Can you discuss here please. Crickets are chirping over there. lol Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also you might want to join here too. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you notice my comments? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been doing a lot of copy editing on my sandbox that can hopefully replace this in the future. I am just wondering is it requirement to unbare citations like the DeFalco cites that I found that were helpful. Also what books is these quotes from? Perhaps maybe this?. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I am talking about citation #4 and #6. It has no citation template. Is that necessary for something like maybe FL nominations. Also I am guessing the are citing a book? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also btw just like I said to User:Nightscream. I am allowing you to copy edit and place on watchlist for preparation of future use. I am definitely not done obviously. Venom and Carnage aren't even there yet lol. I am doing it in order publication date wise. Which I prefer over alphabetical order. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I will say thought that even though I borrowed a lot of book related citations on Wikipedia. All of the web citations (among others) I did myself. I didn't cheat too much lol. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 19:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh I know. Those are my implications and they weren't really serious. The reason why I put "lol" at the end. I was right though. It is the Marvel Chronicles novel...and I am going to see what I am going to do. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But you are right. It isn't cheating. It's very useful. to have the information to already be in Wikipedia. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I noticed that in the article that also references her full birth name, it states that she was born in 1986.

[1]

"She was born in 1986, so has few memories of Communism, but since she was largely brought up by her maternal grandmother in provincial Saratov, while her father worked in Moscow, she absorbed the history."

Wanted to know what you thought of that, also didn't want to undo or revert you, so I figured I'd let you look at that and decide what to do :) Lady Lotus • talk 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean the reference by the London Evening Standard? This one. That was where I found the quote about her being born in 1986 and you shouldn't need a subscription for it, not like The Times. Let me know if you still like me to put the it on her page or if you'd like to :) Lady Lotus • talk 21:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, Jhenderson777 and I were having a discussion about the infobox image of Peggy Carter on his talk page, that spiraled into an interesting conversation about character's actual origins if you would like to weigh in.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for input, actually I was more interested to hear what you have to say about her origins. You are pretty knowledgeable about early comics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I recently changed it. As Jhenderson pointed out, different sources state different dates, one even going back to Captain America #1 (1941).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your edits and I responded to your comment on the talk page. I love Stan and Jack's work too, it was really revolutionary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Tenebrae, your points are well taken. All the edits made today to Don Simpson (cartoonist) are by me (the subject of the article, oddly enough), and I realized I should register -- I wasn't trying to hide as an anonymous IP. There is a fine line between self-serving self-promotion and getting something better than the rather paltry entry that was up there for so long. Anyway the one link I removed was solely because the ref tag to Comics Database is sticking out on the final entry (it seems miscoded and I don't know how to fix it -- my html skills are a bit rusty and Wikipedia's tagging conventions are new to me). It looks kind of sloppy. Anyway there was no malicious intent, I'm just a perfectionist.

I'll go over the guidelines and try to make my editing more encyclopedic in the future. Any suggestions you may have about creating separate entries for the various titles (Megaton Man, Border Worlds, etc.) that go into more detail would be appreciated, as it seems you've covered a lot of comics material for Wikipedia. (Now I have to get back to prep for college teaching!) Best, Donaldesimpson1713 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sean Penn page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why can every film (American Hustle, Frozen to name a film) be able to list accolades from San Diego Film Critics, etc (the smaller groups) but you remove any mention of a nomination for Catching Fire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormow (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tenebrae!

I saw your block log, and saw your block from half a decade ago. But never fear! Although Wikipediholism can be a chronic disease (and I struggle with it personally), recovery is possible. See Wikipedia:Recovering from Wikipediholism, and the navbox at the bottom. And, if you decide that you're a Wikipediholic, don't forget to add ((User:UBX/Wikipedia2)) to your user page.

If you reply to this conversation, please move it to my talk page first.

Cheers! —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You found the quote by Stan Lee about Barney's Beat! Great! I'd forgotten all about that!Ger Apeldoorn (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Ger ApeldoornReply[reply]

Hmm maybe I should post this on the article talk page on the off chance anyone else cares but anyhow ...

Your edit summary was "removed fannish undercutting of Debruge's criticism" and I'd like to explain.

My edit summary was "Rare dissenting critical opinion. I leave it to others to paraphrase other reviews to rebalance the section and avoid WP:UNDUE".

There was no intention to undercut his review but at the time I added that review to the article did not contain any comments from other critics and his criticism seemed like a rare dissenting voice. It did become apparent to me until later that other critics, while praising the performances did not praise the story so much, some even expressing surprise that the film was nominated for a best screenplay Oscar. Also awkwardly I noticed that Debruge was not even the main reviewer for the film at Variety.

I felt like you completely misinterpreted my intent and I wanted to explain. At most I wanted to qualify the remarks, I did not in any way intend to undercut what I felt was a very insightful review (the negative reviews often are). Perhaps after explaining you might want to edit that section further. If you care to comment here within the next day or two I'll likely see it, otherwise I'll see your edits on the article. Thanks. -- 109.79.132.61 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply noted.

