User talk:ThuranX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

THIS IS MY USER TALK. IF YOU VANDALIZE IT, I WILL REVERT THE VANDALISM. AS MANY TIMES AS IT TAKES. HITTING MY TALK WITH 'CEASE AND DESIST' VANDALISM WARNINGS FOR UNDOING YOUR BAD INFO, OR YOUR OWN VANDALISM, WILL ALSO BE REVERTED.

NEW COMMENTS GO AT THE BOTTOM.

Hello, ThuranX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 23:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Punisher 2

I've revamped the article with all the background information I could find using the Internet. The background information could be compressed, but I wanted to share all the relevant information available. Let me know what you think, and make the article more cohesive if you want. --Erik 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, dude, I really appreciate you contacting me. Thanks. I'll see what I can do about finding some sources. I would like to say that you have nothing to fear in the way of other expected comic movie articles being deleted. Even Transformers—yes, I know it's not strictly a comic book film.—is in good shape. The majority of delete voters are doing so with some reservation. That's a good sign. This isn't about deleting an article because it's future comic book movie. It was brought up for deletion simply because it was citeless. Rest easy. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates?

Thought we discussed that it was acceptable to be looser with dates if something only happens once in a while. It's not accurate to post the date of the article posting as the time that the event took place. So why the revert? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism on palestine page might interest you

Ian_Pitchford and Zero0000 are on with their vandalisying sourced material again, this time on Palestine. Amoruso 14:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

These two users have repeatedly abused wikipedia and blanked out whatever they don't like, this time blanking out a primary source and verified sources - no less than 5 differnet ones... I don't know how I can proceed with dealing them or banning this kind of behavior. Amoruso 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good news, everyone!

Hey, X. I almost forget to tell you. It looks like "cite your edits" is seeing use after all. Methylenedioxymethamphetamine—insane title length, right?—and Miguel Pro—not a great artickem though, I'll admit—are the first two of hopefully many more. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 21:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I contacted the editor who applied it to Methylblahblah a few days back, and he wasn't sure where he'd found it, but I'm glad it's getting out there. ThuranX 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for Who is a Jew?

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by deliberate admitted continuation of uncivil behaviour having been clearly warned. You are blocked for 24 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead. The specific incident is here. Tyrenius 23:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batman Triumphant

I've nominated for deletion the article about the film that never entered production. Since you've edited Batman-related articles, I thought I'd give you a heads up about that particular article. You can express your opinion either way; I don't care. --Erik 03:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning for your decision. I just don't think that this project qualifies for its own article. I asked the first person who said "Keep" for a link to the category of cancelled/unfinished films to compare this article to the others under that category (no response yet). With all the rumors tossed aside, the article would pretty much be a paragraph just like the one at Batman & Robin. --Erik 03:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, should I withdraw the nomination for AfD and instead request a merge? --Erik 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about merging now. Since the paragraph already exists on the B&R page, the information in that paragraph seems substantial enough (though the rumors could be cut out, and citation provided). I'm not looking at Batman Triumphant like I did with The Punisher 2 (for which I may have supported deletion if there were no rumblings in 2006). While I am fairly liberal with upcoming film articles, having worked to improve a number of them, I don't see Batman Triumphant as falling in that category. I don't see future policy being dictated here for nominating this article for deletion. If something like Wolverine never panned out, then I would nominate it for AfD/merging, depending on the movie information available on Wolverine's character page. I suppose it's a judgment call. If the article I created, The Speed of Thought (probably my most liberal exercise), gets an AfD nomination, I wouldn't fight to keep it. I just cite as best as possible, and I haven't been around long enough to witness the demise of upcoming film articles due to not panning out. Before this gets too long, I'm thinking basically, just keep the nomination and improve the section at B&R (and still keep it to a paragraph). A rough merge, I suppose. Thoughts? --Erik 10:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Full of Weasel Words

Is this a colloquialism I'm not aware of, or is it an insult? ThuranX, I don't know who you are, but since I've come here, you've treated me with nothing but contempt. I don't know if I've done something to offend you or if you just view me as a straight out nuisance. If any of the above, I apologize. Earlier today you edited out the paragraph based around some speculation on Ivy's sexuality. I tried to change it, but it still wasn't acceptable as it was still speculation. I respected your decision and left it they way you had it. But then later you edited my section on the Sexuality of Poison Ivy again without identifying the issue that you had with it. Then when I placed the article back to the way it was, you changed it again, this time your excuse being "entire statement of weasel words". Why the hostility?

And said statement of weasel words which you terminated did have a source to back it up. Have you ever read Harley & Ivy, ThuranX? Anyway, I won't try to change the article back to how I put it, because I don't want to have conflict with you. But could you stand to be a little more respectful in the future?

--Carnyfoke 05:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)carnyfoke

Thanks for the reply. And you'd assume wrong. I registered because I saw some inaccuracies in the Poison Ivy entry. And registering is also the only way to upload files. I just wanted to know the reason behind the hostility I thought you showed towards me. But it seems that you do have a low tolerance for anyone that doesn't do something exactly as you see fit. I'm a relatively new editor, and I didn't know that you wanted all of your new comments at the bottom of your user page, yet you put at the top in all capital letters a paragraph about vandalism. I get the point that you want it reiterated, but, still, a little harsh?

Anyway, thank you for your response and I will be more careful on my input for this site in the future.

