User talk:ThuranX/Archive 7

Faith-Based initiatives

A connection to Bill Gothard and/or Ted Suhl should be included because there is a pattern of state spending on faith-based initiatives. A search of Google news archives mentions a 1997 article which ties Gothard to Huckabee and a search of Gothard's site iblp.org reveals two mentions of Huckabee (google Huckabee site:iblp.org). The site mentions " Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas stated, “As a person who has actually been through the Basic Seminar, I am confident that these are some of the best programs available for instilling character into the lives of people.”" Gothard apparently does prison rehabilitation programs. Ted Suhl also runs a faith-based program which provides services to troubled youth. Google "Ted Suhl" Huckabee and the arktimes has a couple stories on the subject. Jmegill (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What timing

Take a look at the message I left on FTD's user page at the exact same time you were posting a message on mine.

Feel free to report him this time. I'm concerned that between how many times I've reported him and with the list I compiled on User:EJBanks's talk page, it will look like harassment from me. One problem is the question of what username we report as the puppetmaster. Records don't back far enough to confirm that he's Creepy Crawler based on IP numbers. That issue has prolonged the problem at least twice over the last . . . wow, two years. Doczilla (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This had slipped my mind: The bigger list of the person's history is at User_talk:Creepy_Crawler#Copy_of_previous_evidence_for_the_history. We'd compiled the list during one sock puppet case and then Wryspy copied it to CC's talk page so we'd be able to find it in the future.Doczilla (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'll just make the report later tonight myself. I've compiled the evidence with links spelling out the editing similarities. Doczilla (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's done.[1] I actually spotted this one almost two months ago [2] and wanted to let somebody bust him this time, but of course he came to our attention again. Next time, somebody else gets to report him, no matter what. Doczilla (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it has to be us, because we know his patterns. Frankly, if you look at all the big Sock cases, it's usually the same cluster of editors reporting, because they see the articles that are targeted daily, and they can spot the problems. We have to keep shooting him down ,and fast as possible. The faster the better, because it was found earlier that he farms a few socks at a time. catching him s close to his startup as possible means they can check the new accounts log too, and maybe nail his other new socks. I'm hoping we can get a long IP ban this time. As for why? He's a jerk? He's mentally unstable? Hes' just obsessive? He thinks it's funny? he really thinks he's helping? He's a kid? He's a she? I can't guess motives, but he's got to be stopped. ThuranX (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Scockpuppetry Accusation

I admit, I'm guilty of Sockpuppetry. I was changing the Marvel Films template because i beleive that The Incredible Hulk and The Punisher War Zone are sequels, But that's just my personel opinion, And as no one can change my opinion, Other Wikipedia editors opinions cannot be changed either. As was attempting to edit thr Template only in IP, But, I accidently did it as my user name as well. As for the change on the other user's talk page, They had given me a Vandel 1 template on my editor user page, And i wanted to apologize, Only i remembered i was in my IP, And so i came back as my user name to change it and apologize (i was originally trying to add a Sorry template on IP, But none had existed, And so, I changed as a Wikipedia editor user). If you believe i should be blocked from editing for attempting Sock Puppetry, Then i will leave Wikipedia, Permanetly, As well, And will only return to read article pages, But NOT TO EDIT THEM. Again, I'm Guilty, And i'm truly sorry for all of what i have done to Wikipedia, Which i believe is the greatest encyclopedia and website of all time. I reminder that this is an apology, And i have acknologed that Wikipedia Administrators shall be notified immediately. (NOTE: Please post this confession on my Sockpuppet accusation page). Sorry.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad link?

Which link where? All I did was close out the survey, I can't find where I've linked to earth-Two on Talk:Kal-L. Which link do you mean? Hiding T 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm being dense. It was suggested the page be merged with Superman. I've closed that discussion saying there was clear opposition to merging with Superman. Why do I need to link to Earth Two, or where am I and not doing so? Do you mean Jc's bit just before mine at the end linking to the WikiProject discussion? Hiding T 16:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

link not working

your link here to an Earth Two discussion area, isn't working at all. can you set it to point to the correct place? thanks. ThuranX (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (presuming that that was the link you were referring to...) - jc37 08:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

that was it! Thank you. couldn't find it browsing the archive, for some reason. appreciate it. ThuranX (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome : ) - jc37 09:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Breaches of WP:CIV

After the amount of mud-slinging I've had to put up with for the last few days, I am not prepared to tolerate your slurs that I am "bigoted" and "racist". So I must ask you to withdraw those remarks. If you agree to withdraw, the matter is finished as far as I'm concerned. If you will not withdraw those remarks, I will feel obliged to take the matter further. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You asserted that anyone reverting your edits must be an asian out to protect their favored stereotype. It's a racist, bigoted presumption. I reverted you because you're using YOUR opinions, not facts, to alter the article. ThuranX (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Where did I make such an assertion? I really have no idea what you're talking about.

And I don't know what you're talking about when you say you reverted me either. What reversion are you referring to? Gatoclass (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, my fault, sorry, I'll try to keep the bigots separate. I've got your anti-eastern European bigotry, and the anti-asian bigotry of an IP transposed. No, your comments, as linked from that AN/I, are defintiely bigoted assumptions that those who opposed your edits all lump into some vague anti-you category of eastern europeans, see "editors of the page apart from me appear to be of East European origin, with potential axes to grind against their former Soviet overlords". for example. it's lame. knock it off. You're making an ad hominem attack on all those opposing you, suggesting that all they are interested in is emotional outbursts, not rational thought, based on your presumptions about their origins. Finally, keep all of this at AN/I, not my talk page. Trying to do this in two places in hopes i'll say something in one you canleverage agaisnt the other to try a block request out on me isn't going to work. I will not reply here further, but ONLY at the AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In hopes you'll say something I can leverage against you? On the contrary. The reason I took it to your talk page was in the hope that we could resolve this quietly away from the spotlight. But plainly you are not interested. In which case, I guess I'm left with no choice. Gatoclass (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gatoclass is aware, assuming he has read his talk page, that I have inquired as to whether his statements and conduct fall under the umbrella of the Digwuren arbitration decision. One is entitled to their opinions, but not when they include presumptions of lack of integrity on the part of an entire community of editors. Gatoclass not offering an apology for his own conduct and then demanding apologies from those who would call Gatoclass to account for his conduct rather puts the nail in the coffin as far as any remediation based on assumptions of good faith. I am sorry for Gatoclass' preconceptions which have made him believe every disagreement with his position(s) is fueled by belligerence and not by editors acting in good faith. —PētersV (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright thing, I'll leave it to the inquiry to sort out this matter. thank you for the information, and if a statement is needed, please notify, be glad to provide. ThuranX (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Gatoclass where you are mentioned on is now open. --Termer (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stalking?

Yeah sorry about that, I was experimenting with AWB and happened to use your contributions as a starting point. It didn't occur to me until after that it would start from your most recent edit and therefore be really obvious, so sorry if that was a bit weird. --carelesshx _talk 23:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Punisher & Hulk Reboots; Oh, now i get it

Sorry for me thinking The Incredible and The Punisher: War Zone were sequels. Now i understand that Hulk is a reboot because it's based on the 70's TV Show, Not the comics like the 2003 film, And that Punisher is a reboot because it's based on the second line of comics, Now the original like the 2004 film. But i still don't understand why you don't want to belive that Spider-Man 4 is official. If you still think i'm under a misunderstanding, Tell me on my User Talk Page. Thanks, And Sorry.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

Your new message on my talk page has been considered Harassment, Which i noted at the top of the page is not permitted. You will recieve a block if you send me another message like that, So don't, You DID NOT have to be so harassing.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

I'm going to permanetly be leaving Wikipedia, For good. Just thought you might want to post that on the Sock Puppet page, Because I'm not going to post it.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken Wrist

thanks! Doczilla (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

note

you're invited to join the conversation. however, reverts will not withstand if the references are inaccurate, non-expert, and even false. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. It's at AN/I. you're playing games. Go back to AN/I. My talk page isn't the place for it. ThuranX (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Indeed, one of my first few ones!

Someformofhuman Speak now! 00:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Palestine-Israel conflict

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Punisher move

Hi,

You've moved the new Punisher film article, but you didn't move it over the article it was shifted from... The consensus version was Punisher: War Zone, no? Chris Cunningham (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk and Punisher reboots

Just one more question about the reboots. Are they reboots because the 2003 and 2004 films box office records did not meet the Studios' expectations?--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding?

Hello ThuranX, I saw your comment on Huckabee; you had to be kidding. How can a guy become not only a member of a church, but a pastor that not only was created on specific racist doctrine and continued that position until well after the civil right movement not be relevant? Having grown up in the south and attended many (reads lots) of SB church meetings, I can tell you that it was segregated out of choice and in many communities till this day remains segregated.

I can understand when people are unaware of that past, but that does not excuse Huckabee's active participation in such an organization. His being a pastor in such a church says something when its history is known and discussed openly. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pull back on the high horse routine; I was purposely kidding as noted by the stupid little smiley face I put on my edit summary. I seldom use those things, but did in this case so that you would understand specifically that my tone was in jest. I won't make the mistake again. Have a good day. Oh, never threaten another editor. Act or keep the those type of inane threats to yourself. If you need to know where to report me, just ask and I will be happy to be of assistance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a treat.

A chocolate chip cookie

Yep, I noticed that. Anyway, I was about to give you this for stepping into that, but then the person gutted your page and everything escalated. Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like typing for long. VP makes vandal fighting pretty easy, though, except when any elaborate explanation is called for. The ribs are what's hurting most at this point. Thanks for your concern. Doczilla (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thinking . . . Doczilla (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask for it. You did get an incivility block in 2007, but that's not an edit revert issue. You are an editor in good standing per the guidlines. I think as long as you make it clear that you plan to use it only for vandal fighting and not in any non-vandal edit disputes, you should be okay. It is a handy tool. It wouldn't hurt to ask. Doczilla (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

For fighting blatant vandalism would probably be best wording. Doczilla (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

There's been some more activity at Talk:Mitt Romney#Material regarding subject's religious affiliation. I'd very much appreciate your input. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm very sorry for all the disruptive edits i've caused to you and the Marvel films' pages. I was foolish to thibk Hulk and Punisher were sequels without reading their correct citations, And it was even worse when i attempted harassment to you. Again, Terribly sorry, And i promise to not use I.P. or the other sock accounts again. I know you do not want to do it any longer, But, Would you please mentor me on how to properly edit here on Wikipedia? Thank You! I know your working in good faith.--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

no prob

I rarely add to the noise side of the signal ratio, but I couldn't follow that thread anyway. Anyway... back to poker.... -- 03:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism and Roger Rabbit page

Since your user and usertalk are on my watchlist (since tha vandalism mess eons ago)

What and when exactly did I vandalize? As for the Roger Rabbit page in question, seems good to me, but I'm no expert on what justifies the presence of an article. So like I suggested, would merging the Graphic Novel page with Who P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit?? Because those pages certainly wouldn't have much to add to as both are out of print. After merging them, maybe retitle the pager Roger Rabbit Sequels and follow ups. Antiyonder (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, since that wasn't on YOUR talk pge, maybe I wasn't speakign to you? ThuranX (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No, but since I was part of the discussion, I figured you could be. That said, what do you think of my page merging idea? Antiyonder (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

it's a good one. cut the plot in half again and go for it. ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you go about merging the pages and/or changing the title? All I've done up to now are just regular additions and deletions. Antiyonder (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To merge, you basically merge the content. That is, you manually transfer the relevant information over, by cutting and pasting or rewriting. TO redirect, there's abutton along the top to help with that. you erase all the content, hit the redirect button, and fill in the 'new' page. ThuranX (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The redirect button you're talking about, is it the one that says move? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiyonder (talk • contribs) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, would you say that the Roger Rabbit/Baby Herman shorts would be appropriate for the page I'm suggesting as there is much that could be added to them either. Antiyonder (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

sounds good. ThuranX (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I redirected the Who PLugged Roger P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit? page into a new title, Roger Rabbit Spin-offs. So now I figure I could manually as you said copy and paste the Graphic Novel section to the Spin-off page. Afterwards, how do I delete the Resurrection Of Doom page? Antiyonder (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't, just redirect it. ThuranX (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Figured it out, but thanks anyway. Since you particpated in editing some of the pages, would you be interested in checking out the merged pages? It's titled Roger Rabbit Spin-offs. I'm thinking of merging the article on the shortlived comic series as well.