Rotten Tomatoes in italics. Is the citation template broken or what? I don't care about italics but I do care about including publishers. Do I need to push the template to change the settings? -- 109.79.132.61 (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought that IP 109. (as well as the different versions of that IP and IP 93.107.207.202) was you, Tenebrae. I thought this because these IPs generally use the same expressions that you do while editing film articles in generally the same way that you edit them. And there's the fact that IP 109. signs his or her username the same way that you do -- with two dashes in front of it. But I wondered what reason you'd have for sometimes editing as an IP and sometimes as Tenebrae; I figured it might be for a good reason. Or because you sometimes don't feel like logging in. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, not me, though it's clearly someone who, like me, explains things in detail in his edit summaries. Maybe once every three or four months I'll forget to log in after clearing cache or something, but then I notice it after the first edit. Also not the other guy. Or given the above exchange with 109, perhaps I'm Sybil!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, okay. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Captain & Tennille page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Regarding your revert to my Beyoncé Knowles edits:

• Daily Mail is a tabloid thus unreliable to begin with. Wikipedia consensuses have repeatedly declared it to be unreliable. The site is notorious for fabricating information and often poorly supporting claims.

• Huffington Post is also notorious for fabricating information and poorly supporting claims, particularly regarding politics. They are known for having a liberal bias in such reports. Essentially, it is the liberal equivalent of FOX News.

• People is a gossip magazine thus also unreliable to begin with. I've seen no association of it or either of the other sources mentioned with Time, which has a far higher reputation than any of those three combined. It might not be as fabricated/poorly backed up as gossip sources like Star or InTouch or Perez Hilton, but things like that and Us Weekly are still often known to be quite false.

Just thought I should explain. "Reliable tabloid" and "reliable gossip" are highly oxymoronic. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:A Contract with God - back - Baronet trade paper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks a lot for the infobox scan---I think it looks way better than what was there. The back cover scan might be more difficult to justify---it'd be easier if it were on the back cover that it was advertised as a "graphic novel", but I don't think Eisner's and the publisher's views of the book are enough to justify it (one would expect the author and publisher to talk it up).

Also, if you look at the source of the bpage, there's actually a bit that's been commented out about the limited edition hardcover. I've found tons of sources (blogs, retailers) that mention it, but haven't found a WP-approved "Reliable Source" to cite it. Nice to have an even number, too, eh? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, you don't want us to write "critical acclaim" but what about "generally positive reviews". The very positive reception needs a mention, and "generally positive reviews" is not hyperbolic. Koala15 (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, before you revert again let me state my case. I just spent hours on this section and you tell me its too long and trim it down to nothing. First i never heard about sections having word limits ever. What i did to the article is probably GA worthy, i have added a section like that to my GA's and the reviewer never had a problem with it. Koala15 (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you should revert any edit you think is a bad one, regardless of who made it or whether it was good faith. Regarding the plot, I think we should use the 700 limit as a guideline only, especially adhering too strictly to it requires us to omit important explanatory information about the plot, character arcs or themes. As a compromise, I restored some of the material I added. I also again changed "dad" to "father" per WP:TONE, and changed "minifigures" to "people", since characters should be thought of primarily as people. Hope that's okay with you. :) Nightscream (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"You're one of the best editors here, Night, and a treasured friend and colleague." True. LOL.

Seriously, though, it sounds that endeavoring to keep plot synopses under control is something that you and I both do regularly. Just check out the rewrites I end up doing whenever someone gets to writing the synopsis of a new South Park episode before I do. It's gotten to the point where I now add this note box at the top of each episode's talk page to explain to newbite editors not to add detail bloat, trivia or synthesis to plots. My feeling is that the synopsis should summarize to the reader the essential information regarding the three key aspects of a story: plot, character and theme. This is really a problem with those capsule-sized synopses found in List of (TV show) articles. This is something I've come across the Big Bang Theory season articles and the current Episode list for Agents of SHIELD, which are filled with synopses written by editors who think mentioning ever joke and gag, or meaningless detail, like whether a scene between two characters is taking place inside a car, is worthy of mention. With Lego, I felt the scene in the third Act that introduced the live action boy and father needed to explain the thematic arc exhibited by that scene a bit better. I don't tend to pay that much attention to a specific word limit, but I tend to look at the synopsis as a whole to see if it does this. Nice collaboratin' with you! Nightscream (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 13 February 2014, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sid Caesar, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

iMDB is actually a reliable source for film information. Official film bodies often send their release dates. I was adding the international airdates for English-speaking countries. This is not the American Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to have a worldwide view of the subject. However, non English releases can be found on the rescpective language sites. Finealt (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop. Wikipedia has to provide a worldwide view of the subject. IMDb is reliable; official film release organizations send their figures to the site. Maybe you should back off and move on. What you're doing of reverting edits and scolding them won't help. Wikipedia is for all the world. Not just America. Finealt (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I add international airdates if they are published by reliable sources? (Such as newspapers, press releases) I also started a new policy discussion on the talk page of MOS:FILM. Finealt (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about if I just say like "The film was released in 100 countries in November" instead of listing every country? I understand. No one cares about international release. Finealt (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it notable or significant if it was released in another country before the original airdate? Such as The Lego Movie was released in Denmark on 6 February 2014 and in the US on February 7, 2014. Finealt (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at Favre1fan93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Not sure if you watched my page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to split up the discussion, but we may have a larger issue with this user at hand. I do not have the time to look at this for a few hours. They've jump ship from the Film project to the TV project. If you have the time, please look into all of these page moves and redirects. They seem really hell-bent on this whole "American Wikipedia" concept. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a neutral notice of a discussion concerning this film's box office section.Spinc5 (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your constructive criticism. My editing behavior as of late may not be my finest in my four years as a Wikipedia editor, but I assure you, I have the interests of WP:FILMPLOT and WP:PLOTSUM in mind when it comes to summaries. User:Immblueversion (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is unfortunate that Steve Barton, founder of Dread Central and genre expert chooses to write under a pseudonym, but as founder, Steve Barton using the anonymous "Uncle Creepy" has long been accepted as expert in the field. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you're more learned than me on the writing side, when you get a moment could you take a look at this edit? The user added similar info in that section, rewriting it every time I removed it for being irrelevant. I'm reading it and I can't seem to see it saying anything. Maybe I am misreading it because it seems dense but it opens with a sentence which would be more appropriate on Ridley Scott's article and then just seems to reiterate various scenes David is in, but these do not appear to constitute themes, nor material appropriate for the article elsewhere. But I didn't want to remove it without a second opinion in case I'm just not reading it right. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 00:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your significant contributions that helped promote Iron Man 3 to good article status. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replied to you're comment. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replied to you're reply. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replied again. ATC ^{. Talk} 04:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Tenebrae. You have new messages at Favre1fan93's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

