User talk:Bignole/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Fictional Character Pages 2 Leatherface 3 Re: 4 Question about Leatherface 5 well done 6 Clark's Powers 7 Template 8 For Your Excellent Work 9 Temp 10 Thanks 11 Template 12 Reverted Smallville S6 - Sneeze 13 Vote 14 Horror Icons 15 Leatherface rating 16 Continued reverts 17 Excert from Wiki Topic wikipedia:edit war 18 Spider-Man 3 19 Permission to revert 20 Jason, Ken, and Kane 21 References 22 Cool it 23 Horror Icons 24 3RR 25 3RR on Template:Horror Icons

Fictional Character Pages

The project was more than just talk/rumor because I have a cousin who works over at Dimension but thats besides the point and I'm not going to argue the issue with you, it's pointless and a waste of time. Yes you're right those people have more enemies than just the few I listed but I also feel it's important that Tommy and Freddy were on the list right along with "everyone Else" sorry if I was not editing correctly I'm new here and hvant had much time to explore but thanks for the heads up on that.

Also I do apologize if I came off as "rude" it was not my intentions I was just frustrated with the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Sineater25 (talk • contribs)

Leatherface

I am wondering if you could help me out with the Leatherface article. A new user is attempting to add remake information to the introductory paragraph, changing the first line to "Leatherface, who is also known as Thomas Hewitt, is..." I reverted it, saying it only applies to two out of the six films Leatherface has been featured in, so now he's starting an edit war. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 21:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Hello, I have no idea why CyberGhostFace is dragging you into this. This doesn't concern you. If you would like to know my reasons, why don't you take a gander at his talk page. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, dou you really have a point to this lecture? I have decided that Cyber was right. I don't need you on my back also. God, you just jumped right in and are trying to start something. --Mikedk9109 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that, but why did you have to tell me the same exact thing I've heard a thousand times already. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about Leatherface

Couldn't you just use the link to Ed Geins article on Wiki for the source to that statement in the intro? Just Wondering. --Mikedk9109 19:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

well done

You have made good progress in keeping up the List of Smallville allusions. I hope it doesn't get deleted, there isn't anything like it on the net and it is an enjoyable article.---User:Johnnyfog

Clark's Powers

In regards to my contribution to Clark's powers in Smallville, I do not understand what you mean by "try and pay attention to what that section is about" because its obvious -- Clark's powers and that is no different to what was contributed. Now if the section stated "first episode in which these powers were shown" (or an indication that each power should only be represented by one episode) I would see your point, but there is no such text to indicate or support this claim. Perhaps I don't quite get what you mean, or you need to pay more attention to Season 6 Episode 3 to see that Clark did indeed use heat vision in that episode also. The existing note in the edit page does not even state an answer to this, so yes I paid attention to what's stated, perhaps the issue is what's not stated? If so, then maybe that should also be made clear. Consider also the context of the section above, Appearances_by_other_DC_Comics_characters, provides a reference to every single episode in which any of the listed characters occur which also contains no direct note that the list is or is not meant be comprehensive. Unless there is a comment added to suggest that Clark's powers only refers to the first time they appear then this contribution also applies. Localhost

I read your responding comment and I appreciate your clarification, and I actually feel now that I should have posted my comment in the article's talk page and submitted a message here to point to the section there. I would like to respond to this comment (I believe this captures the context, if not we can further discuss this), "Clark always has his powers, and always uses them (minus when something happens and he loses them), but characters that appear in the show are "special" because they don't appear in each episode, nor do they appear beyond a season usually." (end quote). Technically yes, at the same time; however, he doesn't always use them and not necessarily because he lost them, consider for example episode 603 where he gets caught in the vines, his superstrength wasn't able to break the vines, but the heat vision caused a chain reaction that did caused them to be destroyed. I believe that there could be some way to note this without causing massive redundance but still getting the point across in somewhat central location (although this might also be considered spoiler information). What do you think? Localhost

I felt it necessary to quote you again just to respond directly to what seems to be the most key statement from what you have posted (or at least it was to me), "...It's be a little too much to go into detail about how each power was used in each episode. We had that already on the "Clark's Powers in Smallville" page, but we deleted the page on the grounds that it didn't follow Wiki's policy for Notability." (end quote). I was indeed thinking of notable instances and I appreciate the insight of prior attempts to achieve this, I will make an update to that section, let me know if my attempt in and of itself becomes confusing. Localhost

Template

Could we add Scream to the template? --Mikedk9109 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