As for the cartoon shorts, I'm think of making a seperate page for them titled Roger Rabbit shorts. Antiyonder (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Now find some critical response to the works, and include that for real-world context. ThuranX (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from Critisim and Reception, what do you have in mind for Real World Context? I'll do what I can as these particular books are pretty obscure and might not have the same comments that the movie does. Antiyonder (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, any good book review, or documentary stuff, like the directors of the animations discussing the process, would be good. I realize there may be very little. In fact, if there's almost nothing, I'd suggest merging all of it to the main WFRR book and movie articles, with all followups to the movie's version of the story there, and all media follow ups to the book version there, if you knwo what I mean. A total lack of real World context might mean it all fails wikipedia's notability standards. Let's hold off on that conclusion for a while though, in favor of seeing what we can find. Finally, you're making a great effort to edit in the best spirit of Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see with merging on the WFRR main page is that the summaries would have to be trimmed and thus would provide as much detail. Now normally I agree that plot summaries shouldn't be lengthy, but seeing as the novel and comic in question are highly obscure and might not see any republishing, I think the indepth reviews would be helpful. Also, I figured I'd merge the Roger Rabbit (comic book) and Roger Rabbit's Toontown into the spino-off page to add to it's validity. Still, I'll go on some forums to see if anyone could provide me with the info you're suggesting. Antiyonder (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue that obscurity is a sign of lacking notability. for example ,the entire article we started on COULD be summarized as 'In an adventure where Roger and Eddie confront the return of Judge Doom.'. That's the concept, really. ThuranX (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but don't regular encyclopedia's go into detail concerning obscure info at time? Anyway, I could use some help to acquire the info, so isn't there any of those notice features I could put up at the top of the page in the meantime? Anyway, thanks for your help thus far. Antiyonder (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing obscurity and non-notability. For example, Spring-Heeled Jack is an obscure character (historical AND fictional versions), but he certainly has some notability, given the numerous media reports of the time, and the lasting appeal to the niche who know about him, as well as his recurrent use in later fiction. And I'm not advocating a total deletion, but compressing the far less notable sequel and 'franchise' (i use the term loosely for this set of stories) into one section detailing attempted sequels and other media appearances would be giving the section due weight. I recommend, if you haven't read it, reading WP:UNDUE, which is a good set of ideas about balancing the apparent notability of a subject, or aspect thereof, with its fair proportion of coverage. For example, I think you'd agree, these later pieces are certainly less well known and less important to most of the public than the movie, and still lag behind the book and sequel novel. Likewise, they've received far less coverage. Combine that with WP:PLOT, and you begin to see that cutting the articles down in size, and simplifying hte plots, is not an unreal, or unfair, idea.

All that said, I've said before and I repeat, I'm not planning any AfD or merge actions. I think you're really improving the articles, and I want to see that continue. So, in that spirit, you keep asking, i'll keep answering. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I get back on that, I'm going to go with my other idea to merge the Cartoon shorts as they are are very small. As for the spin-off page, I was think you might be right about moving the novel to the movie page (Since there isn't much of a summary for that one), but I figure the Graphic Novel would be notable since it gives the movie's antagonist a backstory and touches up on some lose ends (Such as ownership of Maroon Cartoons). So what I think I might try is:

A. Move the Who P-P-P-Plugged Roger Rabbit novel to the WFRR article or move it to the Who Censored Roger Rabbit page. Which move would you deem appropriate? B. Merge the Graphic Novel & Roger Rabbit Toontown with the Roger Rabbit (comic book) section (Since apparently the GN lead into the comics).

I'm going to talk to the ones who put up the info on Resurrection Of Doom and see if they can provide me with the info you've suggested. I probably won't do anything major for a day or two aside, just to give myself time to sort things out. Antiyonder (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure offhand about A, but B certainly seems like a good idea. Let me review the pages and think. Finally, please, before moving anything more, post notes ont he relevant talk pages about your idea, and see what happens. ThuranX (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope I was okay in dealing with the Roger Rabbit Shorts then. Basically cause I read that one of the policies with page merging was "Be bold and do it yourself". If you want to check out that page it's Roger Rabbit Cartoon Shorts.

As for the comic page, here's Roger Rabbit (comic book) and Roger Rabbit's Toontown. Antiyonder (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger Rabbit: The Resurrection of Doom

Thanks for helping Antiyonder with this. I hate that right now I can't offer enough help in response to a request like that. Doczilla (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A Thumbs up!

Thumbs up!

Re: On 16 Jan 2008, I got my first GA Article, Hulk (comics), after an extensive rewrite.

Good news. Doczilla (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Romero

Ah, somebody noticed that George Romero link! Thanks. It was interesting getting booed by so many people when Romero himself had no problem with the question. We got to talk about it the next day. I'm actually standing next to him in the picture that has been cropped down to just him for George_A._Romero. It's one of the few times I ever asked a celebrity to sign a photo for me. As for dressing like zombies, I'll admit I did that myself for a Zombie Walk connected to a horror film convention this past Halloween. Romero is very gracious and grateful to his fans. I suspect that he would generally avoid questions that might come across as putting them down. Doczilla (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk

Sorry - I had some problems "copy-pasting" the template. But if someday you need to use the ArticleHistory template, is "failed" and "listed". igordebraga ≠ 12:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I just assumed the whole world was dancing for joy like me having heard the news of the live action Marvel universe. Alientraveller (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't think it might be a good idea to revise the Marvel films template? Already the X-Men, Spidey and F4 movies have their own templates, so it might be a good idea to revise it to focus on the Avengers. Alientraveller (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. An uninvolved administrator, after issuing a warning, may impose sanctions including blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The Committee shall convene a working group, composed of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, and task it with developing a comprehensive set of recommendations for resolving the pervasive problem of intractable disputes centered around national, ethnic, and cultural areas of conflict. The group shall be appointed within two weeks from the closure of this case, and shall present its recommendations to the Committee no later than six months from the date of its inception. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just the facts Ma'am.

Hello ThuranX, adding well documented statements of fact that directly contradict a candidates own current "Official Position" is healthy in a free and open forum like wikipedia. I don't see you being critical of editors who only make reference to un-encyclopedic sources such as a candidate own controlled web page or an un-referenced list of "official positions". According to your reasoning, the political positions section of each candidates page might as well be a direct link to their own web site or positions list from their own hard drive.

As for me I will continue to promote wikipedia as a free medium where by the lobbyests and special interests do not have a corrupting advantage over the rest of us. This is not in violation of any wiki rules and is in fact extactly what we are supposed to be encouraging in this free and open forum where the well referenced facts rule. As for you... Just the facts Ma'am Anappealtoheaven (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in addition to presumptions about my gender, and the likely intended insult, no. You're pushing a POV, and it's clear that you are. You are deliberately making statements that put other candidates in an intentionally bad light, like wording things do demonstrtate YOUR perception of hypocrisy just because a republican senator worked WITH a democrat to pass a bill. It's childish, spoiled behavior of the 'gotcha' style of journalism, and hardly the mark of a serious editor here. I suggest, again, that you stop that behavior and learn how to edit like a respectable editor here, using neutral wording and facts. ThuranX (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I've responded on my talk page. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 17:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just responded again :) DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 17:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

...and again. DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk

Um, a few sentences in the 80's hrough 90's need refs, but thats about it! RC-0722 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This, "During his run, he established that Banner had suffered child abuse, an idea explored in the Crossroads of Eternity stories, which ran from issue #300 (Oct. 1984) to #313 (Nov. 1985). Mantlo showed the readers that abuse fostered a great deal of repressed anger within Banner, in turn causing his fragmented personality." and, "In the introduction to the Hulk trade paperback Beauty and the Behemoth, David said that his wife had recently left him, providing inspiration for the storyline." RC-0722 (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you need any help just let me know. :-) RC-0722 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately

It is very messy because I generally have trouble referencing the sources..whatever I put the links next to is what I plan on trying to reference it to. Your help would be much appreciated to help me reference all the links on david george —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Peter Scott

I would submit that you might wish to look at the website, sirpeterscott.com's subpages, "antisemitism.html" [4] and "zafarali.html" [5]. There you will perhaps develop understanding about the level of serious coverup of crimes that is going on here. 87.194.51.176 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

Hello ThuranX!

I was browsing over at Wikiquette Alerts, and found that an editor has brought an alert against you Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:ThuranX. I have reviewed some of his claims, and I see his side of the issue. I didn't want to write anything over there until I had a chance to see your side, because what little I could tease out from some of the edits, there may have been a claim to precipitate what you were writing. Feel free to respond over at the site, and, if possible, include some diffs for others to check out. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:New York City at night HDR.jpg in Gotham City

Dear heavens, man, what is up?

If a section described a connection between Gotham City and New York City, then a picture of New York City is suitable. Any picture chosen would depend on a user's opinion - no one would just randomly insert one! Also, please note that I did not claim that the picture resembled Gotham in the article or the image's description, I simply stated that as the reason for my choosing that specific picture in my edit summary. Any person choosing any picture will have one reason or another for choosing it: that reason should not matter as long as the picture is appropriate. And, again, I simply inserted a picture of New York into a section discussing New York.

If you feel uncomfortable with the picture there, I'm sure people won't mind you discussing it on the talk page. Please do not remove it again. Anrie (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Really your intimidation tactics are really poor and reflect your own heavy handed neo-con POV :-)

Good luck. I have been fair and balanced with all of the facts and references used. Anappealtoheaven (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hulk template...

I need a few extra eye looking at {{Hulk}} with regard to added character articles.