(Direct linked to the section on my page in the template.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no problem with your opinion. I had no choice but to take this action because you repeatedly made accusations, took statements out of context, and repeated claims long after they had been discounted on the admin discussion. You were not debating with civility, and this is necessary to build a good encyclopedia, regardless of how strong your opinion is.Bob the goodwin (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Bill's family appreciates those edits to his article. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His granddaughter brought up the Wikipedia article again when we were at dinner with Danny Fingeroth. She remains very grateful for the recent improvements. She also still finds it strange and surreal that a Wikipedia article names her, but that's a separate issue. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 10:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, making a WP:BOLD edit is hardly "edit warring". Second, not sure how you'd sell editing an HTML comment as "disruption" to any sane admin considering the results of the edit aren't even visible to article readers. Finally, we have site-wide standards covering this; there is no need for ridiculously overstated requirements when the existing requirements work fine (and are endorsed by the community, not just two editors on some random actresses article). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In order for something to be disruptive, someone had to be disrupted. Who was disrupted? In so much as the comment was petulant, I think you need a sense of humor. It does at least accurately reflect how the discussion seems to be going. Before I even got there you guys had revert warred over no less than four separate sources. Each of them progressively more reliable than the last. Now it's devolved down to "we won't believe it until she says she is, sources be damned". Which isn't the burden necessary for inclusion on Wikipedia... —Locke Cole • t • c 17:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replied on this editor's talk page, but I'd also like to clarify here that it wasn't one "bold edit" — it was two reversions of two different editors. That's edit-warring. And a a petulant, sarcastic comment like "won't believe anything reported until they're personally sitting down next to Scarlett at an ultrasound" is disruptive even as a commented-out note. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the "sources" — Time writing that "People said this" is not multiple sourcing, and People claiming something without sourcing, attribution or anything else is not reliable. WP:RS states that even normally reliable sources aren't reliable in every instance, and an unsourced, unattributed rumor is not reliable, period. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty much this is an issue because Locke is still upset over the Jeremy Renner dispute. I feel Locke doesn't care about th issue, but simply wants to use this as a platform to make personal jabs, making remarks like I'm delusional, etc. Rusted AutoParts 19:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I'm a bit confused, having no knowledge of whatever is going on at Skyscraper. I come across Richard Weingardt during new page patrol, created by User:Coolieguy and also edited once by an IP, 119.30.38.208. In that latter IP's edit history are edits to Fazlur Khan and Talk:Skyscraper which seem to relate to this ongoing issue you're dealing with. I then get a second IP on my talk page reporting this revert of the IP 119.30.38.208's edit to Skyscraper, which does go a bit far referring to the editor as "retarded".

Are 119.30.38.208 (talk · contribs), 119.30.39.24 (talk · contribs) and Coolieguy (talk · contribs) the same user? Am I being drawn into something when I assisted Coolieguy with his/her page? Or is it just a coincidence? --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moin! Sorry for getting somewhat personal about this guys/gals behavior, but I've been observing his madness for months now, again and again. I remember someone IP reporting somewhere, but obviously it didn't really come to fruition. It's driving people mad. It's not even funny in a way, just madness. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your apology. I hope a resolution can be found. Many thanks, Horst. Regards, --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Aalaan was blocked for sockpuppeteering another account on Fazlur Khan content, and a lot of similar IPs sprang up to continue the same edits immediately afterwards. User:119.30.39.151 has since stated that he or she is the same user (which most likely goes for all of the other 119.30.* IPs) and I've asked them to request an unblock of their main account before making any more mainspace comments. Edits and comments made as part of a WP:BLOCKEVASION can be deleted on sight. --McGeddon (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Retarded" is not "getting somewhat personal;" it is being completely ignorant, offensive and disgusting. No surprise that the same person that uses the word "retarded" would rip apart the Khan page because he, and some other person, have decided that Khan is being egregiously aggrandized. You removed an astounding and fully-sourced observation from Khan about his design process simply because your ego and anger got in the way. Please try to do better.108.27.114.64 (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The text removed from aforementioned aggressive and inappropriate revert is this: "Khan revealed that he often felt he himself was the building when designing a building project." Which is correctly sourced here: http://books.google.com.bd/books?id=DI_nbAYQvqsC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA3&focus=viewport&vq=khan&dq=fazlur+khan%27s+legacy+towers+of+the+future&output=html_text