--Carnyfoke 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Carnyfoke

[edit] Penguin

Template:Infobox DCAU character

What was wrong with the infobox. Tell me and I'll fix it.--The Judge 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I copypaste one here so that you can help me modify it. I speack English as second langiuaje. So spelling mistakes are my speciality haha.--The Judge 06:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In case you want to fix spelling yourself, the page is this: Template:Infobox DCAU character--The Judge 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't get what you meant by "some of the categories automatically put up their tag text, including the 'appearEnces' tags, and so on"... since there can't be an infobox if the character have no appearances.--The Judge 06:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've never been sure about the header that now says "differences". Maybe it should be "differences from the Comics version" or "Significant differences" or something like that.--The Judge 06:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units of measurement

Thank you for your comment regarding the addition of stones in the gorilla article. In response to your assertion that the English language version is teh American version and that stones are obsolete, may I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement. In particular; Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world. Try to make articles simple to read and translate. Conversions should generally be included and not be removed. (This unsigned comment was aadded by Yaf201 at 11:01, 11 September 2006)

Nothing in that policy says we ned to use thoroughly pointless obsolete systems of measurement, like stones. The EU doesn't recognize them as the standard unit, and England's in the EU. The US never used them at all. There's absolutely NO easy conversion, since you all ROUND in stones, and since a stone is 22 pounds, it's imprecise. A housecat and the mouse it eats? Both one stone. A malnourished 4 year old and an obese 4 year old? Same weight in stones. Not precise, not useful, not appropriate. ThuranX 11:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

1 stone is 14 lb - exactly. Which you would have realised had you looked up its wikipdedia entry. It's precise enough for measuring human beings and gorillas and if extra precision is needed it can be broken down into pounds - it is normal for a brit to state their weight as 12 st 4 lb for example. It's no more a pointless and obsolete than the pound. In fact it's more precise - a stone is 14lb avoirdupois, by definition. A pound is not precise until stated whether it's avoirdupois or Troy.

For your information, what the EU recognises as "standard" is not relevant. What is relevant is what makes things easy to understand for the reader. Also, Englans is not in the UK. Since 1707, England has not been able to sign treaties. The UK is a signature to the Treaty of Rome and its successors. It is the UK that is an EU member.

I apologise for not signing my previous post - it was an oversight.

--Yaf201 13:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that may be, and I admit being wrong about the particulars of the 'Stone'. However, that doesn't negate the ultimate fact that unless you intent to add the stone to each and every weight measure on Wikipedia, it's pointless to add it to a select few, as it's not uniform. If there was a standard unit of measure for the geographic regions various species have come from, that might be of some relevant information as well, but again, it's got to be uniform. I don't think you're goin to win enough people, eiki-wide, over to this idea, sorry. ThuranX 20:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lehi Article

Lehi (group) your opinion needed. Note that the page is infringing on many wikipedia policies, and the recent one is extreme WP:POV of opinions stated as facts and in the intro page ! many other issues were addresed by me but are being reverted by a few members. Please take note of this ! very annoying no doubt. Amoruso 16:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Which Lehi are you referring to? ThuranX 20:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Lehi (group), jewish national liberation army in 1930's-1940's in Israel. Ian Pitchford has written lies and made it seem like a nazi organization. he has written things that are not opted in an introduction. It's totally unbelievable, I'll revert to my version of 16:28, but I can't now because of 3RR. Amoruso 20:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your past nominations to rename (Wikipedia:Undeletion policy)

Hi ThuranX: I would like to bring the following to your attention and to request WP:UNDEL. During the summer (here in the northern hemisphere) many people were away, and I have only now noticed that you nominated two important categories for renaming:

and

While I respect your rights and reasons, you did however skip a number of steps that relate to Jewish topics, which I want to outline for you below:

  1. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion: "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the article that you are nominating the article. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users)." And see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Special notes: "When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{cfd-article}} for this."
  2. The categories you nominated do have a connection with Judaism and therefore please note that if you think of doing any changes to articles or categories relating to Jews and Judaism that are obviously very important you should try to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism which has close to one hundred members and always has some editors that can give their views and also post such nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism a helpful forum that notifies other users interested in Jews and Judaism that articles are about to be deleted or renamed.
  3. Since I was the initial creator and developed the two categories you nominated for deletion (and you did not contact me at any time) I was unable to share with you my reasoning for the names. The categories are essentially repositories for articles that fit neither into Judaism and Christianity on the one hand, nor into Judaism and Islam on the other.
  4. They were also meant to hold articles that do not deal only with Judaism as a religion, but also with Jewish subjects meaning about the Jews as a people but not dealing with the Jewish religion as such. Thus "Jewish Christian topics" is more of a catch-all broader name whereas your choice of Category:Judeo-Christian topics links the religions more closely which is what the term Judeo-Christian means - it's about the religions exclusively and not the people. Likewise with Category:Judeo-Islamic topics.
  5. A major problem that you have now created is that because the term Judeo-Christian has a definite well-know academic definition it can now serve to turn the original Category:Jewish Christian topics category on its head because instead of it being a category for all topics that do not fit into either Judaism or Christianity, it can now become the master category for both Category:Judaism and Category:Christianity which would be perfectly logical and academically acceptable, which is not what I had ever intended and I sincerely hope that it is not what you intended.

Therefore I kindly ask of you that you request that this vote be re-opened and that in order to have Wikipedia:Consensus a broader spectrum of editors who are familiar with this susbject are able to give it the focus and analysis that such a momentous move deserved first time around. Please see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy in this regard. I thank you for your attention and I hope to hear from you soon. IZAK 14:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

IZAK asked me to comment here. I don't really have an opinion yet on what these categories should be named, but, yes, a heads-up to the original creator of the topic and to the relevant WikiProjects would have been a good idea. (One could perhaps reasonably expect the creator of the category to be watching it, but the WikiProject is another matter.) - Jmabel | Talk 16:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with IZAK's comments as well. Not only should he have been notified, but the names themselves cover different topic areas. Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm, no. I did what was required under CfR (Category for renaming). That you wanted additional steps beyond taken is your prerogative, but there was no statement of intent for the categories, and the names 'jewish christian topics' and 'jewish islam topics' were nonsensical, contradictory, and non-encyclopedic. thre was good conversation at the first renaming, and complete agreement at the second. I'm sorry you didn't get to comment on them during the nomination period, but I complied with the rules. If you feel the topics would be better the other way, you can nominate them back, but I'll be an 'oppose' vote. Jewish Christian topics sounds at best like a blatant advertisement for the Jews 4 Jesus and the Marrano, and Jewish Islam topics MIGHT, at best, cover Dhimmis. There are no Jewish Muslims, and despite the rhetoric of the J4J's, there are no Jewish Christians. I suggest, instead that you consider finding a new category for those things you think are about jewish christians, and jewish muslims. Good luck with that. ThuranX 20:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, some notes. I see that you've informed half a dozen people to come yell at me. Highly uncivil. I stand by the consensus developed on the nomination page. If you don't like it, go argue at CfD as to why the deceptive names are needed. I suspect, instead, that you can recategorize many of the articles in the renamed categories to far more accurate things, such as 'mulsim converts' and 'jewish apostates' for Sabbatai Zevi, for example. Also, why not just add a valid and clear category description, such as 'Judeo-Islamic Topics covers those articles which span the breach between the two religions.' This would eliminate your fears of confusion. Finally, if the articles you've chosen are so hard to pin down in other ways, then they probably shouldn't be categorized in those regards at all. ThuranX 20:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX: Thanks for a good response. Just a few points. The editors I contacted are probabaly the most active in a lot of Jewish topics. Anyone is free to contact other editors to call their attention to issues that concern them. Anyone who looks at your nominations and the votes can see that there were almost no discussions and no input from editors familiar with these subjects. Why you keep harping about the original names being "advertisements" for J4J I cannot fathom and seems way off the mark. I have more to say, and I hope to see if we can up with a clear non-conflictual name for these categories. Thanks. IZAK 14:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments to Markovic