Thanks, - J Greb (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Joker

I don't know anything about how the film will go, but I was thinking that it's highly unlikely that the Joker wouldn't be killed but instead end up in Arkham Asylum. Marketing will definitely be difficult to do for the Joker now because you notice how they've barely covered the rise of Two-Face? Seems like they've wanted to treat it as an added bonus. They may have to show off Eckhart a little more to imply what he'll become. I assume Two-Face will be the main antagonist in a third film while the Joker will be tucked away. Would Nolan really keep using the Joker, though? There doesn't appear to be any attempted character development -- he comes in, causes hell, and goes out, while Batman is tortured like usual and has to deal with his friend/foe Harvey Dent becoming a new threat. I was reading on UGO earlier, In the last few minutes of the Dark Knight bank heist, The Joker's parting words to the audience were "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stranger." We regret that we'll never know how strange Heath Ledger could become. Definitely going to be one of the little ironies EW mentioned. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And I grinned at the Raul Julia reference; definitely didn't go over my head. I'm curious, though, as to how Gilliam will address Ledger's death in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. I'm not sure how major of a role Ledger had in that film, since the premise seems centered on the other two actors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

David Gest

Wow, nice rewrite on this article! I've been struggling alone to remove the fannisms and revert all the vandalism from anon users. I really appreciate your work on this article. Please check it out every so often, as I believe the fan version is being rewritten by David Gest's agent (seriously). He will probably attempt to undo your work as he has mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.29.196 (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Cloverfield

I am really sorry if you interpreted my comments toward you as sarcastic. That defiantly was not my intention, and I assure you that there was no hostility directed toward you. my only goal was to clean up the page, and you reverted without any explanation on the talk page, so I did my best to post on the talk page how I understood the situation, and my reasons for reverting back. if anything was considered sarcastic...well that just shows the fallacies of an electronic medium...it forces the reader to make too many assumptions about what the message said (it suddenly occurs to me i did write "that is what a talk page is for"...and I would probably have taken that as biting sarcasm rather than humor that we are talking about cleaning up a talk page...please understand I didn't think that one through). I want to work together, and I appreciate you explaining your actions. I agree that posts should be deleted immediately if not constructive...and I understand why it is probably a bad idea to do it later. I am also unfamiliar with the how an when of an non-automated archive system, if you could just give me some pointers on that I would appreciate it. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Coffeepusher (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

as noted in the discussion board, I re read my comment and it does come off as really sarcastic. I am not shure what I did wrong in typing it, but I will be mindfull in the future.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

re:User:Pablofan

I reverted vandalism to your user page by this editor, and then, after reverting more vandalism elsewhere by this editor, reported him to AiV. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Posthumous"

What exactly is your beef with the The Dark Knight (film) being categorized as a posthumous work? It's very much a posthumous work for Ledger. The Crow (film) is a posthumous work, correctly listed in that category; Queen of the Damned (film) is a posthumous work, correctly listed in that category... Hell, Bad Santa is in that, and only on the basis of John Ritter's unfortunate passing, and he only had a small role in that one. Please stop removing that very appropriate category, or if you really think it should be removed, explain your reasoning on the talk page, because your edit summaries aren't really doing it. EAE (Holla!) 06:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't enough. I've actually gone to that category page and asked for discussion about a stronger inclusion consideration. Until such time as strong consensus for including any movie where anyone died during or after the production but before release is established, leave it off and stop adding it. Movies are so collaborative, and of such prolonged production that asserting that it's any one person's work is a specious claim. A book is written by one or two people, and most often cannot be finished without the other (The Tolkien family may in some cases be an exception, in other cases, clearly not). Same with a solo album - with 'that voice', the album's done. I even find the idea of taking 25 year old recordings and caliming it's a 'posthumous' work a shady situation, because the artist consciously chose to NOT release the recordings, meaning his self-editing process said 'I am not comfortable with some aspect of this recording being publicized', be it technical, emotional, financial or personal, although Financial, like withholding to get early termination of a contract, may be a legit reason to suggest PW, because the artist might have released later under a favorable contract, citation of motivation woukld be needed for inclusion. ThuranX (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost every film is a posthumous work for somebody somewhere in the cast or crew. Consider how very long it takes for those many, many names to go by in the end credits. Doczilla (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

While "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS" is really funny, and a good point even, and the theoretical objection that "people die before their work sees the light of day" is valid, I am not seeing how that applies to arguably the star of a film ("anti-star" if you prefer), and if not the star, then the co-star. I assume the book and album comparisons intended to draw the distinction between a collective work like a film and individual or nearly-individual works like books and albums. That's true. However, "posthumous" just means the work was released after the death of one of its contributors. I would even support the inclusion of ANY work released after the death of ANY of its contributors (after all, it's posthumous for that one (notable) person, even if s/he was just a key grip); or at least a further subdivision of the category into "posthumous works by [directors|actors|writers|...]". I can assure you that people exist who would be interested in one place grouping all works which were produced in whole or in part by a person who did not see their work released. EAE (Holla!) 07:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Big deal. We also have people who exist who want to see categories of actor by pubic grooming choices, politicians by show size, machines by percentage of parts which were anodized. Just because a potential category exists, that doesn't make it notable. In fact, posthumous works overall seems highly NON-Notable. What level of participation makes it 'their work'? If a scriptwriter's draft is turned over to another scriptwriter, and later discarded, is their contribution to the film, limited and discredited though it be, still enough to meet the collective work standard of 'posthumous'? The cut off levels for collective actions is way to arbitrary. Tolkien's got a handful of works listed, though he should really have maybe The Silmarillion, since many of the others were his son's expansions of his background notes. When Christopher Tolkien expanded 14 pages of dad's notes into a 400 page tome, whose work is it really? This category isn't clearly defined. ThuranX (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

User pushing a POV

What's the latest news with our old friend, User:Anappealtoheaven ? DiligentTerrier • talk |sign here 22:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Creepy

Here he is again.[6] Doczilla (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Heroes talkpage

How is this format cleaner? the boxes are big and take up a lot of space. what policy is being broken by having small boxes? I dont think I am breaking any policy. Also, I am glad you heard the news, because yes, if you look over the talkpage, several users in the heroes wikiproject have made significant changes in reference to the Lost page. Several users have commented that they have made changes based on the format of the lost page because it is a feature article and similar to heroes. now, it is no longer news to you, "oh wikipedia, high and mighty"--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a matter of personal opinion to me. You have stated no policy to me. And you referenced other editors?? Who? Only me, you and collectarian are involved.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. we seem to be having a misunderstanding. When i stated "sounds like a matter of personal opinion" i was referring to your comments The tiny boxes down the side and the jammed up bars at the top are sloppy. Collectonian's adjustments are neater. I was referring to the statement in the bold as a matter of opinion, not your issue with me being uncivil. so, sorry for that misunderstanding. I certainly do not think that me being a fan of the show gives my opinion more weight than anybody elses. I am sorry you feel that way for me, but I don't. User Collectonian and I have already discussed this issue and have come to a resolve. He agreed with me that the talkpage needed more cleanup and he disagreed with me about using the small boxes...so we both reformatted so that it looks much better. I guess you were a third wheel in the conversation that he and I were having. You can look at user: Collectonian's page to see the history of our discussion. We both worked on the talkpage and agree that it looks cleaner. I was simply stating that if you like Coillectonians changes, it was fine, but you liking his changes was a matter of opinion not a policy. Myself and collectonian were in the middle of our edits when you enter the discussion. we worked together to make the talkpage look neater and more organized, rather than arguing or edit warring about it. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Next time if you think two editors are edit warring, you should check their talkpage before making off-hand comments or jumping to conclusion. also, if you saw an edit war between us, rather than revert the edits to the version you like best, bring the issue to the talkpage or user talkpage or wait for a user to violate the 3RR and comment on that. thanks...enjoy your night--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting weird. Everytime I say something, you seem to misinterpret what I am saying and put words into my mouth. When did I insult the whole idea of consensus? I never did that, and I am sorry if you feel that way. I wasn’t calling you a third wheel out of disrespect, and I am just saying you caused more trouble than help. We weren’t edit warring. It may have appeared that way, but it was a very civil discussion. When I reverted his edit the second time, he asked me to revert it, but this time explain why I did it, which I did. We were never edit warring. You just jumped in the middle of something and caused more confusion than anything. And yes, disputes involving the talk should probably stay on the talkpage but it doesn’t have to. Policy? No. Also, I agree with my attitude getting worse towards you, and I can say the same about your attitude towards me. I do not know you age or personal information, but you have this funny habit of telling people what they should do, rather than working with someone. You commonly state you need to in your comments towards me. I am an adult and do not need to be told what I need to do...especially from another user who I know nothing about. We are all a community and wikipedia is designed for several users to work together. No one should tell someone "what he or she need to do." You telling me You need to decide whether picking fights or writing encyclopedic articles is why you're here is inappropriate to say the less. I don’t need to do anything. I am not sure, but perhaps, and I repeat perhaps, you are trying to intimidate me, and you are not comfortable with someone challenging you. That may not be the case, but at least I didn’t start that sentence off with, you need to stop intimidating people who challenge you. Agreed? Also, in the future, it would be fantastic if you could not put words in my mouth or assume things about me without asking. Once again, I apologize for this whole ordeal--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucy Does a TV Commercial

I've responded on my talk page - not sure if you prefer to carry out threaded conversations here, there, or bouncing back and forth. The gist is that I haven't yet had the time to incorporate the references into article content, and that I don't have a particular preference on whether the article remains redirected until that task is complete. JavaTenor (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

More David Gest trouble

• • • ThuranX, the same anonymous poster that has been vandalizing the David Gest page, hit it again. I reverted it back to your good article rewrite, but I think he will keep deleting your work. Can anything be done to protect the wiki article from this nonsense? Also, I noticed that anonymous poster 75.64.177.142 has been warned to stop on his talk page by several admins. What's next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swilli88 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job

Good work on the Hulk page. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC).

Re: ref tagging question

Thanks for answering my question :-) . I was going to suggest to delete it anyways, I just put it there because I assumed it would be answered quicker. Thanks again. ЩіκіRocкs ^talκ 06:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Universal Studios Number 1 Fan

I have recently had been acused of being a vandal from USN1F when all i did was tell him that he should'nt keep on saying Incredible Hulk and Punisher: War Zone are sequels since they are confirmed reboots (He had recently posted them as sequels on his main user page, which prompted me to message him). Since he has done the same thing to you and other users in the past with sock puppet accounts (and of course recieved a block) do you think he should be on watch? if he continues to be a vandal again i think it would be fair to give him a block longer then the previous one. I'm inviting you to join me to make sure he'll stop being a nusiance whatever it takes. Give me a message if you want to watch him with me, i'm not trying to make fun of you or anything, i'm on your side. Thanks.--Michael 4 Movies (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you look a lot more like a sock of USN1F. I'm taking this to WP:SOCK later tonight. ThuranX (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

!--Universal Studios Number 1 Fan (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bucky

Heya, ThuranX. An edit war is brewing at Bucky, a page on which you've edited, so I'm posting a neutral notice that you may want to comment at Talk:Bucky. Hope all is well with you. Best regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hollywood Chicago

Though you might find this amusing -- at IGN Boards, hollywoodchicago.com is being peddled, and one of the other users said in response, "You were already banned once, stop pimping that stupid site out, no one cares." Thought I'd share. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

re: huckabee 44/54

Check the List of Governors of Arkansas. Orval Faubus (what a name) was 44. Huckabee just had another one of those things where sounds came out of his mouth, but they weren't sensible when he said 44. If you look, the Huckabee article already has quotes from him about the frequency of such incidents. ThuranX (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, derogatory and uncalled for remarks aside, it appears the numbering system has been corrected to how Governor Huckabee understands it. However, if your original remarks were directed towards the OTHER former governor from Hope Arkansas, or perhaps towards yourself in your apparent ignorance of the correct numbering system, then I'm inclined to agree. --Mactographer (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal attack? You mean the one based upon yours? "That's like saying he hit me back first." Get a grip, pal. Report whatever you like, just remember I'll be reporting the reason for your report. --Mactographer (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Campaign logo on Mike Huckabee