The direct quote from Khan is this: “When thinking design, I put myself in the place of a whole building, feeling every part. In my mind I visualize the stresses and twisting a building undergoes.” Which comes from here: http://drfazlurrkhan.com/professional-milestones/en-r-constructions-man-of-the-year-issue-february-10-1972/

Horst, hope you can do the right thing and call off the ego-driven rampage against Khan.108.27.114.64 (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

108.27.114.64 this user who was in favour of khan is not me. Please check locations with Ip locatioh checker please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.151 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.checkip.com/ip/108.27.114.64 use this website to see locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.151 (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about that, and thank you for informing me. - Television fan (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tenebrae, My name is Alex Jacobs. I'm no expert on Wikipedia, but I just went to my father's (Frank Jacobs) Wiki page and saw that you removed the entire section on his personal life. This was composed in conjuction with him, and I was surprised to see you deleted it. If there was something missing that we needed to include (citing my name, for example?), then I'm happy to do that. As I said, I'm no Wiki expert, and spend no time on Wiki other than looking up information, so editing his page was the first time I'd edited anything. Let me know what we need to do to re-add the information we added last year that it appears you deleted in January of this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexJacobs1313 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From my watchlist, I've noticed your extensive work on film-related articles and therefore I'm leaving you this message, in hopes that you will participate in a discussion currently underway at Saving Mr. Banks. To avoid any edit warring, a consensus is being reached, regarding the overall placement of one of the article's sections. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 11 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Iron Man 3, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Iron Man 3 grossed over $1 billion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Iron Man 3. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello friend, regarding your edit summary. Anthony isn't technically looking off screen. He's looking at Joe, who is actually between Anthony and edge of the article. Also it was keep with WP:ALTERNATING (can't find the guideline but I thought boxes were supposed to alternate).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I saw that you started archiving the links on the Iron Man page, and just wanted to say thanks. I was actually about to start doing that later tonight, so it'll be nice to not have to do every one myself, haha. I actually think that with some rewriting here and there and the addition of a "Themes" section, that article is a candidate for a FA nomination. Was planning on working towards that. Cheers -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To you both, I noticed in some of my recent work over the past few months, that Iron Man (and Hulk) are the worst offenders for formatting and stylings we've come to create for recent MCU pages. I will gladly try to lend you both a hand in this task, if you are taking it on. I do know, if we are striving for the GT nom, that the pages should all be laid out similarly. I can try to work on that if needed. Next week I'm on break, so I will hopefully to have time to work on a few things I've been meaning to get to. Let me know! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Tenebrae. I saw on Triiiple's talk that you saw the film already (always jealous of you as press haha). Anyways, I will be unwatching the page soon in the coming days (possibly), so if you could keep an eye on it an help formulate a proper plot and such, that would be fantastic. I'm trying to get tickets Friday for the early screening on 3/20, so if I go, I will be able to return to the page and help a little sooner than waiting for the US midnight release. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello friend :) Wondering what your thoughts on this was? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He removed the hidden message again. Obviously doesn't listen or care. Rusted AutoParts 02:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there :) I noticed you were having some issues with users reverting the birth date on Boyd Holbrook and wanted to give a heads up before you thought I was stepping on your toes, I would never do to you intentionally of course. But on the Floyd source, where is says " Holbrook, 28, signed with a modeling agency in 2001 and his success began almost immediately.", I think they mean that at the time of publication he was 28, and just talking about how he signed with an agency in 2001. So I think that puts his birth year at 1981, with the other source I added says 1981 also, but I took out the month/day since those aren't sourced. Let me know what you think! LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are as always, so gracious. Happy editing :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TheGirlWithTheX-RayEyes logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tenebrae. As the article was deleted are you going to nominate the other related articles? I don't mind doing that if you're busy. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, all tagged. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your significant contributions that helped promote Thor: The Dark World to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, just wanted to tell you that in the mid-credits scene, his subordinate directly calls him "von Strucker". It's one of the first lines of the scene and a bit hard to hear due to the accent, but it's in there. -Fandraltastic (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem! Basically, the first few lines of dialogue are something like "Sir, Fury released everything to the public." "Everything he knows about." "von Strucker, if they find out we're working for HYDRA..." It's tough to hear but if you're listening for it, it's there. Anyway, cheers! -Fandraltastic (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the thanks, and for your recent work on the article. One can almost flip to a random paragraph and find content that deserves to be trimmed out :). --JBL (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit was made by the same user for what appears to be the umpteenth time. I have reverted it. Would you agree that something should be done to prevent this from happening again? Mystiques00 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You flatter me, sir. :-) No, MOS:IMAGELOCATION was indeed where that guideline was once located, but I noticed that it's not there any more, so I assumed that that guideline had been done away with. Nightscream (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the Robocop quote, Tenebrae!! :) Mvblair (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Your opinion could be very useful in this discussion. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tenebrae,

It's been a while since we've communicated. Hoping that you are doing well.

I finished my book and it is now awaiting MSU Press' decision whether or not to publish it. They have had it since the beginning of the year. I am hoping that I won't have to go the " seeking publisher/agent" route and that they run with it. I sent a first draft to the MSU library's comic book department and the curator has made it a part of the library's permanent collection which was nice.

