This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darkknight2149 (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 13 March 2017 (→Stop hounding me). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

March 2014 – December 2015 January 2016 – December 2016 January 2017 – December 2017

Remember

If I don't respond immediately, I am probably busy. If that is the case, I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Lego Batman Movie Edits

What do you mean Disruptive edits & Copy & Paste for The Lego Batman Movie? I made that Summary a while ago & it was'nt no Copy & Paste, thought it was fitting since it was Paraphrase. That did not match the Summary I made, and the Other? It was confirmed by the director of the Film, verified or Not with a back-up source.

No Offense but you really need to stop going overboard with your edits & the Policies. I thank you for the Justice League Action Article edits with the undos but the fact a Paraprhased summary with a linked Source was changed by some Fanboy (Not You of course) draw the Line. Just let me Do all the Work & you be you know, yourself with free time. ZeEnergizer (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@ZeEnergizer: I don't see how I have gone overboard at all. If it seems like I came off a bit strong, it's because of the fiasco that took place at the Two-Face article (where one editor even admitted to copying sources from other people). As for the back up sources, they all link back to the unverified Twitter account. I've even actively searched for some usable source and have been unable to each time. Right now, my fingers are crossed that they release a cast list.

Regarding the summary, I found an identical one at the entertainment news site HeyUGuys. I didn't just look at it and assume "well, this must be stolen". Likewise, I've been seeing a lot of copy-and-paste summaries being used for articles on upcoming films, which means that many people are genuinely unaware that we don't do that. If your summary came first though, it shouldn't be an issue. DarkKnight2149 21:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That Explains alot but I see. As for the Summary, I made that months ago when the trailers came out. Then that source took said Summary & copied it Perfectly. Though here is what I would do for the Confirmation for Billy Dee Williams' Reprisal for Two-Face. Ask him on his Verified Twitter, then it's Cemented. An Example that his Account had favorited tweets that has his Involvement. Between You & I, I knew that Williams would finally be Harvey from the moment the Lego Batman Movie Utilized the what could've been, the 1989 Version of Two-Face. ZeEnergizer (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll probably try to ask Billy Dee Williams on Twitter when I get the chance. DarkKnight2149 03:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. Anyways Happy New Year's Man. ZeEnergizer (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@ZeEnergizer: Happy new year. DarkKnight2149 22:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Page

I would like to discuss something here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.128 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@2.86.255.128: Replied at the discussion. DarkKnight2149 22:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ultimate Spider-Man (TV series)-related

I heard you've been removing episode summaries to the

@Rtkat3: There have been a few reasons that I have removed summaries from that page. The most common and uncontroversial are the ones for episodes that hadn't aired yet. I also removed a few summaries for being written in the form of teasers (example: "Spider-Man and his amazing friends must work to save the world" is not how summaries are supposed to be written).

As for the incomplete summaries that you mention, those were removed because they only serve to set up what happens in the episode, instead of explaining everything that occurs in the episode with a beginning, middle and end. See List of Gotham episodes or Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) as a reference for how to write episode summaries. WP:SPOILER also explains that Misplaced Pages doesn't really recognise spoilers, which I suspect may be the reason people are writing incomplete summaries. DarkKnight2149 22:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits

I know you have a problem with anyone who tries to mention Billy Dee Williams as Two-Face in the Lego Batman Movie, hence why I simply put that he was in the movie rather than say who he's voiced by, but apparently you have a problem with that too even though Two-Face has been seen in both the trailers and posters for the movie itself. Be calm and specific with what you want rather than threaten to kick me off, it's not like all I do is try to bug you at Two-Face's page around here.