You still have not even tried to discuss why the campaign logo should be removed. The logo is one image that identifies with a campaign and is perfectly acceptable as encyclopic content. It is the main image used on the campaign wikipedia page. There has been no logical reason presented as to why it should not be included. If you have other opinions please discuss them before reverting again with out a discussion or else I will report it to a Wikipedia administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtr10 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion you cite (Talk:Mike_Huckabee/Archive_2#inclusion_of_campaign_logos) is far from a resolution or conclusion. And the original point started by User:Anastrophe. in that discussion and the point of most in the discussion is that it should be more uniformed for the candidates, not to promote one candidate over another and in this particular case you are singling out Huckabee. You even agreed with Anastrophe's point in the discussion that one page should not have a logo while another one doesn't. If you want to bring this back up for discussion, that is perfectly fine with me, but as is there is no consensus in that discussion. As we both know neither one of us are a dictator, so please follow Wikipedia policy and do not revert again with out a discussion. I have no real care as to the logo, I just want to be fair. For you to single out Huckabee's page seems borderline vandalism. Rtr10 (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamlet 1996 film

Hello ThuranX. Just thought that I would let you know that User:Pfistermeister is back at work on this page adding the unsourced items and continuing the rant on the talk page. I can't revert again without breaking the 3RR. User:AndyJones has a thread about this editor on the ANI board here [7]. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 09:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Clear

Thanks, just stuff to pick up along the way. I've learned that typing {{tl|Future film}} can procure {{Future film}}, and typing [[The Incredible Hulk (film)|]] (note | symbol) will procure The Incredible Hulk, trimming the word(s) in parentheses. Figured I'd share these, too. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Arkansas Governors

I'm trying to understand the numbering of the governors listed at List_of_Governors_of_Arkansas#Governors_of_Arkansas, but it just doesn't make sense to me. I see that you've been involved in discussions over that very issue. I see bits and pieces but haven't spotted one that will answer why some governors are counted and others are not. Doczilla (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least the number means something. He's not the 44th governor. (I thought that was Faubus.) He's the 44th elected governor. Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to find a compromise on that page. One problem is that the state of Arkansas itself publishes contradictory numbers. I just looked up a few. Some contradict Mike, but some back him up. ([8] vs. [9], both from the Arkansas government website, among many others) The only compromise which I think would fit both sets of numbers would be to state "44th elected governor" for Mike with similar remarks for the others. I've worked on that page 4 times in the last couple of hours. The latter 3 aren't all reverts, but I'm still not going to touch it again soon in case anyone thinks they are. Doczilla (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry to have let you down, somewhat. I suppose I should have asked for your help before it got uncivil there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You need some appreciation

I always knew you were a good editor dude, but the sheer magnitude of your dedication to fictional (comics, movies etc..) works is staggering:

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your assiduous hard-work on comic book and cinematic related subject matter I award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar Wisdom89 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Neil Peart

Not sure what your editorial priorities currently are, but if weren't already aware, I nominated Neil Peart for GA a few weeks back. I guess this is going to be my next "project". Who would have thought? : ) Anyway, if you're interested in giving me a hand, you're more than welcome. If you're swamped, that's cool. References seem to be the biggest hurdle. Cheers dude. Wisdom89 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

DD film

Three comics films have GA status (Batman Begins, Batman Returns, and Spider-Man (film), and one is FA (300 (film). The superhero films are more relevant, but the 300 article is FA. We should refer to all of them for examples. Doczilla (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, wrong week to ask me, friend! :) I'd be happy to help, but I've a bit to accomplish in real life in the next few days. My recent edits are in violation of my attempt to be {{busy}}. :-P Ask me next week, and I can make a concentrated effort to help out. What are you looking to do with the article -- FA, GA, or just make it reasonable? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note... there is an article on the deirector's cut of the fil as well... That should likely get merged into the final article. - J Greb (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Furniture merge comment

Hi ThuranX, thanks for your comment in my Talk Page related to my opinion about a merge on the WikiArticle about "Furniture".
I was not aware of the fact that the 'merge tag template' should be in the article for that issue to be considered active, even though I've actually checked the timestamps. I hope now I can improve a bit my editing skills thanks to your advise.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :. File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful. ThuranX Thank you for casting the 55th yea vote and for staying on top of the whole thing.      "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler

McT

This is bogus, all of my good work is being put into question becasue everyone wants to believe that their is some sort of hoax surrounding one of the topics I wrote about, which is not true. And as for Ruffo di Calabria, he is a famous WWI ace that commanded the most famous italian squadron- and hardly an insignificant figure. People made an issue out of something that shouldn't have been an issue at all- and I get pretty upset, as would anyone, when all of my work and false accusations of a hoax,and sock puppets are put out there= my track record proved quality work. ther are a number of topics that administrators purposely want to pick on becaus they still want to believe in a hoax that is not true. I will not waste my time going to the library, researching, and building up great articles, so people can destroy all of my hard work in 2 seconds. compare to half of the irrelevant articles out there, nothing I have done should be picked on- period. Admioniostrators don't treat good editors with respect, and they will not get respect in return for doing that, with all of their false accusationsMctrain (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for some support- I appreciate that. If you want to label the page "Talarico di Capace family". I would have no problem with that either- but there is great fashion info in that article that would be very useful to many people intersted in Pucci and 60's style etc. Also, there is no reason for artist Julian Gilbert to have his images removed, right now they are flagged for removal, if you open up the image page of each. The Joel Gilbert group has rights over all images and they were the ones who posted if you check. The gilbert article does not deserve to be picked on. Thank you.Mctrain (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

thank you, I placed a proper tag on the imagesMctrain (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo troubles

I apologise for the protection of the Kosovo page. Hopefully the worst is behind us now, and the page will not be so susceptible to endless revisions. If you ever need help, just ask. Regards, Rudget. 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm extremely disappointed and somewhat saddened that this was your reaction. But your opinion, is your opinion, and it looks like an apology was not the right course of action in this case. Rudget. 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point

"Those editors who don't learn from BCB's first taggings of their first uploads, and who continue to violate GFDL and copyright and fair use by rampant uploading without FUR and linking aren't big losses to the project..." - I agree, but that is not what the page is about. Read it more closely and, well, I'm putting the rest of my comment on the MfD page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mctrain

This talk of the article being a hoax is a lie. Someone placed Vitus' name into a fake article about Sacred Skull order and then everything that was also attached to vitus got destroyed believing that it was a hoax- it all went through the grinder- but that is bullshit- there is no hoax with anything attached to the vitus person except that his name was unfairly put into that bogus society article. Go to www.avoision.com and punch in what people said about him when he took on his title- those are the pople that looked to make trouble withthe guy on wikipdeia- now if anyone writes about any topic related to this guy they are labled as a hoaxer- but every peice of work I have written on is verifiable by the sources given and is truthful- Why should anyone put up with this constant accusation of hoaxing- there is no hoax, except for people placing the guy's name into a bogus Sacred Skull order article- why should eveything else be destroyed too- This is bullshit- and I'm sick and tired of that!!!!Mctrain (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

re McTrain

Mctrain left the comment on your user page. I didn't want to just delete it without your permission, so I moved it here. Sorry. Deor (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I see I screwed up in the edit summary, saying "Talk page" when I meant "user page." Deor (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what, all of you people are sick. Go check everyone one of those sources that were given, and every bit of info is coming from those sources- you go explain that.Why is fcatual sourced material being glossed over, and why is Deor lieing about not being referenced within those source. That blog proves the guy exists, and what people said about him not existing was not true. Enough with these lies! Enough with hoaxing BS. Every article that I wrote is based on factual sourced material that can be checked for yourself-period. You explain to me why, articles based on factually sourced material should be destroyed, and you explain to me, why if someone takes another person's name and puts it into a BS article that what is truthful surrounding that person should also be destroyed- you explain to me the logic of that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctrain (talk • contribs) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry ThuranX, I don't think I will be spending any more of my time or hard work on Wikipedia after the lies, false accusations, and lack of truth that has occured here lately. There is no point in arguing against ignorance- the principle of it all just makes me very angry! Good byeMctrain (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry. It was not meant as a cheap shot, and if that's the way you took it, I obviously didn't choose my words carefully, and I do apologize. Corvus cornix_talk 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your informal sock report

Subsequent to notification that numerous people including yourself suspected him/her as a sockpuppet of banned user and sometimes vandal User:Creepy Crawler, User:Godcthulha continued to make edits of the same type as Creepy Crawler and has therefore been blocked indefinitely. Thank you for your conscientious efforts in the fight against ban-evaders who create more work for other editors. Doczilla _RAWR! 06:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

HULKish

I reverted for a bit of both reasons, the main one being that although it was a good faith edit, it was against consensus, it actually had nothing to do with what the consensus was. The "unfortunately" was because i wanted it to be a sequel, but its not... Rau J16 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Genealogy

Fair enough. --Michael White^T·C 17:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to reconsider, which exactly of the statements you removed would require "vast citation?" Take a look at the article royal descent; it provides sources for the fact that 600 immigrants to colonial America had proven (i.e. primary source documented) descents from medieval monarchs, and that experts agree that most Britons and Americans are descended from royalty. Those sources support "Proving a royal descent, or proving that family members connected by marriage are distant cousins, is often an outcome of genealogy research," (or possibly a reworded version). I can provide a source for "These instances tend to give anecdotal support to the idea of a recent common ancestor," (anecdotal is the wrong word here, I would change that) (see, for example, point 5 under ways to find the MRCA on this page) and I'm sure I could find a source for "many genealogists are motivated by a desire to connect with distant cousins." In summary, while most people's records don't go past 1600 on most branches, many can prove a royal descent, and royal descents are an integral part of any overview of common ancestry.--Michael White^T·C 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the Genealogy article shouldn't be unnecessarily expanded, and maybe a mention of royal descent within the context of the MRCA is not worth including; however, I do think it should be considered. Certainly not everyone has a either proven, provable, or unprovable royal descent (people with Jewish, central and western European ancestry, and of course the rest of the world, for the most part, likely don't), but for the significant majority of Americans who have at least some Colonial ancestry, it is true that they have a royal descent, for the reasons I mentioned: 600 colonial immigrants with royal ancestry, and, IIRC, at least 200 who left at least 10,000 descendants. If a reputable genealogical source says that many or most Americans have a traceable royal descent, then I would say it's not just "statistical averagings." There is also some degree of genetic evidence, though I suppose it's not directly related to royal descent except in the case of Y-chromosomal studies dealing with historical figures with known male-line descendants, such as Niall of the Nine Hostages. In fact, since the non-genealogical methods of finding the MRCA involve statistics and simulations, if European royals share a relatively recent common ancestor (i.e., Charlemagne), then doesn't a statistical estimation (based on known or estimable provable genealogical facts) of American's (or the western world's) royal descent rate provide important evidence in favor of a recent common ancestor? Furthermore, royal descent and the genealogy of famous people, whether it does produce some fraudulent lineages, does produce factual lineages, is a major area of scholarly genealogical research, and is a major way the general public thinks about public (i.e. media reporting on Presidential candidates' relationships, Bush's royal descent, or the reporting on DNA research.