Respecting your request for anonymity, I discarded all of your contact information but if you'd like me to send you a copy of the first draft, just re-send it to me at franklincolletta@gmail.com.

I'm writing to ask about the Joe Sinnott comment that appears in Vinnie's page. I don't much care for negative comments made by people like Len Wein but I happen to know that Joe had a very high regard for my father and would not be happy to see himself quoted that way. Joe doesn't get on the internet as far as I know so I'm pretty certain that he's unaware of the comment. I'd like to bring it to his attention and ask if he'd like to amend it. If he agreed to do so, would that a revised comment from Joe himself be acceptable per your guidelines? This passage was from the Dan McFan website. In it, Joe essentially says the same thing but....

Joe Sinnott: I began working with Vince Colletta shortly after Marvel Comics ceased production in 1958. From then until the super-heroes burst onto the scene in late 1961 I was finding work wherever I could. Charlton, Dell, Treasure Chest, ACG, doing advertising and Crossword Puzzle covers. From 1959-1963 I got work from Vince penciling Romance stories and Gorgo for Charlton Comics. These were Vince's accounts and I was paid by Vince, not Charlton, therefore no Colletta/Sinnott credits are seen in any of the books. I was very grateful to Vince for giving me the opportunity to pencil these stories as I needed work at the time. I drew well over 2500 pages for him of Romance and Gorgo stories.

Once Marvel asked me to come back full time (when the super-heroes arrived), I had to leave Vince and Charlton behind. I know Vince was very upset about me leaving, but Marvel was paying much better, and I also started penciling and inking my own stories full time at Treasure Chest. The only thing negative that I can say about working for Vince Colletta is that I would do full detailed pencils in all my work, and when the finished product appeared, I found it hard to recognize my own work. Vince would actually eliminate many figures, silhouette others and cut many corners. You will hear several artists also tell you this about Vince as well.

But in spite of what some artists feel about Vince, the editors loved him because he would never miss a deadline. I'm sure this is why he took all the shortcuts that he did. I always remained friends with Vince and talked to him often on the phone for many years. The first time we met however wasn't until the 1975 Marvel Convention in NYC - several years after I started working with him. I will always be grateful to Vince Colletta for helping me out by giving me work back then, and I am proud to call him my friend.

Please let me know both about whether you'd like to receive the first deaft of my Vinnie book and also whether my contacting Joe Sinnott would go towards adding some context to the comment that appears in the VC Wiki page.

With my best regards, as always,

Franklin222 (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Franklin CollettaReply[reply]

Tenebrae,

Thank you for your quick response. Allow me to clarify my intentions.

I'm not particularly interested in finding any new positive entries about my father, nor do I wish to see the negative ones removed. The Vince Colletta page, in my opinion, is fair and balanced as-is.

I would like to bring Mr. Sinnott's quote to his attention and give him the opportunity to add to or amend it. If he decides to update the comment attributed to him, would it be within Wikipedia's guidelines to use it?

RE: The Dan McFan site - I took down all of the posts except for the first one in which he clearly stated his case, both in the post and by his choice of URL. The Joe Sinnott passage was taken from the content of the site and appears in my book.

Best,

Franklin222 (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Franklin CollettaReply[reply]

Remove another valid dispute tag again and I won't even bother coming to your talk page, we'll go straight to AN/I. Don't bother responding, I don't care what you have to say. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since an admin agreed that it was not a valid tag, and also had some words for you about civility (Talk:Scarlett Johansson#Fully protected) perhaps I should threaten to take you to ANI. In fact, let's all threaten each other! It'll be a threat-a-palooza! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was Rumlow actually a member of HYDRA? I seem to be remember that he said he was or somebody saying he was but I'm not certain.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If that's the case, I think "double agent" would be more fitting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also wasn't Steve the leader of the STRIKE team? He was the one giving the orders on the ship.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so. I think he was just leading the mission that needed him, Black Widow, and the STRIKE unit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe I was just reading more into it because if Steve was the team's leader, it would have made Rumlow's betrayal that much more biting. Also it would have drawn a parallel between Steve's WWII commandos with similar generational sensibilities to his modern STRIKE team with questionable ethics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally didn't get that from the film. But I have to go see it again anyways, so I'll try to keep this in mind if it isn't squared up before I go. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for your work on the plot of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I just hope it stays that way. It always a pleasure working with you. TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Samantha Harris page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's keep the discussion at Talk:Scarlett_Johansson focused on the topic, not personal observations about, or questions to other editors. NE Ent 10:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently flagged this article as unsourced: "this article does not cite any references or sources". But the article does cite one reference and one source, and that source is a reprint of almost the entire run of the comic strip, and also includes interviews with the artist and writer. How should this citation be improved? Does each fact in the article need to be keyed to a particular page in the source or would it be better to add additional sources, even if they repeat information in the primary source? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Hope you're well. I had added "scope="col"" for column headers, and "scope="row"" for row headers because I'd seen it done for the featured list for 127 hours as per this discussion: [[2]]. Their reason was for accessibility for screen readers as highlighted in [[3]] Cowlibob (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Tenebrae. Quick question for you. I know in the past you have said you work in the media, so I was wondering if you would be able to get a high resolution copy of the Agent Carter or All Hail the King One-Shot posters? Both have what appear to be the logo Marvel is using now for the One-Shots, and searching the internet has not proved helpful, as I have not found a great copy of either poster. If you have the ability to do that, that would be amazing! Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I've restored the redirect for now since it appears that the subject of the redirect is notable only for the redirect target. In this case, EASTEREGG wouldn't apply since it's not a hidden link but rather a link to the notable subject, i.e. what the redirect subject would be notable for. If you believe that the redirect should be deleted, please bring it up at WP:RFD. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 23:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are talking about the plot to Muppets Most Wanted, there was some details left out of the plot like Nadya having seen various prison movies (including the ones in space), the name of the Gulag that Nadya works at, and some rearranging of some plots. Did I leave anything out? Also, James Bobin confirmed that Louise Gold would reprise Annie Sue even though she was given no dialogue, so I had to list her as performance only just like Rizzo the Rat should've been listed as credit only for The Muppets. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the last one in as a related note when it comes to the cast list. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I guess you're right about the wording. It's just that four years can be a long time to be married between two actors in, ahem, their line of work, so I tried to word it to indicate that they were last known to have been married since 2010, but I guess you are right. Thanks, Quis separabit? 02:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was announced by Roy Thomas on the Timely-Atlas list run by Michal Vassalo Here's the message: Hi List--