They have an article called Ghostface (Scream). Thats what I added to the template. --Mikedk9109 15:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The fisherman doesn't have his own page though. --Mikedk9109 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I also just thought of Norman Bates, and Hannibal Lecter. Yeah, we could do that, if it wen far enough. I'm oing to take the modern out of the title. Just to make it Horror icons. --Mikedk9109 16:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I also added it to everyones page that ws on the template. --Mikedk9109 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we could change the color? To maybe say, Black and red? Something that has to do with blood. I say you should mess with it a little, and make the color look cooler. Because I know nothing about color markup. --Mikedk9109 16:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

For Your Excellent Work

		The Original Barnstar
		For Your excellent work on Leatherface, Here you go. --Mikedk9109 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Temp

What about Jigsaw? --Mikedk9109 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the award. I really appreciate it.--CyberGhostface 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

What happened to the template? The people are adding villains that only appeared in one movie to it. I thought we were only adding people that appeared in 2 movies or more. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess your right about the Phantom. But I think the Devils Rejects don't belong there. I mean this template isn't about icons anymore. It's about every horror character people can think of. And I think thats ruining it. But hey, this encyclopedia is free, so I guess every one has a say. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no one else wants to vote, I think we should make the decision about who stays and who go's. --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 22:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Smallville S6 - Sneeze

Why did you revert my listing for this episode, I spent a long time on this edit making the listing far more factual and a true guide of the episode plot. This is what I look for when I read about an episode. Please don't just revert someones work without leaving some explanation of why you feel you have the right to do so. This is a free encyclopedia and everyone is free to edit any article. I note that you seem to change everyones work so you obviously feel you own this topic, which you obviously dont! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.235.50 (talk • contribs)

Vote

It has been five days, so can me and you make the verdict on who stays and goes on the template? --Mikedk9109 (talk to me) (watch me) 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Check out my final verdict and see if its ok. If not tell me what you want to change. --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My bad. Well, I just made the final version. Does it look ok? --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 23:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Horror Icons

I think this is in order.

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is for your work on the Horror Icons template. You let every express their views and made this template very good. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 00:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Leatherface rating

Leatherface only got a B rating on the assessment scale. What do you think we can do to get it up to GA? --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 19:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Also, you asked where the information is coming from? The information on the birthday and birthplace is right here. It is the third source in the article. --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 21:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Continued reverts

I never said I used wikipedia to report you, I actually sent an email directly to wikipedia. You keep making comment about my past behaviour, when you know full well there was nothing malicious about my previous edits, while I may not have understood about the linking thing, nothing I did constituted vandalism, you initited that ploy to get your own way. Your use of another username also was a ploy to make it appear you had support for your point of view (it's also against wiki policies).

As for being told repeatedly to stop reverting the page and you then arranging for my block, this was also not diliberate. I was logged on and posted an edit, when i looked at the page my update was gone. I assumed somethhing was wrong with Wikipedia so I updated it again. Once more my edits vanished so I put them back again. This kept happening and I was getting quite frustrated by the (what I thought at the time to be a wiki problem) resetting of my work. Only when I tried to edit it the last time after being blocked, did I see the "You have Messages" at the top of the page. Then after reading them I understood what had been going on.

This was only my second time on Wikipedia and am still trying to understand how to do things properly. I can't register a userid on this PC as the IP is owned by the company and this IP is used by over 800 employees, (that's why I get the same IP every time), I am a huge Fan of the TV series and believe that my contributions are valid and worthy of inclusion, while they may not reflect how you want things done on this topic, they are reflective of previous seasons and even work you yourself have done.

Wiki Policy strictly forbids what you do, it clearly says in the rules not to revert peoples work unless it is obviously malicious or vandalism. If you do not agree with someones work it should be discussed and go to Dicussion page to get a clear consensus. You have no individual right to revert someones work because it doesnt fit within your rules.

Here are some policies you should familiarise yourself with. I think the first one and second speak volumes, but they all apply to you.

Assume good faith

Assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.

Ownership of articles

You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them.

Civility

Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia from working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed.

Editing policy

Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid deleting information wherever possible.

Ignore all rules

Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia.

Sock puppetry

Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block; nor ask your friends to create accounts to support you or anyone.

Three-revert rule

Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours. (Or else an administrator may block your account).

Vandalism

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia.

Resolving disputes

The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you. If that fails, there are more structured forms of discussion available.

Excert from Wiki Topic wikipedia:edit war

Regardless of whether or not such activities can properly be called "edit wars," most users consider sustained episodes of unproductive but animated cut-and-thrust editing to be undesirable. If objectively-minded users observe such an ongoing exchange and cannot "talk down" the involved parties, or encourage them to enter the dispute resolution process, users may request protection of the disputed article to enforce a cool down period. In severe cases of abuse, warring parties who persist in punitive editing may be subject to arbitration.

Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule. Instead of performing pure reverts, disputing persons should cooperatively seek out methods of compromise, or alternative methods of statement. While edits made in collaborative spirit involve considerably more time and thought than reflexive reverts, they are far more likely to ensure both mutually satisfactory and more objective articles. In the case of less experienced contributors, who have unknowingly made poor edits, reversion by two or more people often demonstrates that such reversions are probably not fundamentalistic or in bad faith, but instead closer to an objective consensus.

High-frequency reversion wars make version histories less useful, make it difficult for uninvolved users to contribute in a meaningful fashion, and flood recent changes sections and watchlists. Low-frequency reversion wars, while still problematic, do not tend to cause the Wikipedia community as many problems

Spider-Man 3

The article said, "Superhero Hype! has learned that we won't just be getting a new Spider-Man 3 trailer with Casino Royale on November 17th, but Sony Pictures is probably attaching another trailer with Ghost Rider as well on February 16th. Oh, and also look out for new Spider-Man 3 posters around the release of the 21st James Bond installment." The "just" means there's more to come. Is this what you meant? 'Cause I had a similar misunderstanding when I first read it. Seemed like this was the case, so I reverted. Let me know if you meant something else. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Permission to revert

It appears our management has now given you permission to revert my edits, one good thing though, we can now have our own accounts.

Jason, Ken, and Kane

It was confirmed in CRYSTAL LAKE CHRONICLES by Kane himself. Page 283--

I want it known that Ken Kirzinger only doubled me in two shots in Jason Takes Manhattan, and only because we were under tremendous pressure and I just didn't have the time. Thanos6 15:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• And I would argue that stunt doubling does count, and yes, I would push for all of Robert Englund's stunt doubles to be listed on the Freddy page. However, it appears we're going to have to agree to disagree; let some other Wikipedians offer their opinions and agree to stand by what they say? Thanos6 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Ya gotta love it. Sometimes I wish we could go back and bring these older film articles up to the high standards of The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 3, but that's a lot of time to invest in that. I looked at both upcoming film articles' respective versions from the beginning of the summer, and they've definitely come a long way since. I kind of wonder how Spider-Man 3 would have turned out if we the decent editors all congregated earlier in its production stage. I saw the archived talk page for Spider-Man 3, and jeez, there sure was a lot of ridiculous discussion about rumors and such back when nothing was known. And now that Mysterio rumor's making its rounds... (By the way, I suggest we archive the talk page for The Dark Knight when November's here -- it's gotten long enough now.)

As for the references, I'm sure we'll probably remove a whole amount when we see all the minor players (Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell, etc) in the Spider-Man 3 trailers, and even more for the Plot section when the film comes up and the plot information is general knowledge. Of course, we still have a Reception section and all these upcoming Promotion and Merchandise section expansions to go... so it's going to be a helluva lot more references, yeah. Also, The Dark Knight doesn't even come out till 2008, so think of all the fun we'll have when people want to reference unauthorized photos from the set to expand the Batman film article. Anyway, kudos to you and the rest for finally whipping these suckers in shape. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool it

Hey, I just wanted to stop by and say cool it. You really need to calm down over this pointless edit war on the template. If you want help convincing these editors, then you should of come to me for help. I looked at the template history and your talk page and I saw this huge edit war. I really don't want you to get blocked over this, and you might if you keep reverting. So, be civil, don't make personal attacks, and don't lose your cool. Thanks. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  18:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

When did I say anything about bending the rules. I assumed that you were getting angry because of the caps, because thats what most people do when they are trying to get their point across. Thats what I do. Anyway, my bad if I pissed you off or anything, but you don't have to bite my head off for assuming. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  18:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Well, if that user does it again, I will also inform him to go to the talk page. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  18:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Horror Icons

PHANTOM IS ICONIC The Phantom (from "The Phantom of the Opera") has appeared in numerous film adaptations spanning from the 1925 film to the 1962 Hammer Films interpretation and the 2004 adaptation. The Phantom is one of the pioneers in the concept of a disfigured man hiding behind a mask and expressing his feelings through some type of instrument (in his case, the pipe organ). He is loosely the archetypical Jason Voorhees. Both are hideously disfigured characters who hide behind masks and vent their feelings through some type of object (in the Phantom's case, a pipe organ. In Jason's case, a machete)-both of which strike terror into unsuspecting victims. We're not talking Leprechaun or Pumpkin head here. "The Phantom of the Opera," has inspired many facets of entertainment - from musicals, to movies, to books (original novels, RL Stein's "Phantom of the Auditorium") and more. People to this day still attend the play based on the Phantom.

INVISIBLE MAN Also appeared in numerous films and novels. He's is one of the archetypes to all characters who are or can become invisible in this day and age. Just as the story of Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde inspired Marvel Comics to create The Incredible Hulk, the Invisible Man helped inspire the creation of movie spin-offs, such as "Hollow Man," to the original film adaptation of H.G. Well's "The Invisible Man" -- Most touching upon the theme of man's illegimate gain of power leading to his corruption.