Secondly, I added the citation to the sentence you took off for the Scott Snyder page. It was in the recent Love is Love comic. I initially didn't put it in because I was in a hurry and it was a small detail, but it's there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meleemaster428 (talk • contribs)

@Meleemaster428: You didn't cite the Two-Face claim either. Keep in mind that you have to find a reliable source that isn't just reporting on the original unverified Tweet. DarkKnight2149 21:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dénouement

The ANI closed before I could respond to this. Maybe you're right about CT's needling of you, and the closer did tsk-tsk at him about his tone. Like me, he can be a forceful arguer. Re "All of the evidence I have provided demonstrates Curly Turkey's disruptive attempts to undermine the opposition and have the discussion go in his favour": I'm not really sure what that means. You mostly were addressing civility issues and defending against the canvassing claim, without much addressing CT's actions aside from those two things, so far as I noticed. Anyone in a debate has a tendency to "undermine the opposition and have the discussion go in his favour"; that's kind of what debate is. The only difference is you're alleging that he's "disruptive" about it, but I don't see a demonstration of that. If you mean personally attacking, not out-debating, when you say "undermining", I don't think things like the basement joke have an undermining effect; it's not the kind of comment anyone takes seriously, even if it wasn't super-polite. I reiterate that he's a comics guy too; any mocking characterization a comics fan makes about the nature of stereotypical comics fans isn't really personally about you, it's about a behavior pattern the commenter thinks you're acting within. But I won't defend it further; people have different levels of "offendability" and there isn't a "correct" one. This next part is could sound ranty and angry if one was looking to interpret it that way, but it is not offered in that spirit, and is quite dispassionate, alleging no bad faith, just human nature. It is then followed by some constructive advice.

What I do see is that CT created a general Joker WP:SUMMARY page, which is an entirely normal thing to do, and you effectively even if not intentionally canvassed comics people to come bloc vote to delete it. Whatever the intent (I can't read minds) it has the effect and appearance of an attempt by WP:COMICS to act in a territorial WP:OWN / WP:VESTED manner of proprietary claims to the Joker, to the comics Joker always and forever being the utter focus on WP's coverage of that character, and of organized WP:FACTION resistance against any shift away from that focus. And this is nowhere near the first time we've seen that kind of stuff out of that particular project. CT expressed considerable frustration about "WP:COMICS rewriting the rules to conform to their worldview at the expense of the greater community and the general reader." Despite being a comics nut myself, I strongly share this view of the project's collective behavior or at least the appearance of it. But not just about WP:COMICS, but many other wikiprojects, especially ones devoted to subjects of fandom; they are more interested, too often, in defending their scope claims and other "wikiprimacy" than in serving the general readership and collaborating broadly to produce a comprehensive but encyclopedic not fangushing work. As CT said, "That behaviour needs to stop."
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: I didn't create the Joker (character) page; I only offered that at FAC as a solution if the primary author of Joker (comics) wasn't interested in re-focusing the article on the general character, and that's the solution he went with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: But one thing I think you and Curly Turkey should understand is that I am not WP:COMICS. While I hold a specific position regarding the Joker (character), I don't represent the opinions of that WikiProject. In fact, I've never become a formal member of any WikiProject (though I have participated in WikiProject discussions in the past for WP:COMICS and WP:STARWARS, and I have a specific interest in fiction). I feel like you two were projecting your feelings on those projects on me, to a certain extent.

As for my alleged vote stacking and Turkey's alleged personal attacks, I disagree that his behaviour was acceptable but I think that's mainly over now (even if it will probably affect the deletion discussion to a degree). Right now, I have no plans on persuing any administrative action. Regarding the focus of Joker (comics) focusing too much on the comics version, I stated at the deletion discussion that I am willing to compromise with a merge with Joker (character), as long as it's clear in the article that the comics are the source material. DarkKnight2149 01:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

So what advice do you have for Darkwarriorblake? The article won't pass FAC as it is if it becomes the base article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@DK2149: I don't think that "Joker (comics) focusing too much on the comics version" is even possible.  :-) We either need a Joker (character) article that covers the Joker completely, even if it focuses mostly on the comics version, or we need a Joker (character) article that is WP:SUMMARY style and branches out to Joker (comics), etc., for more detail, if one big article would be unwieldy. What isn't helpful for readers is trying to make a comprehensive single Joker article live at the title Joker (comics); it's blatantly confusing and counterproductive since it strongly implies to readers that the TV, film, game "editions" of the character are not covered there except perhaps passingly, sending them on a fruitless search for whether the rest of the Joker-related material here is, and it directly encourages editors who are not completely steeped in the page's history to remove non-comics material from that article, to better comply with the scope that the title declares, thus worsening the problem automatically. Regardless whether there was one article or a SUMMARY split, "it's clear in the article that the comics are the source material" is going to result no matter what, since it's a central fact of the topic. Even if we created an article on the Joker in one particular film, the article would still mention somewhere that the character and the whole Batman filmic oeuvre are an adaptation from comics, and the article would probably take pains to contrast these versions of the character. That's just how WP rolls. There's no "risk" to comics "territory" here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up MOS:COMICS and WP:NCCOMICS