It's my sad fate to relate that I received word a little while ago from Fred Ayers that his father has passed away yesterday, May 4, a few days after his 90th birthday. Stan and I had each sent greetings, as doubtless did some of you. I know no other details at present. Regretfully, Roy

Leocomix (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! There's an ongoing discussion on ANI. I'd be happy if you express your opinions. Thanks. Shallowmead077 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam:

I had no intention of starting an edit war and I now recognize my actions were rude. To be honest, the only edits I have done regarded plot or minor edits such as spelling or vocabulary. I therefore offer my deepest apologies and hope we can start over with a discussion regarding this issue.

Regards

Njorent (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An apology present.

Njorent (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do wish to make amends. As stated in my last section, I did find a website concerning character descriptions. The link is posted below:

http://www.stitchkingdom.com/disney-maleficent-fun-facts-official-character-descriptions-minor-spoilers-70566/

As for advice, there is none I can think of at the moment.

Njorent (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. I see. Perhaps the information described on the movie website then? Or does that fall into the same category?

Njorent (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something odd just occurred to me. Some of the information in that Stitch Kingdom article is almost identical to information found on the film's website. Excluding three characters, it's almost similar. Very confusing in my opinion. What do you think?

Njorent (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this inspiring encyclopedia! – Paine

08:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Vijay Rajkumar is not a founder of Marvel Comics. I don't understand your need to add this vandalism back and remove Goodman as a key personnel (as founder) as the founder field isn't available for the publisher infobox. You will revert it or be reported. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References, doesn't recommend ("..., it is unwise to use it ...") The Grand Comics Database. Spshu (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was referring to your unilateral assertion that GCD, a stringently edited site of non-POV statistics and credits, which has been acceptable by WikiProject Comics for years and has no acceptable counterpart, was unusable. I didn't see this other edit you mention here, and was gong solely by your edit summary. Obviously, I agree with you that the Vijay Rajkumar edit was vandalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Ten,