Search for notable kin is a major driver of amateur and scholarly genealogy research and always has been, and I think it should get recognition somewhere in the Genealogy article.--Michael White^T·C 01:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

At least 10,000 for each immigrant with royal ancestry. But in any case, I agree we need to be careful of being US or UK-centric (I had to deal with a heck of a lot of UK-centrism on the royal descent page when I worked on it recently, and it's still very bad). Perhaps a sentence somewhere else about notable kin as a common goal of genealogy would be better. In any case, I'm not going to push for it right now, and will see if I can't improve the article in other ways. --Michael White^T·C 02:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I would ask then, since Genealogy is about historical and (to a lesser extent) genetic methods of research, why is there a section about common ancestry included at all if it only refers to simulations? Just food for thought. --Michael White^T·C 02:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo edits

I dont understand. Serbia doesn't recognize Kosovo independence and the vast majority of the world considers it a breakaway Serbian republic for now. UNTIL that changes we have to treat it like North Cyprus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PPNjegos (talk • contribs) 21:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK now? PPNjegos (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Shalom chaverim! Thanks for supporting a NPOV on Kosovo's history. I can't understand how they want to take off our ancient history. This is like trying to write the history of Israel from 1920; you must talk about the glorious ancient Kingdom of Israel. That Greek guy is saying that we should not include words like "generous", while that's what Greek historians say about the Dardanians. Thank you very much. My proposed version is currently here, User:Getoar/Notebook. Feel free to make changes so it can actually make it.--Getoar (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That "take off our ancient history" is the same like the claims that Serbs are a heavenly people tainted by the dirty Albanians and Croats and how Albanians are mutants that just came from Mars. PPNjegos (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, get your fucking fight off my fucking talk page, you fucking fucks.ThuranX (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well NPOV is the best solution. Take a look at this reformed version User:Getoar/Notebook. I've made some changes in sensitive issues. Do you think this could make it? (I'll add more sources)--Getoar (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

But I truly meant NOMINALLY. Kosovo's parliament illegitimately self-declared independence, and the act is recognized only by a small part of the globe. Its nominal sovereign, the Republic of Serbia, does not recognise this illegal act, and neither does the vast majority of the world - that MUST be reflected in the articel. PPNjegos (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You have taken a very bad approach and I am no POV warrior. Also your very horrible comparison to the Serbian view of Kosovo shows that you are VERY POV and not nearly neutral. Are you saying that majority of the world shared Hitler's views on Jews and that they were legal?!? Are you actualy serious on this???

Kosovo's assembly proclaimed independence and has NOT been recognized as such - only by a small part of the world. Thats why its POV and doesnt reflect a neutral reality, neutrality. PPNjegos (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat above. get your fight off my fucking talk page. I made GRAMMATICAL edits, and you want to fight about politics. I've been fixing straightforward matter. That you can't accept that politics takes time, and seek Wikiality instead of reality is your problem, not mine. "Nominally" dismisses the declaration as non-existent. it exists. That YOU, as a biased POV warrior ,refuse to accept that it exists and revise the article to neutrality is your problem, not mine. ThuranX (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's good

Neil Peart is finally a good article. I'm wiping the sweat off my brow from all the citation searching. Hehe. Just thought you'd be interested to know about the article. Later dude. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Superman Returns cast

Should it be there? I looked in the history, this was removed moooooooonths back, and I'm just surprised the article simply hasn't got the section. Here's the thing from when it was removed, fyi. I was tempted to put it up... but wasn't sure. It's just odd to me that an unknown IP pulls out the claim and no one re-inserts the section - which more often then not has no refs. -- Harish - 09:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. Nicely sorted! -- Harish - 16:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Try square

As you found the article itself was misleading and contradicting as "tri Square" was used throughout. Hence my moves as for my additional research I must admit my ignorance or haste, I own 2 and one is clearly engraved "Tri Square Model ##..." Which in itself is obviously not a good reference, I probably bought that one at a swap meet or discount shop. Inaccuracies resolved, it happens. Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 13:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Check your facts

I have replied to your ANI comment. If you have an evidence to offer, please produce it, otherwise, leave your obviously personal opinions to yourself. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

...for the encouragement to 'just do it', if I can steal from Nike. I appreciate it a lot, sir. -- Harish - 17:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Hulk (comics)

I do hope you're still watching the talk pages. - J Greb (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ok... then I hope you take this in the way it's intended.

With respect, please take a look at it again. The back and forth has you coming across as possessive and, at the end, petulant.

Yes he has edited the article again instead of taking to the talk. But at least someone has pointed out to him how damn touchy that article has been as well as how skewed his, minimal this time, edits are.

The article does need someone who cares and is well versed with the character and the sources keeping an eye on. And that same person to raise the alarm on the Marvel work group and project talks if it becomes a case of an editor forcing his version to the exclusion of others.

You've got the fondness and the breadth of knowledge in this case, if you can accept that the article is going to change, hopefully for the better. - J Greb (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can see where you're coming from. Not something I'm happy to see happen by any stretch, but I can understand.

Hope to see you knocking around, but if not, take care of yourself. - J Greb (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ArticleHistory template in Talk:Hulk (comics)

Hi ThuranX. When you updated the articlehistory template, you reinstated the "B"-class listing. The template doesn't have parameters for other ratings, so for failed GANs, the letters "F[ailed]GAN" are used (see diff). For further details, see Template:ArticleHistory. Thanks! PeterSymonds | talk 22:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob! Best, PeterSymonds | talk 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the template which shows that the article was delisted from the GA list. Basically the template works in stages, so you can't repeat "actions" (like action2). It didn't "fail" at Good Article Reassessment, it was delisted, so "action3" now shows that the article went through the GAR process and was delisted yesterday. Hope this helps, and let me know if you need clarification. Thanks! PeterSymonds | talk 22:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but it was still listed by one editor, and delisted by another. Therefore, though there wasn't a third "review", there was still a third process which resulted in its delisting. PeterSymonds | talk 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you're leaving; I wish you the best of luck in the future! (No probs about the template; it's no big deal really, it just records the history of listing processes) With my best wishes, PeterSymonds | talk 22:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ThuranX. You may not remember, but you were very kind and helpful to me once when I was a new editor, so I'm very sorry to see what is happening with your fine work at Hulk (comics). I regularly clean up errors in the articlehistory error category caused by incorrect articlehistory templates, and everyone who touched that template did it wrong, causing errors. From reviewing the talk page and the issues occurring there, it appears that the article was never delisted and never went through GAR, rather that you (apparently?) removed it from WP:GA yourself, in understandable frustration. I am very sorry to see what is happening on that page, but other than fixing the articlehistory, I can't get involved too much. I'm not a participant in the GA process other than cleaning up the errors they always leave in articlehistory. ThuranX, I understand your frustration after all the work you clearly put in to the article; please don't go. My experience with you long ago was enough for me to know that you are not the kind of editor we want to lose. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you must have thought I was off my rocker, but I mixed you up with TheronJ. I'm sorry for the confusion, but I hope things will work out nonetheless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disruption

This edit was disruptive and made to prove a point. Don't make further such edits.

I reiterate my earlier plea: Take a break. Come back in a few days or even a few weeks. We truly appreciate your help here and value you and your contributions but you clearly need to take a break as your edits are currently emotional and disruptive. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm through wasting time with you. I respected you as an editor but your petulant childish attitude throughout this entire incident has completely soured me. You have turned from a valuable contributor to a mere vandal and I will treat your edits as such. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hulk

Oh dear, I seemed to have stumbled into a rather large conflict haven't I. What you say is not quite accurate though as it has been listed at GA once and was for over 5 weeks. As is shown at User talk:Igordebraga#Hulk article history you had accepted this then as a GA. Whatever has happened since does not change this. I really hope that you resolve your issues on this as WP really needs article contributors. I want to revert your revert as it were, but only if you agree not to revert it. If you don't agree, then frankly I don't care, it is a technicality that is part of a wider dispute. Woody (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly, what I see is two rutting stags with large antlers. I see you, who has been offended at someones opinion of an excellent article that you helped write. Another editor (not admin, editor) has come along with their own opinions and this has offended you. Hell, it has happened to me numerous times, you just try and develop a consensus regarding each others differing opinions. For what its worth, "it really doesn't pass GA standards as it stands right now" was only his opinion and he didn't say that it should be summarily delisted, merely that it needs improvements in places. If anything, this whole episode has highlighted the subjectivity and at times, craziness that is GA. I really hope that you try and develop a consensus on the talk page and help to develop the article. Woody (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree you have worked your ass off, that is clear, and it is clear you are emotionally invested in that article, as I am with all of mine. When someone brings up complaints, it riles you, that is only natural. I actually don't think that the fact that he is an admin has any bearing on this really. It doesn't mean anything in these situations, I would know. I think David wanted to improve the article, he just went about it in the wrong way and with as much tact as Hulk himself. Things have just snowballed to a point where everyone has done stupid things, everyone is at loggerheads, and everyone is now eyeing each other suspiciously. It is the article that has suffered through this. Can you not try to discuss the issues a wee bit at the talkpage, I know it has been tried before, but it won't harm to try it again. At the very least, please don't attack the other editors, not much to be gained out of it really. Warm regards. Woody (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, if that is what it has come to. I really hope neither of you get blocked, let alone banned for this. FWIW, I don't see either of you being banned for this. It is a real shame though, that you feel you have to leave. Wikipedia can't afford to lose good editors. Can you not just abandon that article, or just take a break? Less drama, more writing is my motto, but that seems to be drowned out at the moment. Woody (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my last two comments on your AN/I thread. I've also restored your last good version of the Hulk page. Hopefully, you and the other edits of that article can start from before this whole event occurred and continue to improve the article. Avruch ^T 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maestro- Oh come on ThuranX, you know why I changed it, and you know that what I wrote was valid and referenced. You are splitting hairs here. What was your point of reverting a valid edit? --Kontar (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I thread about me

Thank you for letting me know. I have responded to the user on their talk page [10] and I hope this explains what I am doing. I did not write anything on the AN/I page because it is now at Archive376 and the page said to not edit anything. Callmederek (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What timing

Just a few minutes ago, I was looking at someone else as a candidate[11] because the old friend loves the topic of the first half of that user name and very often uses the last half of that user name. I'll look at the one you brought up. Keep an eye on the one I noticed in case he/she/it makes some other CCish edit. Doczilla _RAWR! 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Rider in the Captain Marvel page

Danny Ketch was a teenager when he first became merged with the Ghost Rider, not an adult. Therefore he fits, as does Darkhawk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.37.162 (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comic Book Nation

I own Comic Book Nation, so if you need help sourcing (I'm assuming you checked out the book from a library or are using Google book search) I can assist. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

An old friend

You may want to see this, this, and this. I've already e-mailed Jimbo, and I've already put up a notice to the editors at WikiProject Films. Just thought I'd inform you of this unfortunate resurgence. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Thanos Leslie Thompkins List of first appearances in Marvel Comics publications Jon Peters 1997 in comics Warren Ellis Reginald Hudlin Marking blue List of DC Comics publications Two-Gun Kid Radius gauge Marvel Edge Image Comics Justice League Task Force (comics) 1996 in comics Keith Pollard X-Force Metron (comics) Mimic (comics)

Cleanup Bill Finger Bryan Hitch List of video games based on Marvel comics Merge Nighthawk (Marvel Comics) Thor (Marvel Comics) Squadron Supreme Add Sources Modern Age of Comic Books Falcon (comics) Dave Stewart (artist) Wikify Wonder Twins Attilio Gatti Elliot S! Maggin Expand Open Text Corporation Ultimate Adventures Royal Roy

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support. - J Greb (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve Rogers

Maybe I'm just being dense but, I can't find the previously existing section on that page. Mind pointing me to the correct section heading? Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimates et al

Looking over it, it looks like two major things happened:

1. The article got moved to a perceived or preferred title. With "The" added.
2. The info for Ultimates 2 and Ultimates 3 has been broken out into separate articles.