Please remain civil with the user. If the user is editing tendentiously or otherwise in a problematic fashion file an RfC (if the user is being sufficiently disruptive let an admin know and we will consider blocking him). JoshuaZ 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume this editor is referring to Markovich92, and the problems with obstructionist behaviors on the page Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. I left that page a few days ago, due to markovich's on-going bad faith and fight-baiting. He regularly suggests that othe editors aren't reading, aren't listening, and forces full repeats of entire sections of debate. If he asks for sources, he gets sources, and then dismisses them all. Then he says no one has sources, we provide more sources, he dismisses them. Then he asks for sources, gets sources, and says that all the other editors aren't listening to him. He acts in bad faith, and has now started an incident report regarding anyone who opposes his POV views about the page. I have to say further that I find that people are coming here to chastize me for my supposed incivility, while yet again, markovich plays the victim and gets away with it. My faith in the skill of administrators is falling here on wikipedia. ThuranX 11:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This is currently in mediation at Mediation Cabal. Just letting you know.

Hemhem20X6 00:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RR2

Bignole covered that part while I was reporting him. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two-Face

To be honest, I don't like either image. I agree with you about why the half-face shouldn't be used; it's not representative of the two sides of the man. However, I also agree with CS's concerns about the two halves not comin together well, and too much black being above the image. Any way that another Two-Face image could be found, if an image even needs to be used at all? --Erik 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alfons Mucha

Please read Displayed image size on Image use policy. Tyrenius 02:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

They will be more likely to click if they can't see the details, as they will then need the bigger image to see them. Those users whose preference is set at the biggest size will then find you've forced them to see a smaller size than they want, while those who have minimised the size in preferences (perhaps to economise on downloads) will find they are forced to see a bigger one. Default is 180px and you set at 200px, so for the sake of 20px you are over-riding users' own wishes, and that's no point. Tyrenius 03:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End

I've been working on revising this particular film... any chance you can see what you can contribute to it? I know I asked you about Transformers a while ago, but I still can't find the urge to get my hands dirty in that particular fan-rampant article. At Worlds End doesn't seem too bustling, and I want to whip it into shape for when the summer comes. --Erik 21:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See development on MA issue

[1] Amoruso 01:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: vandalism warning you made.

Thanks for letting me know. Ironically, there is a warning for the removal of warnings—{{wrx}}, where x is a number from 1 to 4, like in the other vandalism warnings.--digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 22:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads-up on my user page

I fleshed out my user page and basically wrote about how I go about editing these articles about upcoming films. Maybe you can find a few pointers there. :) --Erik 18:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gotham City

I think that you might have misunderstood my comments. Present tense is correct, but that section needs also to be rewritten with respect to publication history; as it currently stands, it doesn't let the reader know which issues make reference to which characters. But that's not a reason to keep it in past tense. If you add in the issue numbers and relevant publication history, then I think the section would be clearer. I've given an example of what I mean on Talk:Gotham City. — TKD::Talk 18:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the publication history needs to be emphasized a bit more. What issues focused on what, and when were they published? — TKD::Talk
That section looks good now. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future comic book films

Obviously, I'm pleased with how comic book film articles like The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 3 have come along. I hope that these articles will eventually reach featured article status, and I don't doubt that they could qualify based on the persistent guardianship and contributions of editors that watch them closely. These films' preceding articles, Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2, are disappointing in comparison to what you, the others, and I have I done so far with the successive films' articles. I'm not sure if I could go back and clean these up... there's obviously a need to have a checklist for what would be relevant in a comic book film's article. Thus, the standard formats that you mentioned on The Dark Knight talk page. I'm all for something like that; there's probably going to be an explosion of comic book films, especially on Marvel Studios' end, in the next few years.

I don't know much about policy implementation, but if it's possible, we could build a guideline that could both encompass previous comic book films (like those I've mentioned) and future films (Ghost Rider, Wonder Woman). Since these films are largely fan-based, we can educate editors about what's relevant to include in these articles based on Wikipedia's existing policies. Basically, create a "new breed" of folks like you and me, since life's circumstances won't always keep us close to Wikipedia's watchlist. Let me know what ideas you have. I think you have a potentially good project in mind. --Erik 20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems to cover everything. A few suggestions to make. Let's not have an "Unconfirmed" section under the "Cast" section, since that would be rumor mill-ish if the film wasn't a sequel with a returning cast. I'm fine with the Production subsections as well, though, I feel that some subsections could break out into their own sections given enough information, such as History (such as Watchmen), Score, and Effects. Of course, that depends on the film, but this template should suit most production information.
How do you suggest implementing this? It's not a template like Infobox Film, obviously. Also, I recommend writing out a guideline that would address certain aspects of writing a future comic book film article. Some ideas that come to mind:
  • How to write the opening paragraph
    • Perceive yourself as someone with no familiarity with the film's superhero(es) to explain accordingly
    • Limit to director, key players, preceding/succeeding films, general release date
    • Define "accomplishments" of so-called film: How would one determine if the film was a box office success or critically acclaimed?
  • Citing sources
    • Differentiate official sources and rumor mills, especially when it comes to fan blogs
    • Define weasel words that are so commonplace in these articles
    • Explain when to use "citation needed" tags or just revert (I could use an explanation for this myself)
    • Appropriateness of mentioning citation in sentence (e.g., "Ain't It Cool News said that this actor was reportedly...")
    • Write in a timely matter when possible to limit "updating", such as "Filming was recently completed on October 3, 2006"
Got any ideas of your own? --Erik 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Link looks good! I look forward to expanding it. I put in the Ghost Rider goal on my user page as well as the link to the template. Is it OK if I contribute to that template with any ideas that may come up in the future? Just askin' permission to edit. Also, to let you know, I'll be busy in the coming week and half (midterms, bleh), so I may not get around to the Ghost Rider deal immediately. --Erik 03:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Rider and Wonder Woman look good. I know Wonder Woman should be up to date (having worked on the project history and trying to be on top of it since), but I know there can be more substance for Ghost Rider -- there's a production diary in video format, so I can't get any information out of these in particular, being deaf. Like I said about Ghost Rider, I'll try to go a-link-hunting and see how much more the article can be expanded. You can see the new trailer for that film at this link. --Erik 04:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link repository