AFTERWORD: There is absolutely no way that Jigsaw is iconic whereas the Invisible Man and The Phantom are not. As for spin-offs and sequels of a horror character's films not warranting iconic status, I agree (because they're just ways for Hollywood to rake in money on a franchise's popularity. As is the case with the "Saw" series (the trilogy is already completed). However, a horror icon such as The Phantom and The Invisible Man were more than popular. They're the pioneers, the precursors to Modern Horror Icons. They continue to inspire us through books, comics (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen), television, and films with various incarnations of an Invisible Man or a reclusive Phantom. The themes they bring out in their stories still play an important role in today's society as evidenced by the perpetuance of their memory while other horror figures (ala Pumpkin Head) are forgotten more easily. THAT'S HOW THE MEME WORKS, I guess; Today's icon can be tomorrow's forgotten memory-(but nobody has forgotten the Phantom or the Invisible Man). We had a vote - Phantom and Invisible Man are ICONIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FF7SquallStrife7 (talk • contribs)

Bignole, there seems to have been some type of miscommunication, you were referring to the wrong editor here: QUOTE: "As, I said, GO TO THE TALK PAGE. You said "we had a vote and they are horror icons"...who is this "we" you speak of because I know that wasn't the "we" that voted on the template when it was created. Now, you may have voted afterward, but you sent me the message first, so I don't know what you are referring to when you talk like that. Bignole 13:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I just went to the talk page, and you were there. You claim "we voted" but your name and your reasons are not there. Your edit summary claims "no one reads the talk page", obviously because you never did. BRING IT TO THE TALK PAGE, there was a vote there, if you want to dispute something GO THERE. This isn't some dispute between you and me, I am merely keeping the template the way it was voted upon, nothing more. Again, GO TO THE TALK PAGE AND DISCUSS IT THERE. Bignole 13:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FF7SquallStrife7."

I gave you my legitamate reason why The Phantom and The Invisible man belong on the list of icons. Please stop reverting my edits - unless you receive at least 1/4 % of total Wikepedia user votes concurring that The Phantom and Invisible Man don't belong on the Horror Icons Template.

I'm not trying to a nuissance. What gives you the right to decide who stays and who doesn't? You claim to have had a vote, but when the voters are friends or when just a few people are aware of such a circus display of democracy, that is not fair. There definitely seem to be a lot of people in this world who agree with me when I state the Phantom and the Invisible Man are icons:

Internet sources: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261135/usercomments

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Invisible-Man-Claude-Rains/dp/B00006RHV3/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_1_2/026-3005969-9198867

 "The Invisible Man is one of the most impressive Universal "monster" films of the 1930s, a motion picture masterpiece still as vibrant and engaging now as it was in 1933... It is well worth the money of any sci-fi fan who wants to see how the genre started." - D. Pearce.

 "One of the greatest films of all time!" - viewer

http://www.amazon.com/Universals-Collection-Frankenstein-Invisible-Creature/dp/0783242379/sr=8-2/qid=1162160146/ref=sr_1_2/102-8671159-4568912?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

 "Universal's Classic Monster Collection (Dracula/Frankenstein/The Mummy/The Invisible Man/The Bride of Frankenstein/The Wolf Man/The Phantom of the Opera/The Creature from the Black Lagoon) (1943)" - amazon.com

Universal Studios, Critics, and countless others all place Invisible Man and the Phantom in the same category: HORROR ICONS - the grandaddy of today's modern Horror Icons.

AND if you want to talk about popularity, more people know either the Invisible Man or DEFINITELY the Phantom of the Opera more than the Creature from the Black Lagoon and Jigsaw COMBINED but their influence/impact worldwide (the box-office gross, with regards to inflation of course, legacies, plays, and number of books influenced by The Phantom or the Invisible Man, are testemants of their legacy, iconic status, and much more so than Jigsaw or the Creature). Don't mock up the Horror Icons template for the sake of being stubborn.

well what do you know, ALL THE HORROR ICONS on the TEMPLATE are right on Universal's DVD Box Cover (not all of their monsters of course, just the icons): http://www.amazon.com/Universals-Collection-Frankenstein-Invisible-Creature/dp/0783242379/sr=8-2/qid=1162160146/ref=sr_1_2/102-8671159-4568912?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

Like Sam Beckett I'm going to put right where once went wrong and add the Phatom and the Invisible Man to the list of Horror Icons because they belong there.

3RR

Hey, I was wondering if you could go report that user who insists on reverting the template on the 3RR board. I have to be getting off and I don't feel like letting this user get off reverting five times in one day. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  00:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then I'll report him. I won't report you since your reverting on a good cause. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  00:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  00:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Template:Horror Icons

Duration is 24 hours -- Avi 05:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)