I'm not sure that the splitting is a good idea since it looks like the plot is being expanded on those two pages. After 3 ends it's possible that we'll see a re-merge suggested, similar to what happened with the Ultimate Galactus trilogy. - J Greb (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit batches, there have been 4 editors on Ultimates in the past day:

• Me - Moving the page and fixing "the " usages
• LifeStroke420 - removing speculation
• Nightscream:

• 1st chunk adds minor rw context and restore a plot summary. It also removes rw context moved to Ultimates 3. [12]
• 2nd chunk adds minor clarifications [13]
• Last edit [14] restructured two sections into referral leads for Ultimates 2 and 3.

• Stextc who split out the 2nd and 3rd series, tanking out the rw context associated with those.

It looks like you are looking at the wrong editor for the removals. - J Greb (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I did a comparison, and the only info removed was the detailed plot synopses, which were condensed, with the details saved on the articles for the two latter miniseries. I apologize if I accidentally removed citations, but which ones were they? I couldn't find them. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Batman links

My bad, I actually thought that would be helpful. Won't happen again. Cubzrule (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed back most of the articles that were effected. I don't think it will be a problem anymore. Cubzrule (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. I didn't realize that before, but the more you learn... Anyway, sorry, again. Cubzrule (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Edward McSweegan

I have nominated Edward McSweegan, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward McSweegan (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Blueboy96 20:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the kind words on my edit to the hulk article. I just used the heading because it is what is used at the superman article. I'm not sure I agree with taking out the Marvel quote about how they view the character, it was flagged as being published by a branch of Marvel comics, but I'm not sure that makes the quote unfair to use. It was balanced by another quote from a different magazine. I also thought that, because of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we could not use the active voice. Did I get that wrong? Bye. Surreptitiously (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Consenus breached, need support

Hello ThuranX, contrary to a reached consensus there is a splitting going on instead a merging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo#Split_completed And I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you! --Tubesship (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to Talk:Kosovo

This edit is entirely uncalled for. Please review the civility policy. Nakon 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that and I inform that WP:Censor does not allow users to transgress WP:Civil, especially such grossly uncivil comments as the one mentioned above. Please calm down and refrain from such behavior, otherwise you will be blocked. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you 48 hours for persistent incivility, and it seems like it wasn't the first time you have been blocked for violating WP:CIVIL. When the block expires, please read that policy carefully, and refrain from being uncivil towards other users. Thank you. Húsönd 18:00, 28 March 2008 (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:

This block was put in place by an admin directly involved with the page, who is simply offended that I cite WP:CENSOR to restore my comments when another editor (Beam) refactored them as an attack on a third editor(DBachmann), and call him on it. I restored my text and left a clearly uncensored response. For that, I received two warnings, while Beam received NONE. When I pointed this out to the two people warning me, and again restored MY own words, I was blocked. This is Husond being sore that I pointed out his hypocrisy. As such it is materially unfair, unfounded, and being used as a pretext, solely to eliminate me for the duration of the Kosovo merge debate, which Husond is a participant in. He's blocking to push his agenda, and to make a POINTy revenge that I shouldn't point out his favoritism. Further, per numerous threads on AN/I should an editor censor another, and that first editor restore his text, it's generally accepted that, barring LIBEL and LEGAL, the text stands as originally presented, which is my right.

Decline reason:

Contrary to what you seem to believe, you have no "right" to abusive or egregiously vulgar language in your comments. Wikipedia does indeed avoid censoring article contents, but comments by and between editors are restricted by civility. Your language was inflammatory, willfully offensive and contained numerous personal attacks. Notwithstanding Jpgordon's distinction below which is quite true but does not apply in this case, the block is quite appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (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.

• As far as I can tell, cursing per se isn't considered incivil behavior by the community. There's a difference between "What the fuck was that all about" and "fuck you". Further, it's inappropriate to block someone you are in a content dispute with. Other reviewing admins might want to consider both of these. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • User was warned for this which is a gross and undeniable transgression of WP:CIVIL. User then proceeded with this and this, also WP:CIVIL transgressions and thus the block was issued. Perfectly in order, in my opinion. Furthermore, I should add that there is no content dispute whatsoever between me and this user, and even if there were it would still be valid for me to block for WP:CIVIL violations (which are unrelated with content disputes). Last but not least, latest edit summaries, unblock request message and block log clearly denote an unrepentant uncivil user. Húsönd 18:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And, to show how ludicrous the agenda/revenge accusations are, I should say that the first time I've seen this user was earlier today at this AfD, where we both call for the article to be merged. A rather unusual dispute I would say. Húsönd 19:07, 28 March 2008 (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:

This block was supported by an editor who admits it's wrong, then dismisses that as not relevant. As jpgordon points, out, involved editor throwing blocks around to control the page, and Coren obediently follows suit. I demand policy be cited for where other editors have the right to refactor comments in order to make personal attacks. Look at the diff, and you'll see that editing my comment was a POINT violation taking a cheap shot at DBachmann. That I reverted on CENSOR and not POINT is irrelevant, and this shows that Husond, Nakon, and Coren are all just pro forma backing up each other, none is looking at the salient diff. that I point out the idiocy with a blunt reply to Beamathan, and then call them on their obvious hypocrisy, is simply more evidence that they aren't paying any real attention they are looking to silence the noise, not fix the problem.

Decline reason:

In the above request for an unblock, I don't see any contrition for the civility violations, nor any assurances that such violations will cease. Given that the blocked user shows no apparent understanding of why they are blocked, nor any remorse for the violations commited, nor any assurances that it won't happen when they are unblocked, I see no reason at this time to lift the block. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:25, 28 March 2008 (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.

Jayron32's decline seemed to override my earlier one. Mine can be found at this diff.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange. I didn't get an edit conflict warning or nothing. I have no idea how that happened. Hmmm... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Displays of contrition? I'm supposed to beg for forgiveness? For pointing out that another editor was making personal attacks and violating policy to do so? And yeah, so MAYBE my second comment smacked of POINT, but so what? I STILL do not see any admin response to the initial personal attack my comment was refactored to make. Until that's addressed, the unblock requests will continue. The simple fact is, no one wants to admit that another admin fouled up, and now you're all rushing to dogpile on the 'bad editor, beg us till we forgive you' bandwagon. That's absurd. Either sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, or unblock me. There's no other logical option. If I see that the other editor's personal attacks have been dealt with, I'll sit out my block quietly. Otherwise, I should be unblocked. I'd point out how often DBachmann's up on AN/I, being defended by the masses, but defended one on one? ho ho, that jsut gets you blocked for not letting the Wikidrama happen center ring.}} This is not the matter of dogpiling. You are pretty much drawing admins to come here to look at the unblock request. Simple as that. Please don't spam the unblock template, you are experienced enough to know that its considered abuse and will cause your talk page to be protected. Just take this time to cool down, no need to add to the drama yourself.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)}}

{{Unblock|It's not spamming to point out that four admins are now engaged in hypocrisy, while one found this to be problematic. Now unblock me, or reprimand, and possibly block the other editor involved. It really is that simple.}}

The issue at hand, which I am addressing now, is your abuse of the {{unblock}} template. Your talk page will be protected until your block completes. — Coren ^(talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cagney & Lacey

lol Doczilla _STOMP! 05:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection

My apologies. It appears the page protection did not correctly expire when your block did— I have unprotected it. — Coren ^(talk) 11:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Catwoman revert

Can you explain why you reverted? Your edit summary wasn't very clear to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ars Technica

Hey, TX. Naw, can't say as I recall having been to it. Any reason? Hope you and the rest of WPC crew have been well. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I get some help on my talk page?

I am having some difficulties getting some things to display correctly. Could I trouble you for some help? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Perhaps the reason you've noted my presence at AN/I recently was because this was the anon's third bite at the apple. Granted, I can be impolite, but my mistake does not overshadow, in this instance, the problem presented by the anon. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Orange Marlins of the wikiworld

Orange marlin is like that. I've delt with his control freak ego. Don't let him scare you away. I don't. I learn what battles I can win and which ones I can't. You must outwit the control police on here. J. D. Hunt (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Creepy's gone

One of the main reasons I accepted the admin nom. Thanks for pointing him out. Doczilla _STOMP! 03:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on User:Benjaminso. Their interests are similar, but I don't recall CC spending much time on images. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unclear on Reason for Action

Hi, I seem to have been banned for making this AN/I report.[15] I'm not exactly certain why bringing this post[16] to an Administrators attention is a Ban Offense. I was completely unaware of this ban as my IP changed and I had confirmed edits at my new IP at 14:07, 16 April. This was hours after your post in the section at 01:57, 16 April and many hours before I was blocked at 21:35, 16 April.

My IP automatically changing 7 1/2 hours before being blocked has now been used as the basis by Arcayne for a full press to be banned for "Block Evasion". After his current attack [17] against me on AN/I failed he went back to the original Admin on his talk page and lobbied there. I am now banned.

I have abided by the Wiki rules and since being informed of the ban and discovering where the block that Arcayne was referring to came from I have only posted to AN/I and directly to the Administrators involved. I have honored and respected the rules and customs of this institution and tried to speak with civility and reason - I am disheartened by the lack of protection and dismayed by my sentence for having used the correct channels to civilly address my concerns.

Arcaynes ruthless and deceptive obsession, and his ability to somehow always find someone, somewhere to try another avenue of approach with reflects poorly on this institution.

I thank you for your time.75.58.32.90 (talk)

I'm not an admin, sorry. You'll have to ask them what the deal is. Arcayne's actions bother me in this, and other cases. He can have a tendency to BITE the newcomers. Wish I could help, but I said my piece and it was overruled. ThuranX (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, you might feel it of some use to actually discuss the matter with me. The anon is not a new user. As you chose to accuse me of acting badly in the last ANI of three submitted by this anon, why else do you think you were selected during the forum-shopping? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Canplex

Hi. Since you messaged me he's been blocked indef for having a promotional username. I guess until he sorts that out there's not much he can do. I regard that as a bit bitey because it's clear this editor thinks that what happens at another wiki also appplies here. But I don't see any indication that he's read our policy and got the message, unless I've missed something. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:AlexanderHaas

I just noticed your comment/change to weak support on my recently withdrawn RfA. While my reversion indicated that it was a good faith edit by the above user, I should have followed up with a message instead of just typing WP:COPYRIGHT in the edit summary. Sorry about that. You're absolutely correct. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Ryantcook

On the genealogy DNA test page, I think that the paragraph on genealogy software should also be taken out, since technically that paragraph is promoting Legacy Family Tree. Ryantcook (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification

I have decided to go ahead and implement the remedy as outlined at ANI concerning Jsn9333. Assuming Jsn9333 chooses not to comment further concerning this dispute,, I expect that other involved parties also let the issues/hard feelings go, specifically by not making any other comments. I am serious about the "poking" issues, and I want to re-iterate that everyone is cautioned to not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations, or basically do anything other than comment on the edits, not the editor. I hope this will close the book on the current dispute at the FNC talk page. Please go the extra mile to treat each other with respect. Thank-you, R. Baley (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the Confusion

ThurnaX,

Sorry that the summary table on AN/I was confusing. I guess I was focussed too much on table syntax and didn't realize the ambiguity. No offense intended. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand; the discussion was really getting complex and it was easy to miss things. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Mmodel.jpg image deletion

The images has been restored and the discussion moved to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008_April_28#Image:Mmodel.jpg. -Nv8200p talk 14:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry Ford

The dearborn section is horribly written. The problems are:

1. 1 - Is not in chronological order
2. 2 - Posts bare quotes from historians

@3 - Is unspecific

I don't care if historian POV is added as long as it introduced as "Historian Bob Smith says, "quote.." The section as it is written now posts bare quotes from historians. After a while whenever I see it I just delete. I removed the POV which is to interpret the contents of the material. No reader wants a historians or editors interpretation of the material nor do they have the time to read it. Just post what is anti-Semitic, racist whatever about the material.