Not a big deal, but I created a stand-alone link repository of mostly upcoming films (comic book films, video game adaptations, etc). Thought you'd be interested. If there's any other upcoming films that you think I could watch, send/edit them my way. --Erik 18:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes

There seems to be some misunderstanding, and I'd like to clear it up here because you only have one change left before 3RR. The press release quote from ACS on the talk page is not a citation. It's a quote from an unnamed source; basically, the opposite of a citation. I already pointed out the only place on the Internet where that phrase appears, and it's just a blog. The entire first paragraph at Wikipedia:Verifiability deals with exactly this situation. Every statement needs to be verifiable, and anything that isn't can be removed. I think I was pretty clear on the article's talk page; my point seemed to make sense to ACS, as he removed the "drug-induced" part himself. I don't have a problem with the content, as long as we have a reliable source. Until then, the claim should not be replaced. I can see you've been editing here for a while, so I'm sure you understand. Thanks. Kafziel Talk 02:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two-Face Comments

Hi -- I'm sorry that I didn't notice your comments to me regarding the image on the Two-Face article until just now. Thank you for the kind words. I'm sure that you've noticed that a lot of editors on comic-related articles can get hot-headed due to their passion regarding these publications -- It's always nice to see someone with kind remarks on the talk pages! ~CS 01:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider man 3

I'll be more than happy to remove my last post, voluntarily, if you give Ace the same advice you gave me. Let him know sarcasm isn't appreciated. Let him know I would rather be hit head on with insult, not subversively. You do that, and I'll delete my last post. And if I had a martini right now, I'd drink it :) Reynoldsrapture 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I would just prefer to remove the entire section under "Death of Venom". As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and delete it... but again, only if Ace understands his conduct is less than appreciated just as mine obviously was. Thanks. Reynoldsrapture 03:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect your decision, so respect mine: I'll leave the post as it is, and agree not to stir the pot any further. If I have any questions about the movie, I'll avoid Wikipedia altogether. Reynoldsrapture 03:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I read your post for Ace. Don't know whether to say thanks or not after the "sloppily" remark about me. But I'm willing to forgive and forget. Reynoldsrapture 03:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TMNT (2007 film)

My asking of the cast list was simply so it could be populated into the article, NOT for discussion purposes as you claim. Next time assume good faith. The S 02:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gotham in other media...

Two things I've noticed that you're putting into place that I have to question.

One is the parenthetical dates in the mayoral section. While I agree with the reasoning to differentiate the television show and the first of the moder movies (and kicking myself for not doing that in the first place), I don't believe it's proper to include it in the italicization. The title is italicized, and the date reference isn't part of the title. Have I got this wrong?

The other... is a little awkward. It's the reference and link to the same show in the geography section. In working through that section, I had moved the information into the parenthetical because it was less awkward. Same information though. And... I've also been trying to remove redundant links. Since there was already a link to the article for the show, I reduced it to just being italicized. The sentence structure I think I can deal with, but is the duplicated link warranted?

Thanks — J Greb 03:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gotham and her lists

Hello,

I agree that if the intent is to keep the article as list free as possible, it should have 2 list pages devolved from it: the landmarks/areas and the residents.

However, that would need the mayoral section being compressed in to a prose format. At the moment the article has two closely related sections (Mayors and Residents) that should be treated in the same manner, if not, in all likelihood, consolidated into one subsection. This was the intent of what I was doing with the list format, the Mayors were in that format, so I brought the rest in line with that. Personal opinion here, but it would have been best not to just do a blanket revert, but to have addressed the inconsistency of the sections and the desire to de-listify by converting the Mayors section into prose.

In addition to that, the blanket revert cut information that had been added. The major portion being the characters related to the police force. Looking at that I have to ask two questions: First "Had the change been read through as opposed to just looked at?" In terms of good faith editing, I have to assume that the material was read and the edit was not spurred on by purely aesthetic reasons. Second "Was the additional information found irrelevant for some reason? If so, why?" The characters that were added were and are as important as, if not more so in some cases, the characters that have already been listed in the article.

Thanks for listening — J Greb 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First off, I'm sorry is the above came off as a complaint about the edit being undone. That wasn't my conscious intent.
Second, I want to make sure I understand how you are saying the edit should have progressed:
  1. Creation of the Police section in the manner of the Mayors section as a unique edit.
  2. Restructuring and renaming of the "spandex" section into a list as a unique edit.
  3. Creating an over all "Residents" section and changing the 3 sections into subsections.
This being done so that a subsequent editor, spotting an grievous error has an intermediate point that can be reverted to/ Have I got that correct?
Third, you're right, the "spandex" section does need a better heading. "Residents" tends to evoke the image of everyone associated with the city, not just one small subgroup.

