrated no attempt to collegially work with other editors who question his methods in implementing his policy interpretions, at his talk page. Additionally, he was blatantly uncivil (not just uncollegial) in this comment. While I have no problem with discussing the notability of various articles about the episodes, his methods are causing disruption rather than benefit to the project. Mr Which^??? 19:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Blanking Talk Page

Thanks for the warning!. I've just started writing in Wiki after years of wiki usage!. Do let me know if i have added this talk properly.

Boo

Have a read of WP:CHU. If you have any more questions, email me, I'll get back to you. Hiding T 17:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rtkat3

I'm not sure why the harsh tone on my talk page, since I thought you and I were collegial editors.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you, but in point of fact, Rtkat3 did indeed create these pages, as you can see from their History. The earliest of these is Sept. 21, 2007, which is about 10 weeks, hardly anything. In each case, he split up articles unilaterally without discussion, and he had not been forthcoming when other editors try to initiate discussion. If these splits are valid, the community will agree. What reason, then, is there not to seek consensus?

• Captain America

20:04, 21 September 2007 Rtkat3 (Talk | contribs) (9,595 bytes) (←Created page with 'This is a list of media appearances by Captain America. ==Animation== Captain America has appeared in the following animated TV series: * [[The Marvel Superh...')

• Hulk

14:46, 18 October 2007 Rtkat3 (Talk | contribs) (11,032 bytes) (←Created page with 'This is a list of media appearances for Hulk. ==Television== The Hulk debuted in television as part of the [[Marvel Super Heroes (TV se...')

• Iron Man

21:57, 8 November 2007 Rtkat3 (Talk | contribs) (9,823 bytes) (←Created page with 'This lists all appearances of Iron Man. ==Television== Iron Man's first starring role came in the 1966 series The Marvel Superheroes where he was o...')

--Tenebrae 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Joker

Did you get a chance to review my comments and citations? I have to agree with you that some in-universe information needs to be trimmed. A lot of it is displayed too originally -- passages along the lines of, "In this issue, the Joker once more spared Batman from death. See, the Joker can't continue being himself when Batman is gone! They need each other!" I would imagine that most of the research would come from the Batman-history books... we can probably check out a lot of the sources at Batman and extract whatever's relevant about the Joker. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

amalgam

Ah, I see. I guess there's only one way to verify, and that isn't gonna be easy.--Marhawkman (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

on ultimates

I noticed the same kind of story structure on two other ultimates wikis. I modified it so they will not be carbon copies. Oh, and by the way, where in Homeland Security does it say that the base is in pollomach, hmm? Set your facts straight, its in Micronesia! Eaglestorm (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You're beyond help.. The hell with you! Eaglestorm (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You made me laugh....

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salty Walrus was certain to generate some fun comments, yours was a winner! :-) (or should the salty walrus be :-{::: Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

You just put a comment on my page. Sorry what happen on the other day, i saw a page with a lot of flase info and i was trying to help. I didn't mean to cause any choas. Please forgive me. Please don't ban me =( . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Semantics

Hi, just popping in to clarify the forbiddance of "game guides," as that has apparently been misintepreted a few times lately - it's specifically about strategy guides, hints, instructions and the like. Purely descriptive content is okay. Yours, Kizor (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[7]] Jmegill (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Lucifer has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the warnings and block mate. This time i definitely got it right :-)--Lucifer 11:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Righto!!

Changed it now mate!. Danke! --Ankithreya! 13:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvel Heroes Movie Template

If The Incredible Hulk (film) and the Punisher: War Zone are reboots and not sequels then why do they A. have sequel-like names and B. act is if their continuing the story from the 2003 and 2004 films, and, if they are reboots, then A. why don't they recite Hulk's and Punisher's origins and B. why did the directors and producers consult the cast of the 2003 and 2004 films to appear in the reboots? Please explain this to me, it is very confusing.--71.251.107.15 (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Heroes talk page

• Hiya. =) There has been a decent amount of discussion on the Heroes talk page since you last commented in opposition to adding an external link to the Heroes wiki. In an effort to reach consensus I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the recent discussions so that you could check them out and further contribute to the discussion if you're interested. =) --Centish (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Bill Finger

Thanks for catching that. My computer was suddenly running so slow that by the time I'd posted the vandalism warning, I forgot to go back and finish that revert. Doczilla (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Superman film reboot

According to the the Continuity section of Superman Returns, SR is indeed a reboot. Limetolime (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)