GordonUS (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nick Cave

Thanks for fixing the Nick Cave article. I also heard the interview on Fresh Air and thought the bit on Wikipedia one of its finer moments. While the publicity itself isn't positive, the fact that Terry Gross uses Wikipedia in her research says a lot. It also portends of the day when we'll hear Nina Totenberg report, "And today the Supreme Court upheld Miranda, citing Wikipedia's article on the 1966 ruling." Okay, I exaggerate, but you get the point.Allreet (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Ford

Hi, can you explain why posting dependent clauses at the beginning of sentences is incorrect? Do you have anything I can read about it breaking a grammar rule? The guy (forgot his name) didn't explain anything. He said "you are wrong. Its bad grammar." If you want me to stop putting dependent clauses at the beginning of some sentences, please give me something to read showing it breaks grammar rules. I haven't found anything and have seen dependent clauses used at the start of sentences in professional writing.

GordonUS (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [18] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Two-Face

Nah, I think that section became a rambling proseline and I cleaned it up with the bare facts. Alientraveller (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

One role, many actors

No it's not, but the Star Trek article was even more rambling before I used the multiple bullets. I have no other ideas for discussing roles in flashback, because they're never as important as the actors generally on-screen, yet it's a good way of filing actors before it gets all over the place. Alientraveller (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Iron Man

I didn't unprotect the article. I only removed the semi-protection tag. So far, the article has received some positive IP edits and some vandalism. I'll see how it progresses over the next day before deciding to re-protect. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Iron Monger

Sheesh, you'd think people would research before trying to start an edit war. Like you said, "if people could read, they'd be dangerous". It seems you have fallen victim to your own smart comment. [19] [20] [21]

Since you can't seem to find things, I've outlined them all here:

• http://img353.imagesh*ck.us/my.php?image=00hz3.png
• http://img50.imagesh*ck.us/my.php?image=000mp9.png
• http://img99.imagesh*ck.us/my.php?image=0000zr7.png

And remember - You're the one who decided to flip out over two words and a slash. Not me.

With all due respect, Jon24hours (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Marvel Comics films‎

What about the ones that are in production... can I list them as part of the Avengers Series?--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind... I know the answer.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well my vote would be to have it all under the Avengers umbrella... it'ssuch an ambitous project... but I guess we can discuss that in 2 years or so.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• regarding WP:CRYSTAL: It says that a forward looking page can exist if the event is almost certain to take place. According to cnn marvel has green lit 3 more movies in the franchise. With Iron Man, the series has been started and iwith the Hulk and these 3 films it's continuence is a certainty. I don't think it's realistic to assume any of them are going to be major flops.
• On the series as a series: The Avenger's series is a series in the same way that the Daredevil and Elehtra films form a series on the Template (although I agree we are not ready to add the Avengers series to the template yet). Where movies about differnt title characters cross over into one another.
• A personal appeal: Even if you think we need to wait until the Hulk movie to be sure of the series sustenance, surely you realize others would not agree. What is the harmin leaving it up, if the new Hu;k is a flop (which it won't be), then the page can be removed at that time (which won;t be needed because that is not going to happen). There's no need to be in a hurry to delete the thing.
• As for the source of the page: I generated a page from material on The Avengers page... it is an often used practice in wikipedia to generate a new article. I have since added Template:main to the section I used.

I hope I'm not coming off as inflexable. We can keep talking about this. Maybe I can make more changes to the article to assuage your concerns. I put a stub tag on it to encourage further growth and formatting. Maybe you could give it a little time to grow... see what other editors have to contrubute. If you still feel strongnly that a WFD is in order... let's put your points and mine up on the discussion page for concensus. Perhaps we can go to wikiproject:films or Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics to request comments.--Dr who1975 (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:The Avengers (film series).--Dr who1975 (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

review

Hi, will you please review me? Thanks, to do so, click here or click here to review me on the Dune Wiki.--xgmx (T | C | D | R | DR)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.78.249 (talk • contribs)

Real-world superheroes

Hey, TX. Didn't mean to step on toes about that section; didn't know it was one of your adds. I'd be glad to bring it back into play and discussion if you want, though I see User:Kontar has come in on it now as well. I might have been too peremptory based on the "can of worms" reasoning. While I do believe that a section saying why a science-fiction principle wouldn't work in real-life is unnecessary (we could extend this to movies like Robocop, novels, etc., but I'm not sure the point), I do respect your editing. Just wanted to say. -Tenebrae (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you make your case with reason and calmness, and the additional note that the authors say more than just "No, this can't happen" adds an additional point to your argument. While I still may doubt the necessity of this addition, I won't touch it.

And as always, it's good to work with someone so collegial and open to honest back-and-forth discussion. For what small thing it's worth, my kudos to you, TX! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Daredevil film

Hey bro, been a long time. I've been busy with uni and stuff, but I'd occasionally still work on the Daredevil article in my sandbox (look here). Check it out sometime soon if you can. Once you're happy with the progress, I'm gonna paste what I've done so far into the main article, then continue to work on there. You may notice that the lead says stuff that the article doesn't. I'm still working on that, the information will come in due time (due to the DVD info extraction being a long, tedious job - I'm getting there though). Hope all's good, keep up the good work. -- Harish - 18:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, ThuranX. Got a problem though... I think I like the theatrical version more and more with the work I keep doing for it =O -- Harish - 19:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, thanks doc. -- Harish - 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me, bro. Had to rush add that section so that I had an excuse to keep that image. Darn the internet police-bots! -- Harish - 23:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandman

I've started a discussion here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read it. By the by, don't be childish and make a total revert on a questionable edit, the subject of which is discussed above. Also choose your words carefully. "I won't let you" is a silly statement.

Asgardian (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where you're quoting me from. I never used that pharse in the sandman discussion. Because it wasn't there, it's in the Abomination edit summaries. And yes, I stand by it, though you're clearly intent on interpreting it as my issuing an imperative rather than me repeatedly prevcenting you from doing so. Good luck with whatever dumb administrative attack you're gearing up for. ThuranX (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

imdb

I know imdb is considered a sketchy source to use... is it officially considered a bad source?--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil

The discussion at Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma is a heated one, with many people holding very strong opinions. Please try to keep the discussion about the topic, not about other editors and try to WP:Assume good faith. If you have a concern about another editor's behavior, note it on the user's talk page.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not what you say, it's how you say it: "...NOT a soapbox for you to spout off on your opinion... you have a singularly politically motivated agenda to push your POV. That's right, you're a POV-pusher..." Intelligent readers can tell that he is not bashful about his POV and will interpret his comments accordingly. You don't have to drop to name-calling and screaming to point that out.Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith and leave it at that. Just wanted to let you know that I wasn't 100% comfortable with the tone.Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

In regard to your comments accusing me of being a "POV pusher," having a Point of View and commenting on facts and policy are not mutually exclusive. I have no political agenda in regard to Burma/Myanmar, however, I have been extremely disappointed by the way large sections of the media, and indeed Wikipedia, have tried to ignore the name "Burma", and impose the name "Myanmar." The point I was making was that this is hardly establishing NPOV. The comments you responded to were my response to another editor who tried to argue that even the BBC used the term "Myanmar" sometimes, clarifying why that term(Myanmar) had been used in that context. At no point did I accuse anyone of being wrong to use it. This was part of my wider comment that "Burma" is the most used and recognised name and therefore the one that should be used, in line with Wikipedia policy.Angstriddenyouth (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I was just hunting for a CU myself. If I find one I will certainly send them your way. Rgoodermote  22:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is online as far as I can tell. I am going to try Thatcher. But as he is traveling we may not get him. Rgoodermote  22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, if you are in contact with Law Enforcement, have them email me at thatcher131 at gmail dot com and cc Bastique, and I can send the IP to them. I can't send it directly to you, though. However Jpgordon has already run a check, too, so maybe he has it or has already followed up. Thatcher 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bongwarrior says thanks to all of you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I asked Gordan. No reply. Anyways all is settled then. I wish you all well in your life and happy editing. Rgoodermote  23:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Real Life Barnstar
		For your great work in possibly saving lives today. I'm glad we have folks like you around. Toddst1 (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Ford...

I was reading the article and when I crossed the derby racing I wanted to see a picture. Not everyone has time to read every minute detail of his life and work their way to the derby racing section. We need to capture the reader's interest right off the bat. If people are further interested in his derby racing they can go down and read the section. When someone skims over the article it seems logical to have the photo in the derby racing section but I assure you when you read it its much better in the early life section.

As for the sentence quote I removed, there is nothing wrong with it but it repeats information stated in the sentence before it and is not 100 percent necessary. Its purpose has already been served.

GordonUS (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So your response to my edits was a wholesale revert? So much for building consensus and showing any good faith. You've already had the topic of your edits discussed with you, and the opposition to them. You rewrite sections not to be more clear, but to say new things. Your stated intent for the movement of images, chronology, is revealed by your comment to me to instead be grandstanding showmanship, which is NOT a reason to edit. In sum, I find your attitude of wholesale revision insulting. I went through your two dozen edits and selectively adjusted a few, reverted a couple, and changed a few things to help work with you. You have now made clear that you are not interested in such. Duly noted.

I didn't do a "wholesale revert." I left your revision claiming I changed the meaning of a sentence. The rest of my revert restored the article to follow the "who what when" rule. You said putting the dates at the end of sentences is weird but if that is the case should I go to every single article and starting putting dates at the beginning of sentences? Why does it bother you so much to start a discussion and get a "consensus?" I did minor copyediting and see no reason for a consensus.

Adjust what you wish but please do not revert the dates to be "when, what" and the photo for the previously stated reasons. You asserted I rewrote "sections" when I just removed edited the who what when rule. What sections did I rewrite?

GordonUS (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your revert doesn't bother me but I assure you the car racing photo is much better in the early life section. Have you read the article or are you just skimming? Also, quote I removed is redundant and is really not necessary. We have to respect the reader's time and get directly to the point. Does the reader really need to know Ford loved his mother? This is supposed to be a brief biography and summarize the most important events of his life and this fact is more suited for a book. Plus its already stated in the sentence before.

GordonUS (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add any dependent clauses. I followed the who what when rule and you're telling me this is bad writing? Plus, what is "good writing?" Creating pauses and repeating info? When Bill Clinton is announced on TV is he announced as "Bill Clinton, fmr President" or "Fmr President Clinton?" Which one flows better?

Again, have you read the article or are you skimming it? If someone is skimming the photo seems more appropriate in the Derby Racing section, however, for someone who is reading the photo is much better in the early life section. When I skimmed the article I thought the photo was better in the derby racing section but when I actually read it it is much better in early life. Someone who is skimming the article will not agree.

You are not paying attention to my questions.

GordonUS (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I came here to discuss this but I have to say that your talk page is mad angry sounding. Maybe you could remove the anger!