Again, thanks for listening — J Greb 18:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Criticism section

There is someone (or someones) at the film article that is trying to edit in a Criticism section based on a couple of message board threads. I've reverted out the section three times now and will not be able to do so any further without violating the WP:3RR. I've tried to open dialogue on the talk page, so hopefully this issue will be addressed. I'm extremely confident that this information does not belong and tried to explain my reasoning as such. --Erik 22:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It doesn't make sense

I'm on the west coast. It's near 7:00 as I'm typing/posting. I only reverted the data because of the way it was written up. It's not so much a question of you as it is a question of readability. It needs to be clear...make sense. One guy's talking bullets flying and you're throwing out psycho powers. It's crazy, man. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Starman

Oh. Sorry. I wasn't watching the page. I trust your judgement, and you certainly know more about the subject matter. I've removed the tag. Good work. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 01:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30 Days of Night

Just letting you know that I'm working on a timeline thingie for this film article like I did for Watchmen (though this film only goes back to 2002, thank God). Don't know if I'll have anything up by tonight, but I'm pulling together sources and such for it. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 03:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Guess I finished it tonight. Just added a lot of production information, so this sucker shouldn't come as close to the edge as The Punisher 2 did. There could be further information added from these videos at Ghost House Pictures, the film's production company. I'm deaf, so I'm not able to get any information from these videos. Maybe you can find something that can be added further. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 07:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your inquiry about posting personal info

I double checked on this with senior admin. It is as I recalled — there is not a policy at this point; it is in the proposal stage: Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. In particular, the current proposal is specific to those under the age of 13. — ERcheck (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In the Blood

New comic book film article showed up -- In the Blood, same writer that did 30 Days of Night. To be honest, I think the article creator jumped the gun on this one... it's way too early and might be crystal balling if there's not any info beyond what's already on the article. That's why I have some red links in my link repository -- so I can create articles when there seems to be enough production information regarding the films. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 20:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit counts?

I was wondering, how do people know how many edits another person has had? I guess I'm curious as to what mine is. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 02:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for telling me how. I guess I was hoping there was an edit counter I wasn't able to find in the help pages. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 02:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Bureaucrats"

Hi. I noticed that in a pending RfA discussion, you were concerned that someone was being insulting by referring to readers of the page as "the bureaucrats." Just in case you didn't realize, the group of high-level Wiki administrators who close RfAs and decide on consensus or not have the actual title "bureaucrats." (I assume it was picked ironically.) I mention this just in case you hadn't picked up the context for the comment - I'm not commenting on the issues in the RfA itself (whose outcome seems pretty clear). Regards, Newyorkbrad 10:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batman/Superman template widths

Because you are of the people who have edited these templates (specifically the Batman fan films template), I'd like to request your input at Template_talk:Batman#Template_width so those of us who have been working on these templates can agree on how to standardize them. Doczilla 22:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Cage

Heads up on another comic book adaptation. I've already thrown in a project history section. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Shannernanner 13:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for having my back on this one, X. I've made a 3RR report and now I'm gonna to chill for a bit. That was...hectic. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes discussions

X, Argash is preparing the move the existing discussion. It's easier to discuss character specific stuff on their talk page. Plus, the issue is more about Isaac, with the ultimate result applying to both pages. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

whatever.

[edit] Checkup - Right back at ya

Hey. I remember when you'd do those routine checkups on me whenever I seemed to be really losing it. Time I returned the favor. You okay, man? That outbust on Talk:Isaac Mendez was just the topper. Argash is a good guy. I talked to him on AIM. And you're lucky he is. Some one like Elliskev or Maddy might have either of our asses if we snapped at someone for no good reason like that. A little tough love and harshities are defendable from time to time, but Argash just made a spelling mistake. He's not the bad guy in this, believe me.

I know it looks hypocritical...me coming to to you like this, but I am trying. I'm trying not to make offensive editting summaries. I'm trying to address content and not users. I'm even trying to be a bit more patient. I hope you are, too. Neither one of us can afford another block. Whether they like it or not, Wikipedia needs us. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Recent vandalisms

Not sure. He/she uses a wide enough range of IP addresses that rangeblocking is somewhat prohibitive. Their pace isn't so quick, and in the end perhaps just reverting them a few times and following up with short-term sprotection is the way to go. I haven't quite gotten the formula for this sort of troll down, yet -- usually I just go for that pattern until they get bored. Luna Santin 00:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Batman Begins

I started revising Batman Begins about a couple of weeks ago, and the article's coming along. I'm still hoping to expand the Production section and clean up some other sections as well. Just thought I'd give you a heads-up on that. Any advice on improvement would be appreciated; it's trickier to deal with an article of an already-released film, as I've found out. Plus, I think Bignole will try to be tackling Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 in his spare time. Hope all is well. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 19:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US state Governors

Hello, ThuranX. As you may have noticed, I removed Governor-elects from the Infoboxes (and succession boxes), of varies lame-duck Governors articles. Just wundering, as I'll be signing off soon, could you edit them (the way you edited the Mike Huckabee page)? Your idea seems better. This method, may discourage anon-users from erroneously adding the Governors-elect as New Governors. GoodDay 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks GoodDay 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedster (comics)

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but it looks we might have an edit war at speedster (comics) between myself and Ace Class Shadow. At issue is not only his position on the definition of the term, but his behavior as well. If you could chime in with your opinion on that article’s talk page, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream 10:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree with you on Who is a Jew (for WP purposes)

I know I'm about two months late to the whole issue, but I just wanted to let you know I agreed quite completely with the position you took, and was amazed that anyone was disputing it at all, let alone vigorously! Still, you gave it a good go, and even tho I'm not clear on if, in the end, it was quite enough for whatever the purpose of the whole discussion was in the first place, it was still something, so thanks for that. --Arvedui 01:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fountain

I just gave this upcoming film article an overhaul since it's coming out on the 22nd. (It was the film article that got me editing on Wikipedia in the first place, so I felt an obligation to finish the job.) I noticed that you reverted what I assume was the official plot description on Ghost Rider, and I have the official plot for The Fountain in quotation marks, identifying it as such. Is this acceptable or still a copyright violation? If it's a copyright violation, should I just rewrite in my own words? 'Cause it just seems too short currently to change the wording very much. Let me know so I can edit accordingly, and any other suggestions about improving the article would be great as well. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 21:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aid vs induce