Part of the problem with WP:COMICS in particular is that it can't get its own act together. I tried to work on this a year or two ago, at the comics guidelines, but while some progress was made it later stalled. First: Merge the naming section of MOS:COMICS into WP:NCCOMICS, and replace that section in MOS:COMICS with a pointer to NCCOMICS. What we have right now is a guideline WP:POVFORK, with two guidelines claiming to establish comics naming conventions, and this not tolerable. Then we need to "audit" both alleged guidelines. They're really just WP:PROJPAGE essays that someone has slapped a guideline tag on without there ever having been a formal WP:PROPOSAL process for the community to approve them as guidelines. If they were subjected to a PROPOSAL today, they would quite possibly fail. This is not a big deal, though, if they are cleaned up. If they are, any later challenge – any attempt to demote them back to essays by removing the guideline tags (and this has definitely been done before to other topical pages that were alleging they were part of MoS or the naming conventions) – could be rebuffed pretty easily.

The important part of cleaning them up is going through them line by line and ensuring that either a) they do not conflict with any other guidelines (like other MOS and NC pages), but rather explain how the more general guidelines (and policies where applicable, like WP:AT) are best applied to the topic; or b) if there is a conflict, that it gets formally resolved. In the latter case, the usual resolution is to remove the conflict from the topical guideline so that it agrees with broader site-wide ones. If the variance is seen as important, get consensus for it at the talk page of the main guideline the topical one conflicts with (or at WT:MOS, or in a site-wide RfC at WP:VPPOL if you think it rises to that level of attention). If this kind of small proposal is done well, the exception may even be mentioned in the main guideline. The reason that MoS says it's okay to use "#" instead of "no." for comics is because I proposed that exception be made (more than once; I think it took three tries over the years, presenting better evidence each time that "#23" not "no. 23" is conventional for comics (in general, not just in specialist sources like comics price guides). MoS has a lot of special little details like that (e.g. a scientific name of a species is given in the form Brachypelma smithi, with italics, a capitalized genus, and a lower-case species epithet even if based on a proper name like Smith). These exceptions aren't in there because wikiprojects acted like a insular packs of WP:JERKs and pissed people off, it's because they had calm consensus discussions at WT:MOS and presented good arguments and evidence for why the special usage in question was genuinely conventional and not just some lame WP:Specialized-style fallacy. MOS:NUM is particular is chock-full of such topically particular items.

Regardless, this kind of rule-by-rule guideline audit requires either a lot of research time, or someone who knows the policies and guidelines very well and can easily detect conflicts. I'm willing to help with this again, being such a person, but not if people are going to act like monkeys are shitting in their living room.

If these normalization and conflict resolution steps are done, the propensity for comics stuff to come into dispute with other, broader guidelines, and their normal interpretation, will be massively reduced, and so will strife. About the only likely trouble-spot that would remain is the kind of WP:PRIMARY dispute we got recently, but that's a WP:AT policy matter, not a guidelines matter, and such issues will always get hashed out in RM on a case-by-case basis; it's just the nature of the PRIMARY beast.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Texas Chainsaw franchise.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Texas Chainsaw franchise.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

TCM Franchise

Just got your message and I think the logo will work fine.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

that discussion on comicsproj

My comment followed yours in the discussion, but I wanted to make sure you didn't think it was directed specifically at you. It was directed at everyone generally. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, when I started reading it, I thought it was another criticism aimed at me but, by the end of it, I was able to deduce that it was a general statement. DarkKnight2149 18:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Leatherface Film

Saw your comment for your edit on the upcoming film Leatherface and I have a feeling that it's probably one of those "untitled" horror films that are set for release this year or next year.--Paleface Jack (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Leatherface Draft