Anyway, if it's an archive, why don't you make it in an archive box? Beam 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So, is your tone that of a jerk or am I misreading that too? Beam 02:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I came across another user's complaint against you on a talk page. Just letting you know you should take it easy. Although your curtness may be for policy it still isn't exactly conducive to newer editors or contributors. Sometimes I find myself in a similar situation when policy backs me, we all have to work on being nice. :) Beam 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It had to do with Captain America, I don't want to start trouble by direct linking. I've been "banned" over supposed incivillity previously. I was eventually exonerated, thankfully, but it's a hassle. Beam 01:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Removing the anger"

I won't introduce the argument of pot and kettle, ThuranX, because you are well aware of your own behavior enough to know that it is absurd for either of us to paint a lurid picture of the others' behavior without being painted by the same brush. I recall the very first interaction with you, though you might not. I asked someone to explain something to me, and you said "it's in the archives. I don't have time to point it out to you." This was a year and a half ago, and honestly, I think I have matured a lot (wiki-speaking) since then. Yes, I am still somewhat abrasive when met with abrasiveness, do not suffer fools, pedantics and zealots gladly, and when I think I am right, I don't budge. Sound like someone you see in the mirror?
Point is, why on earth would you feel the burning need to condemn me in an AN/I for the same behavior that you (and judging from the recent comments in your own talk page) often display yourself? I do respect your ability to edit, and that's why I always cringe when I hear about your most recent commentary on/about another user in the Project. Perhaps instead of complaining about that behavior of mine which you yourself exhibit, you could look at the people who are choosing to report me, and evaluate their claims first. And maybe show me a bit of the respect your yourself like to get, and talk to me about it first. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

y000000

Hey bro, just dropping by randomly - no need to reply! Hope all's good with ya. -- Harish (Talk) - 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Physicist Dr. Bruce Banner??

Thanks. Good point. They changed Spidey's premise to genetics, so they're likely to change to something like that in the Hulk. Can't wait to see it! Jarella of Ka'i (talk) 04:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hulk (film) article

You had no reason to delete that info. Alientraveller and I working on that article. If you noticed the changes, you would understand. I added various more citations, summarized the plot, etc. I'm still not finished so just hang on there. —Wildroot (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, thanks for protecting that article from vandals.—Wildroot (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Iron Man

Ack! Good catch, thanks for cleaning up after me. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Somehow our wires appear to have crossed on a thread. The opening poster was unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes and had gotten frustrated to the point of rudeness. So I pointed him to the proper venues that normally resolve his type of situation. Durova^Charge! 17:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

two face

The image i uploaded was NOT a fake! It real, if it is a fake why has warner bros taken it off several websites multiple times??? It is from the set of the Dark Knight. Quinlanfan2 (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Source please?There are others that are obviously fake. This was the first makeup test. Like the image of the first makeup test. Quinlanfan2 (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

You appear to be right about not being a supporter of the named editors, so I've removed you from the RFC entirely. Feel free to remove or keep your comment there. Odd nature (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Jaydon

There seems to be confusion as to the relation between Jaydon D. Paull & Zachary Jaydon. They are one in the same. A large percentage of performers/artists don't go by their legal name. Any notability no matter which of the two names they are credited under are still assertions of nobility under either or both. Many people are eliminating anything that can be user uploaded or changed. I agree with the principle of this in general, however, videos, magazine scans and the such are irrefutable proof of events or facts no matter where they came from. If there is a video of Mr. Jaydon playing with a National Rock Band, you can't say that because it was put up by a "user" that the fact doesn't remain.

While every sentence of this Wiki Article isn't strongly sourced, it doesn't mean he doesn't meat notability requirements for an article. I have scanned and uploaded quite a few of my sources at: http://zacharyjaydonwiki.blogspot.com/

Also, the following was taken directly from WP:N#MUSIC:

Criteria for composers and lyricists

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists:

  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

Jaydon has written material on several Multi-Platinum records, including *NSYNC, Craig David, Ryan Cabrera and others. These WERE songs that were included on these albums. They weren't scrapped, or obscure B-Sides. These were songs included on official releases by MAJOR artists. He obviously has notable talent if these artists are choosing to work with him. This is obviously an arguable issue, but given the success of the albums his work has been featured on, it seems at the VERY least, notable. These credits are easily verifiable here:

([22], [23], [24])

The 3 above sources are all from www.ASCAP.com which is one of the most trusted sources used on Wiki for Songwriter Credit Verification.

([25]) also shows from a VERY large, Fortune 500 companies website with information on Close To Home and confirming Mr. Jaydon's Songwriting Credits. This website would be considered reliable on any front, and also independent of the subject himself.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 23:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hulk Powers

Thanks for the clean up. That's much better. The reason I took out the cancer part was because the level of gamma exposure would have killed Banner instantly- the Choi article discusses that as well. You're right about the cancer, but it's the LEVEL of exposure that Banner wouldn't have been able to recover from. But if you want to leave it, I won't revert. With or without, that's fine with me. --Kontar (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Action films

Umm First of all not all superhero films are science fiction! That's a bit of a broad statement. Secondly, they are all action films the superhero fights aren't exactly the same as Rambo but they are at their heart action films. If you need me to cite a source that doesn't isn't editable by fans like imdb, my source is allmovie.com. For me and looking at it's influences and sources, most if not all superhero films are a hybrid of Action films and either science fiction or fantasy films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It will not dilute the category as it will show trends in action films per era, which is encyclopedic. The site is a sales site, but no more then imdb or rottentomatoes for that matter, all valid sources, and I haven't seen any WPstating that I can't use it. You remark that my opinion is no more valid then yours, this goes just as well that you shouldn't revert them as you offer no site at all suggesting that superhero films aren't part of action films. Please don't rever my edits unless you can give me written proof that they aren't either. You seem to feel very strongly about this, so thank you for at least bringing to attention your views on the subject, even if I do not think it's a simple conclusion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'll do that once you find me a site that proves your theory as well that they aren't. You haven't given me proof that you can't cite sources from sites like that. Several FA'd film articles use Allmovie as citations such as Night of the Living Dead, why is that okay and mine not? I've given my proof which seems to be fine by wikipedia standards. If it doesn't fit your own, i'm sorry, but it seems that constant edit warring will lead to me reporting you.

Also if you need more proof, at rotten tomatoes list of top reviewd "Action films" of all time films include Iron Man, Spider-man 2, X2 and Batman Begins make the list. here's the link. What more do you need now? Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning, but we still haven't stabalized the claims as negative, and you haven't addressed my problems.

• Several film articles that are FA'd use rotten tomatoes and allmovie as sources. Why is mine not allowed?
• How do you exactly cite a category? Can you explain?

Also how about this. Here's a line from the book Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action.

"As a good number of action and disaster films and superhero films indicate, the action film has long been broadening it's appeal by appealing to younger viewers and family audiences."

and

"particularly the films involving the superhero genre represent the large overlap of the aging down action movie".

• Lichtenfeld, Eric (2007). Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action. Wesleyan University Press. ISBN 0819568015. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I've given you your citation now. You have given me zero. I don't want to be hassled by the WP:3RR rule so since I've given you what you want, could revert your own edits for me? Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given everything you want and more. You still haven't given me anything. Not one single proof otherwise, i might as well remove that they are science fiction films because you haven't proven they are. I'm going to go post about it on WP:Films and see what they think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's one more quote for you: :*"many of the films in the last chapter provoke a certain comic book sensibility. Naturally, this will most manifest in the rash of action films based on comic book properties, one that begain in the 1990s.". He goes on to list the superman series, the batman series, I'd go on and list them, but I think the proof is in the pudding.Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You haven't replied to the projects response or my previous one, have you given up or will you revert me again if I add it? Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk

Thoughts? I personally enjoyed it... I think as much as Iron Man in my opinion, if not a shade more. Some bits were iffy though, and if it weren't for Wikipedia I don't think I'd be disappointed about the loss of Captain America or a lot of that 29minute fight as I probably wouldn't have known haha. -- Harish (Talk) - 12:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have also hit three reversions on Hulk (comics), but for the benefit of everyone, I have posted a new section on the talk page to discuss the matter further. --Maestro25 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility warning in regards to Wikiquette alert

Hello. First of all, please be aware of this Wikiquette alert involving you.

Secondly, while it does indeed appear you are looking to uphold consensus, after a fairly recent block for incivility I would advise you to be very careful and take it easy. If somebody is getting so frustrating you can't handle it, ignore them for a couple of days. You don't want to get yourself blocked again because you lost your temper at some random IP, right? I think consensus is on your side, so just watch it with the civility and you should be fine. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of my comment with this edit summary, I will remind you that regardless of your desire or not to have any form of interaction with me or any other user, does not prevent me or any other user from leaving messages on your talk page. Especially when those messages are precisely asking you to refrain from being hostile/uncivil towards other users. Reminders that clearly fall on deaf ears. Regards, Húsönd 21:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:moving wonder woman film page

please revert your move. A wonder Woman live action film has been on DC's back burner for years. Although the information is currently at the main character page, the constant potential for a live action was why the toon movie was put at such a specific page (animated film) right away, instead of at the 'film' page. ThuranX (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that when a Wonder Woman live action movie goes into development it should receive the title of "Wonder Woman (film)" but since at this time, a Wonder Woman film is barely in preproduction (or at best in development hell) I see no reason why the animated film should not get this page. If you recall, before moving the animated film to "Wonder Woman (film)" that page merely redirected to "Wonder Woman". If you choose to pursue this further, please follow Wikipedia:Requested moves guidelines so that others may weigh in on the subject.--Darknus823 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hulk

It's close. There are a few things that concern me. I think some of the publication history can be shortened, such as World War Hulk. The second thing is that The Hulk's characterization is a bit... thick... we need to figure out how to condense it or break it up so it's not a wall of text. Other than that, it looks pretty good. I'll see about doing some copyediting this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Captain America

Eh, perhaps. But it still removed a large amount of content that essentially reverted a revert of vandalism. I never called him a vandal, I simply stated that we check the edits made on a page. Whether or not he took that as offensive is not my problem, nor was it my intention. And he could have previewed his edit, I know that I preview all of my edits, if I do not, it is pure carelessness. Rau's Speak Page 04:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: 3RR Hulk (film)

What it be fine to simply find a way of mentioning the 2008 film in the article?--Snowman Guy (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wildroot is working together with Alientraveller. He is working to get Hulk to GA quality, and Alien is working for The Incredible Hulk to GA quality. The edit I restored was added by Wildroot a while ago, But was changed around by me, and made the info sound unimportant. Speak with Wildroot about this.--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Red Hulk Identity Edit

Hello,

I would like to counter your reasoning for editing out the addition I made to the page.

You wrote:

(rv - citation suggests it's a joke, and citation's link to original story yields no relevant results, even after searching 'red hulk ares') (undo)

I would like to point out that:

1.) The citation questions whether or not it was true in the source interview, and suggests nothing.

2.) I am a little disappointed in your laziness when researching the source content. You said you did a search for 'red hulk ares' and found nothing. Of course you didn't, that doesn't even read like a proper sentence coming from a human.

If you search simply for the word 'Ares' on the source page you will find the reference. If I could link you to that specific quote I would.

It is for these two reasons I am making the adjustments. I am not vandalizing anything and I see you are fighting a lot of wars here. I just wanted to be clear that I have valid reasons for undoing your edit.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.159.231 (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hulk vs The Red Hulk/Superman

I would like to hear your opinions on these two fantasy fights, if you don't mind. (1. Who do you think would win in a fight between The Green Hulk and The Red Hulk and why? (2. Who do you think would win in a fight bewteen Superman and The Hulk (Green) and why? Please leave a message on my talk page. The K.O. King (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)