This concerns the Heroes page and the "aid vs induce" word choice. Just wanted to point out that 'aided' is a less strict w.c. than 'induced' and if the question is up in the air it would seem that choosing the word which requires a less strenuous proof is a better choice. However, as you are a more experienced editor I will bow to your view in this matter. That's why I'm just bringing it up here. laonoodlekeemow 03:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with how you define 'induce,' somewhat, but feel like you are off base with you definition of 'aid.' If I said that my roommate aided my in cleaning my room, would you really think that I couldn't have cleaned my room by myself? But, to be clear... I don't want to fight about this... however, I am a philosophy major so excuse me if I'm being too nitpicky.
Also, I only introduced a space between words on your user page. I would never presume to do more and never thought this would offend you. I would change the edit, but that would seem to compound bad with worse. laonoodlekeemow 03:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess I will give up having any sort of discussion as to why i am making the changes that I am making to the "Heroes" page. You don't seem interested in actually exploring what terms are most appropriate. I am not however trying to pick a fight with you... although I am often short with my words. laonoodlekeemow 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't be so small minded as to presume to know my gender! Try being gender neutral for a change. laonoodlekeemow 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carnage

Why did you revert my edit. You have no right to do that. 205.132.83.29 05:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Quit reverting my edits! Until you show me proof you are entitled to do so, lay off. You obviously don't believe me that I talked to Sam Raimi. But show me proof I didn't! I've known him for years. 205.132.83.29 06:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Just 2¢ here but... an unsourced statement by an anonymous editor isn't worth a whole heck of lot. It's the whole "able to be verified" thing. — J Greb 06:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dent

I know. When the edit first appeared I quickly put in "Harvey Dent" to make sure that he didn't have his own personal page or something, or that Two-Face didn't redirect to Harvey Dent. I guess they moved the page to a title that is more familiar to the public. Bignole 05:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buddha image

Thanks; I'm not sure how to do that other than this way [2]. It now looks like if a commons image is deleted, it leaves no trace on the projects on which it is used. Antandrus (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for citations

Does not equal a wikitantrum - review wikipedia policies please, in particular WP:RS - Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time.--Golden Wattle talk 08:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Oh by the way - "go check the movie" does not match wp:rs Your problem - find a citation.--Golden Wattle talk 08:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] information

Thanks for the heads-up with all that, I didn't realize it was showing. Did you just get it from the screenshot, or did you see it somewhere else as well? I've recropped the images to just be the YouTube stuff. Bignole 15:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It was in your taskbar along the bottom. From there, I used trillian to pull a 'View Contact Information', under the AOL IM options list. (yellow dot). From there, I had your real name, phone number, etc. Having gone through the problems of a Wikieditor finding my identity and threatening a lawsuit for repeatedly removing his commercial link to his own site, I'm particularly sensitive to the dangers. I missed that you'd posted this as a result of Chris Griswold's ever so charming posts about how i'm a vandal for reverting vandals. ThuranX 14:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Periods in captions

Per WP:CMC/EG, periods are acceptable in art credits. Please stop removing these. Also, please do not link to Lex Luthor in the Lex Luthor article. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. There was as huge push to remove them all a couple months ago. You want to defend vandals, you go right ahead. You already know what I think of you. ThuranX 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Dude: What the F-star-star-star times ten? You removed fields from infoboxes and randomly bolded words and titles. If I didn't know that you often have good intentions, I might have had a harder time assuming good faith with some of these edits. By the way: Who are you actually claiming is a vandal? You might have left them a warning on their talk pages if you believed them to be so, but I can't tell whom you're accusing because I don't see any warning tags. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Chris, in most cases he was just reverting an editor who had been engaged in a long series of edits that compromised the integrity of many articles, even after many warnings and requests to stop from various people. Check out User_talk:Osaboramirez and you'll see a string of warnings from ThuranX, and then look through the history for all the ones from other people that were erased. When you're trying to keep up with somebody tearing up dozens of articles and refusing to stop, sometimes the good edits get reverted with the bad. CovenantD 06:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed that somehow. Thank you for actually providing me with some information about this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I left a giant list of warnings, which that user reverted. His unboldings and punctuations were often part of a larger set of vandalisms designed to remove entire pages from accessibility, including Max Shreck, from Batman Returns. The supposed unboldings and 'help' were cover for his agenda. I reverted ALL of his actions, as it ALL represents his behavior. But nevermind, you've got your agenda. ThuranX 06:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That's right: I'm lobbying for the SuperAwesome CoolKids Club™!!! I'M THE BEST! HURRAY! --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Note the lack of anything resembling an apology of any sort. Typical. What a great admin he makes. ThuranX 14:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
What is there to apologize for? I asked you not to do something, and you responded rudely. I am not going to apologize for asking you not to make sloppy reverts. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
and we're back to the beginning, as I again say "WHATEVER". I'm not going to spend an hour a page pickign apart each grammatical vandalism the guy does to figure out if one of his 9 edits is legit. I'm going to revert it all and let a genuine Good Faith editor fix what needs fixing. I know you'd rather I leave Wikipedia and let the vandals you champion run the place, because I know your little vendetta against me. But like I keep saying, no patience for a bully. get off my talk page.ThuranX 15:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, dude. Wow. Have a nice day. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very nice!

Have smitten with my incredible voting skills per your request. Man, I don't even like categories, much less redundant ones. Hope you had a super Thanksgiving! --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 21:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, even 007 got the category treatment. Well, I guess SuperHeroHype.com DOES report on James Bond news. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 21:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bludhaven

Since the both links existed in the pre-ToC paragraph and the fictional geography section, it seemed a case of redundancy.