How are ya? It's been a while. Thank you for joining us on GoT article. I miss the olden days of working with people who know that plot sections usually need trimming instead of finding the way around the limit. Working with you has been pleasant. Are you sure you don't want to work on those articles with us, 10-10? We could use an editor that don't keep insisting on his way like you. \(^.^)/ Anthonydraco (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, Tenebrae: Anthonydraco means me as one of the editors "who [doesn't] know that plot sections usually need trimming" and who "instead [is trying to find a] way around the limit," simply because I started a needed discussion on the topic and despite the fact that I barely edit the Games of Thrones articles and haven't yet edited any of the plot sections concerning the topic (other than minor edits at List of A Song of Ice and Fire characters and the removal of a plot tag). Yes, somehow I apparently keep insisting that things go my way on this topic. It doesn't seem to matter much to Anthonydraco that I'm the one who called you to the aforementioned discussion because of your sharp way of cutting plot material. Perhaps Anthonydraco feels that I should have recognized his talent at cutting plot material as well instead of mentioning you as the main editor in that regard. Whatever the case, I've long been tired of the drama going on at the Breaker of Chains and Oathkeeper articles over plot summary material, drama that I was not involved in, and I certainly don't need this extra drama. You are good at getting your way with plot material, but I don't see that there is a problem concerning disagreement on plot length in this case; I mainly left that discussion to others to sort out, and all of them thus far have agreed that we should keep the Game of Thrones plot summaries within the WP:TVPLOT recommended length. And, Anthonydraco, in case you are wondering: No, I didn't follow you to Tenebrae's talk page; Tenebrae's talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want to work with Ten, and I'm asking him and I've only told him why without pointing fingers. But thank you for coming out and announce yourself by trying to add a lengthy retaliation on another user's page - again. If you can't stand even stand being thought about, Wikipedia is not for you. I don't care if my trimming go unrecognized. It's been like this for centuries. You can ask 10 that too. Anthonydraco (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And you wonder why I don't want to work with someone... Anthonydraco (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original comeback there; only it's not. And interesting how you interpreted my starting the aforementioned talk page discussion as an attack on you (quite a contrast to the polite way that Balaenoptera musculus interpreted it, the one I mainly focused on when starting that discussion), and have now interpreted my responding to you on two editors' talk pages as "a lengthy retaliation." Yes, you do seem to have something against "lengthy," as if most disputes on Wikipedia are handled with a few words and as if lengthy is inherently bad, when, in actuality, it's the lengthy discussions that mainly get things settled and done on Wikipedia. You are the one who started this unpleasantness between us; you might as well own up to it. And I will comment on anyone's talk page, unless I'm unwelcomed there; I'm not unwelcomed on Tenebrae's talk page; so you'll have to deal with that as well...or not. As for "it's been like this for centuries": If you mean plot guidelines, then, actually, no, it hasn't been like this for centuries or since Wikipedia's inception. If you simply meant your trimming, then okay. But do I generally agree with keeping plot summaries within a length that Wikipedia respects? Yes. And Tenebrae knows that as well. The main exception for me in that regard are soap opera plot summaries (mainly the soap opera character articles), which can be quite difficult to summarize, given that soap operas, at least American and British soap operas, usually last many years and therefore have heaps of plot material to tackle and to try and condense. But, yes, work with Tenebrae; I'm certainly not stopping you. As for working with me, I don't care if you work with me or not, and I certainly was not wondering about you in that regard. Like I stated above, "I mainly left that discussion to others to sort out." You are the one going on like it is not resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeing a post on your talk about The Matrix article, I now remember you several hours after seeing that post. We apparently interacted before all of this Game of Thrones Wikipedia drama; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 13#Thanks for your help with The Wachowskis' issues in The Matrix article. At least we got off to a good start. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, guys. Sorry I haven't been more active of late: An incredibly contentious and, from a professional-journalism standpoint, mind-boggling RfC debate at Talk:Desiree Cousteau put me mostly off Wikipedia for awhile. I'm still not sure I'm ready to jump back in; I was hoping the RfC had concluded so I could move on from some of the maddening things I'm seeing there. (Did you know the Associated Press is not a reliable source? It's true! Just ask any of the armchair generals at the RfC!) Anyway, it looks like the discussion above has been quiet for a while, so I'm hoping you guys have reached detente. With best regards, Tenebrae (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Hope you're well! I was wondering if you knew of a set of criteria for what makes a film critic notable enough to have their own wiki. Would going to Cannes as part of the press or being part of Indiewire's critic network confer notability in your opinion? Cowlibob (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there, quick question, why are you under Wikipedia sockpuppets of Aalaan ? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker)It is probably because of the template in the "Skyscrapers" thread above. I hope this helps. MarnetteD|Talk 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) It was because of a malformed ((user)) invocation that instead substituted a page instead (see here for diff that corrected it). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks guys! LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am inviting you to take part in this discussion to determine if the page should be called Wolverine (character) or "Wolverine (comics)." --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comics
Thank you for quality articles for project Comics, comics such as Worlds Unknown, their artists and African characters in comics, and for kind advice, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A year ago, you were the 621st recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. I've been off Wikipedia for a few months after some excruciatingly frustrating experiences with a bunch of trollish Wikipedians, including an admin who says it's OK for another editor, perhaps his buddy, to curse at me and presumably at other editors. Your kind note hat acknowledges the tens of thousands of good edits that I, as a professional journalist, have made helps restore my faith in this project, even if just a little. With thanks and regards, Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to have you back! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say welcome back, your absence has really been felt.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sadly there was only the year of his birth. I wish that I could find details of his death and that of his wife (which seems to have tipped him into mental breakdown). Theo (Talk) 18:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am glad to see that you have returned to Wikipedia. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I didn't quite state it here, but welcome back. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you voice your opinion in either Template talk:Superman and Template talk:Batman or maybe here? I would greatly appreciate it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just making sure you understand that that editor wants Superman and Wonder Woman on Template:Superman and Superman on Template:Batman which I disagree on. Also he thinks Deathstroke can be considered part of Batman rogues gallery on the navbox. I disagee. I created the crossover navbox as maybe something to be a compromise but he hasn't put much notice on that. We have a few other differences regarding the Batman navbox too but I felt like summing most of it because I know if you were me I wouldn't want read so much of all of of the discussion. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey I will be involved with that discussion when I get back on a PC sometime. (I am on IOS right now). But it sounds to me that the editor isn't being very civil with you. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You've been here way longer than me, so am a little confused by your apparent surprise/disappointment at DP's Talk re "Fuck off" vulgarism is ignored by admin. (Fact is, an admin-buddy of DB has ordered me to do that on more than one occasion.)

Consider ...