Hello Darkknight. Just wanted to answer your message and say that I would be glad to have you help with the draft on the character Leatherface. I haven't worked on it in a while as I have been (and still am) very busy doing college work at the moment and I'm trying to limit the amount of output at the moment so as not to get too overwhelmed. The only work I'm currently doing on Wikipiedia is trying to expand the article on the experimental horror film Begotten which I have been doing in my spare time. I am also trying to get someone to expand the article on the character Billy from Black Christmas and Chatterer from the Hellraiser series but I'm not going to ask you to do that since I know what it's like to have too much on one's plate. Anyways take care and I hope I can get back to doing fun stuff like this soon. --Paleface Jack (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Got your message. It's fine that you help so long as you don't overwhem yourself.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Saw casting

OK thanks, sorry for the unapproved edit, I thought he was going to be in it lol. Super hyped for Kramer! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:347:8000:5C9B:2C8B:B1AA:FBA6:2F8B (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

barnstar discussion

FWIW, I think the "lunacy" was directed at me. You might review the talk page of the barnstar sender and the recent history at ANI where I requested a block based on previous existing sanctions and instead got an i-ban which is to result in blocks without discussion instead.

Regarding the ban, if nothing else, I think that there is a fair amount of material at least written by comics writers now in the PD and possibly available at wikisource. Small comfort, I know, but proofreading it might make it more easily available to interested parties. John Carter (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, John Carter. I appreciate the suggestion, but I think it would be wise for me to not talk about comics to others until the ban ends (which will probably either end in six months or if I can get the ban repealed).

Regarding the barnstar, I'm not really sure. It is my intention to move on from the ANI dispute, though. I guess this is the reparation stage. Given all that I've contributed to the Wiki, it would be a shame if users now started thinking of me as "that editor who disrupted ANI". It seems that I now have to prove myself again to the larger community, though I do feel I was honest in the discussion (not to imply further blame). DarkKnight2149 02:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

John Carter, it probably refers to a bunch of things together. JC should know better than to be commenting on a "discussion" involving certain users, though. Before you rebut, JC, remember it wasn't a "discussion" until that party joined, so if this is not a violation, it's quite borderline. Don't spoil things by testing boundaries. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

???? DarkKnight2149 15:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

JC and another editor have an interaction ban and aren't supposed to be following or discussing each other's edits. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay. My apologies for the initial removal. DarkKnight2149 22:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Template: Mortal Kombat

I just want to point out, even if you do consider the mentioning of guest characters to be acceptable in the Mortal Kombat template, the mentioning of Injustice 2 isn't. As of right now, there is no mention at all of a Mortal Kombat character appearing in the game, which is the reason Injustice 1 got mentioned. That holds true for other games with guest characters featuring. 79.74.222.228 (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I mainly reverted due to the unexplained removal of the Mortal Kombat guest characters. DarkKnight2149 19:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The reason I reverted it was because the templates for other fighting game series didn't feature guest characters. Key word being "didn't". After double-checking it seems they are adding them now. So I can relent on that part at least. 79.74.222.228 (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories

This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Misplaced Pages talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk

Hi can we talk? Just curious The1Fr33m4n (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@The1Fr33m4n: What is it you would like to speak about? DarkKnight2149 22:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we be friends?The1Fr33m4n (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Stop hounding me

Showing up on an ANI thread you are not involved in and saying that you dislike a popular solution based solely on your personal dislike with me (implying that you have not read it or looked into the manner) is a clear violation of WP:HOUND. If you persist in this kind of behaviour, I will request that you be blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: That's not what happened at all. I said that I don't think you are fit for mentorship based on your past behaviour (like this).

If you try to undermine my opinion with baseless accusations again, it is you who will likely find yourself blocked. I have been known to comment on ANI threads, and you yourself commented on a canvass thread you weren't involved in because of a Mr. Freeze disagreement, so you are the last person that should be accusing someone of hounding. DarkKnight2149 22:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way: seeking "revenge" against the users who argued for your TBAN, and explicitly referring to your past interactions with them (all of which were centered around comics) is extremely dangerous for you. You are TBANned from comics. Wikilawyering about why you were TBAN and trying to place the blame on other users is not covered under BANEX. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That is not what happened at all. If you continue this, you will be reported. DarkKnight2149 22:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)