Looking at it a second time, I still think the 2nd occurrence of "DC Universe" need not carry the link. Atlantic City though... since the sentence containing the link also has a "citation needed" notation, I can see how an argument can be made to remove that occurrence of the link and leave the one in the Fictional geography. — J Greb 20:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hamilton Township

The names come from the History of Hamilton Township, published by the Hamilton Township Hisotrical Society a few years ago. Also, Hamilton is is the 8th safeest town in AMerics; if that isn't tranquil, I don't know what is. GCW50 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] leave wikipedia

Based on the history in this discussion your nothing but a problem to other users, I'm suprised you haven't been banned. If you've never been called a Facist, look it up, it applies directly to your behavior on Wikipedia. Militant Facism would actually be more accurate. I will be pursuing your removal with whomever administrates Wiki, using the history of your own user talk against you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.222.58.15 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi. You're incredibly hostile, but I have no clue what you're talking about. You didn't make it clear WHICH discussion makes you think I'm a problem to others. As for being called a Facist, I'm offended. I try not to discriminate based of facial bone structure. If you meant I'm a faScist, well, I'm terribly sorry to disagree again. I may stand up for rigourous standards on here, but I've also got a long history of negotiating good compromises. Finally, I checked your usertalk, and all you've got are various vandalism and spam templates against you. You'll notice my talk has numerous discussions that work out article problems. Please clarify the relevant problem, or else, I'd certainly appreciate an apology.ThuranX 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: linkless

Well there are no incoming links from articles... meaning very few readers will see the article, so the problem of being linkless still exists. Create some links or leave the template up. See User:MarshBot's page for more information on this... incoming links are an important part of making sure an article grows over time. --W.marsh 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dude.

You're a badass. I, after absorbing the 11 available episodes of Heroes of the course of a few days allowed myself to have a look at the articles available on the show and came across you in the history. That led me here. And while I've basically only seen one side of the conversation, I reiterate: badass. Keep up the good work and should I ever delve into the world of contributing to Wikipedia, I know whom to use as a prime example. -- Knuckles Dawson 07:27, 7 December 2006 (PST)

[edit] In brightest day, in blackest night

Green Lantern Movie: 2008 has been nominated as an article for deletion. Please go to the AfD page to vote for deletion. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: FF2

I've responded accordingly. I hope he understands what I was trying to say. It'd be nice to have more consistent editors when it comes to these film articles. I'll also see if I can give FF2 a revamp — the information under Production could use re-sorting. How's Heroes, by the way? I've noticed you and Ace doing a lot of work on the show's articles, but I have yet to see the show. (I put it on queue on Netflix, so it may be a while yet till I get to check it out.) --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 17:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't know, I found this gallery of Storm and Richards getting married, which explains the attempt to change Sue's surname on the article a while ago. Now, how the heck do we address the name of someone who gets married in the course of the film? --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joker

(1) I overlooked the sadist category. Only saw that someone had switched from psychopath to sociopath. (2) Boy, is he so much more a psychopath than a sociopath. Unfortunately, the psychopath article is too skimpy for me to use it to back myself up on that right now, but he is FAR worse than a sociopath, whose defining characteristic is the lack of a conscience. Personally I'd prefer to see neither term allowed because neither is a modern DSM-IV term, but then again both terms have had their popularity during the Joker's publication history. Plus, there are plenty of professionals who still like the words. Anyway, he's a psychopath far more than he is a sociopath. I refuse to edit war over it. I guess I need to pull out my books and flesh out the psychopath article. Doczilla 06:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I replied at your page in depth, with a category to category point-by-point. anyways, it's just my thoughts, if you can support the other side, go for it. ThuranX 07:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deceptive edit summaries

You have been blocked for using deceptive edit summaries. Please review the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy and learn what vandalism is and isn't before you go about citing it as cause for reversion. Philwelch 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't talk on the talk pages, and revert to a version which removes all information without explanation beyond 'not an article'. if it's there, it's an article. Further, it's an article approved during FA review and which met a No consensus keep. You refused requests for reply, and instead redid the same edits which caused conflict before. That's vandalism. Removal without discussion even after asking. ThuranX 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Good-faith edits to improve the encyclopedia aren't vandalism. I encourage you to review policy and join the discussion underway on the talk page once your block expires. Philwelch 21:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that indefinite i'm showing will never expire. I'm gone from wikipedia, thanks. ThuranX 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I just saw this controversy and noted the edit summary for your blanking of your userpage. Note that you've been blocked for 24 hours, not indefinitely. If you believe the block is unfair you can appeal it by using the "unblock" template. I am going to post to the blocking administrator's page as well. Newyorkbrad 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He used his admin status to get his way. I'm not going to win an appeal, since that's run by other admins. Forget it. And as long as bullies continue to play this game, Wikipedia will suffer. What's the point in talk pages if Admins can ignore them, act like vandals, and hide their admin status to boot? If I'd known he was an admin, I've tried a second time to talk to him on the talk pages, but instead, he re-reverts, no explanations, in the face of TWO users citing both the failed AfD and the FA suggestions, and blocks me to avoid anythign more. forget it. He's not the first wiki-admin-bully I've had to deal with here. ThuranX 22:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's your call, and I haven't investigated the history here thoroughly, so I am not commenting on the merits of the block beyond saying that it ought to be looked at by someone else. However, I don't think it's fair to the corps of several hundred administrators to assume that you wouldn't receive a fair review if you requested an unblock. Newyorkbrad 22:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He told me "I don't have to explain myself. Rush is an encyclopedia—if a page is not an encyclopedia article, it doesn't belong here." That's exactly the sort of ridiculously imperious attitude Admins are NOT supposed to have, especially in the face of polite requests for discussion. that's the attitude I see in vandals. So I responded to the vandal. If he's that upset, he could've talked about it. Instead, he blocked me. ThuranX 23:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I did talk about it, and invited you to rejoin the discussion on the talk page once your block expired. You escalated the issue to accusations of vandalism and deceptive edit summaries. In any case, I'm not at all hurt about your decision to leave—you weren't much of a benefit to the project while you were here, from what I saw. If you intend to return, you need to stop the incivility and deceptive edit summaries or you won't last. Philwelch 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for unblock