• DB has expressed his philosophy [upside-down to Jimbo's "admin conduct is expected to be at a higher standard"] that anything an admin is allowed to say must also be granted to reg editors to say
• DP is notorious admin for arrogance and offensiveness
• Jimbo agreed w/ me that admin conduct is probably responsible for 10 times the environmental CIV issue on WP than any perceived problems created by reg editors
• DB "just likes the guy" [DP]
• DB is currently active at RfAR in DP's corner
• DB is originator of WP:Editor Retention project

Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the editing sense that is. Just for the record, I would like to clear something up about the ANI: it was implied you had "misled" me in prompting my comments, but I don't feel that is the case. While I appreciate we don't censor comment on Wikipedia I think it is reasonable for anybody to request that someone should stop swearing directly at them and I stand by that. Anyway, you are a good editor so I am pleased to see you still editing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so you're aware, I've responded to the evidence you presented against DangerousPanda. Just to summarize what I wrote there, I believe that you have misrepresented the situation from June of this year, omitted most of the context, and incorrectly labeled Dennis Brown's involvement as "tag-teaming" with DangerousPanda. Feel free to respond to what I've written there. Kurtis ^(talk) 04:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gotta go real life for a bit but I'll follow up regarding the profanity issue you've raised when I can. NE Ent 13:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taking a last look at the page before the evidence deadline, I think the tag team section dilutes the focus on DangerousPanda. Would you consider removing it? Thanks. NE Ent 00:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Re: our discussion of Gil Kane's article and whether his widow should be listed as his 2nd wife and all that jazz - Could we archive that? I've been contacted by somebody close to the family who finds the discussion intrusive and since we didn't accomplish anything by it, it really needn't be there. I was wrong to bring it up, in retrospect. Gil's family knows who they are and those posts don't add anything to the discussion of the article. it's my bad but since you were the only responder, I'm asking if you would feel it best to just archive all that since nothing is ever deleted. Let me know. If not, it will get archived eventually anyway.LiPollis (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that. Incidentally, his first wife's name was Diane if it still needs to be inserted in the article. I double checked.LiPollis (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't discuss Winkelvi anywhere except their talk page, AN/I, RFAR, or some other appropriate dispute resolution page. If you do need to comment on Winkelvi (or any other editor) please include a diff or link for every assertion you make. Negative statements that aren't backed by evidence can be interpreted as personal attacks. Be careful because I sense that sanctions are going to be handed out soon if this conflict continues. Following best practices will help keep yourself out of trouble. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tenebrae, the reason I proposed an IBAN between you and Winkelvi was to prevent either of you from upsetting the other. Before Jehochman closed the thread, I simply wasn't aware that more diffs were needed beforehand. Looks like the discussion hadn't shown enough evidence either at that point. Sorry if it seemed like I was accusing you of anything, I only wanted the feud to end. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

just to make you smile, hope you've been having a better time on Wiki lately :)

LADY LOTUS • TALK 21:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I corrected several of my errors I did when I rebuilt the article. I found it woefully without information on the comic and the character, and isn't Wikipedia all about making sure the readers have the best information? But yes I streamlined my final edits so i believe this excellent piece of work can be shown in the best of light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balin42632003 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for uploading File:SidGeffenBleeckerStreetCinema.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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. Stefan2 (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all not everyone on Wikipedia is as professional as many people are. What I "thought" I was doing was rebuilding an article that I saw as woefully inadequate as far as information. Now what i did was look at several other articles such as Witchblade and I tried to style this work after what i saw. My intention was NOT to vandalize, all i wanted to do was rebuild an article on a favorite comic of mine. I did not mean to cause any trouble, and yes I would gladly accept any help from anyone please. Thank you sir :-)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balin42632003 (talk • contribs)

OH...I do contest only one fix of yours. At the top where you changed that Devon Massey has worked on cover art, I researched one website that named Frank Cho and Art Adams as also working on the artwork, though not nearly as much as Root and Massey.

OK, now i am entirely exasperated. Some times I just don't understand why I stay on Wikipedia sir. Another of my interests is certain famous Playboy playmates. All i did was look at several of these girls articles or stubs on Wikipedia, and corrected any small errors like cup size or measurement mistakes, and I took the information directly from Playboy Online (each girls individual bio information), and all 14 edits was reverted by some dude and said it was unscourced. How does anyone do anything without somebody who thinks they know better come behind you and change it. This is not directed to you sir, some people on Wikipedia just frustrate me sometimes. Ignorance comes from lack of information, and I want to make sure people have all the proper information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balin42632003 (talk • contribs)

Actually would you look at another article I created? Sunstone. I would appreciate any help to make it all correct and ship shape...lol.

OK...I officially give UP. The same dude Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who redid my edits on the Playboy playmates stuff recently, now just reworked several pictures on Cavewoman. Alright, HOW the bloody HELL does anyone get any articles done around this madhouse. it seems that no matter what my intentions or what sources i may find or whatever....UGH! Look there is NO WAY any article can be non-biased and completely remove all POV, and the way this website acts it seems like I couldn't write an article about my own wife without furnishing sources in triplicate, and all properly referenced up the ying yang. WHY is this website so ANAL about everything? Could you please tell me why sir. Or is it just a bunch of idiots who have a zillion edits under their belt and now think they are GOD Almighty over the rest of us.

And please forgive me sir, you have tried to help and have been very nice. There is a reason why myself and several other folks I know have stopped making articles on here. So many picky-ass other editors taking their work and changing everything around and then warning us we are in VIOLATION of some bloody rule. I'll never write another article or upload a file or do any major work on an article ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balin42632003 (talk • contribs)

TriiipleThreat (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding ((subst:HH2)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Tenebrae, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hi Tenebrae,

Just stopping by to say "Merry Christmas" a few days in advance. Hope you have a wonderful holiday season.

Best regards, Mtminchi08 (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

	Merry Christmas!
	Merry Christmas Tenebrae, blessings and best wishes for 2015! MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Merry Christmas!
	I ran out of lumps of coal, so I'm distributing leftover children. Happy holidays! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tenebrae! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with ((ping|DerHexer)). Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]