While ThuranX did initiate a dispute with me by unfounded accusations of "vandalism", he was blocked for usage of deceptive edit summaries. After his block, he continued using deceptive edit summaries. This user is increasingly uncivil and dishonest—behavior he has a past history of being blocked for. Philwelch 00:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh good. the same Admin who blocked me responded to my unblock. Broken system. ThuranX 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to your request for unblock—I was simply clarifying the intentions behind the block for whatever admin does review the block. You might notice that I didn't remove the template, which I believe is the standard procedure. Philwelch 00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
He's not deciding on the unblock request, he's just commenting on it, which he's entitled to do. You can respond here to what he has said also, but it is in your best interests to do so civilly, no matter how annoyed you may be at the moment.
Having looked at this in more detail, while the blocked user definitely has some rough edges, this strikes me as a highly problematic block, based on borderline grounds involving a couple of words in an edit summary and given at a time when the blocking administrator and the blocked user were engaged in an active content dispute. Newyorkbrad 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm personally willing to lift the block myself if the user agrees to join the discussion underway on the talk page in a civil fashion, and to stop using deceptive edit summaries and personal attacks. Philwelch 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No. I'll let an uninvolved Admin see what's going on here. The involved admin has been misrepresenting my edits, my comments, and the very timeline by which they occurred. I said that what he was doing BORDERS ON VANDALISM, not that he was a vandal. He refused to meaningfully communicate, insted giving that 'I do what I want' reply. Then I re-reverted, used the vandalism tag ONCE out of four, trying yet agian to model AGF, and I got a block for it. Had The ADMIN modelled good Admin conduct, including stating his reasons when asked, or say, having a user page, instead of a user talk full of comments that disparage Wikipedia, including his slams at maintaining an archive and so on. I checked his (lack of a) user page, and his talk page, which seemed hostile at a glance, and I found nothing to indicate he was actively trying to improve the article. That, combined with his, at best 'taciturn' replies, led me to the idea he was a vandal. Even then, After one labelling, I caught myself, and stopped using that. He wanted to get his way, and blocked me. I'll wait for a new voice, but will note that here, another user notes his impatience [3], and here, two users counsel him about the block as being excessive [4]. I've made my case clear repeatedly, and all the admin in question can do is tell me it's all my fault, and I need to bow to him to get back onto wikipedia. ThuranX 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
So you're unwilling to join the discussion that's underway, unwilling to stop using deceptive edit summaries and unwilling to stop the personal attacks? Philwelch 01:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I was already DOING that. It was you who was dismissive of other editors, not just myself, and who then overreacted with a block. I will not be replying to you any more. It is clear to me that your only purposse in this any more is to incite me to say something genuinely uncivil which you can point to as 'proof' that your earlier actions were justified. Please wait for the unblock adjudicator to make a decision. ThuranX 01:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Be fair, I think it's more that the user is unwilling to acknowledge that he has previously used deceptive edit summaries and made personal attacks. Whether he has done those things and whether they deserve a block is for the reviewing admin to assess. Newyorkbrad 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm an uninvolved admin, and I've unblocked you in the hope that your first edit is to a talk page. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mac, can you please check your unblock? I still can't edit. Thank you. ThuranX 04:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully someone will fix the autoblock soon. In the meantime, you might be interested in the ANI threat on this block if you haven't seen it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite interesting. I'm not looking to pursue this further, but it's good that there's a history documenting this. Finally, is there any way you can call attention to this on one ofthe admin boards? perhaps as an epilogue there at AN/I? thanks Brad. ThuranX 04:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Chris, I know you're probably likely to pop in here, or see this. I keep getting the autoblock message that states
I've mentioned that you're having autoblock trouble on ANI. I'm not an admin, so that's all I can do. Hope it's fixed soon. G'night. Newyorkbrad 04:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the autoblock. Try now. Sarah Ewart 05:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 67.84.155.228 expired.

Request handled by:  Netsnipe  ►  05:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spidey

If you're going to be up for a while, good luck with him. Looks like Bignole's busy with his final, and as for me, being done with them, I'm going to bed to sleep a few weeks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking somthing along the same lines. For someone that claims to not know anything about editing, he knew how to sign his name to his first post (before I ever gave him the "Welcome" tag on his talk page). Signing you name is usually one of the simpliest things to forget or not know how to do without someone telling you. But that's minor compared to the fact that we've actually given him links to how Wiki works, and corrected his edits, and he still persists in acting the way he is acting (he even made that comment about reporting you for calling him a 'jerk' stating that he knew it was illegal on Wiki to do so). Well, I'm off to my final now, thanks for the "good luck" wish. I hope Boggy's asleep right now, I don't want to come back to 3 pages of Talk page where he's rambling about Wonder Woman appearing or something. Take care. Bignole 13:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Did you find anything out via WP:RCU? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Haven't gone there yet. I'll worry about it later, I had a REALLY bad day today. ThuranX 02:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why jerk?

I don't know why your so mad, but I'm not a jerk, and please don't call me that. I may not knwo all the rules, but I bet calling me names is illegal here on wikipedia. I'll report you. Boggydark 05:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

fine, give me something to edit and I'll show you I can work good. Boggydark 05:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed my last comment, wasnt very nice to say. But I still think you could be pleasanter with me. Boggydark 09:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willingboro Public Schools

I noticed that both willingboro and it's public schools article both contain seemingly biased/promotional information regarding the closing of some schools. As you've been a repeat editor on these pagees, i'm bringing it to your attention for review, since you seem to have some subject knowledge of both the area nad of writing schools entries. Thanks. ThuranX 04:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed the wording at both articles, and found it quite oddly written, but I hadn't had a chance to check further. At your prompting, I researched the issue and I have updated both the Willingboro Township, New Jersey and Willingboro Township Public Schools articles to explain the closures and provide a source. The previous wording that had seemed unusal -- "This school has closed as part of the district's dedication to a balanced budget." -- came directly from the school district web site. I hope this solves this issue. Alansohn 05:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30 Days of Night

Holy cow! I thought I'd share. There was a new photo released for 30 Days of Night, right? I've put it up in the article already. Anyway, I was getting Google Alerts of news headlines about the film (pretty much to show the new photo), and I was going across them to see if there was any additional content. So I came across /FILM, which had this Did You Know spiel at the end of it, saying "30 Days of Night author Steve Niles had conceived of the story in the form of a film but after a lack of attention, Niles wrote it as a comic." That EXACT sentence is in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article about the film — what I wrote! :D First time I've seen something I've written cited outside of the Wikipedia universe! Yahoo! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spidey 3

Can you let us know your thoughts about revising the film article at Talk:Spider-Man 3? Thanks. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/u/User_talk%7EThuranX_4d05.html"