User talk:Darkwarriorblake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always Gerda Arendt Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section in articles

Hello, I have a question for you. Why is the Plot section in so many FA and Good articles unsourced? Doesn't this violate

WP:OR? Pereoptic Talk✉️   13:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

See
MOS:FILMPLOT: "Since films are primary sources for their articles, basic descriptions of their plots do not need references to an outside source." It's also unlikely to find a reliable source that details an entire plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for your explanation. best Pereoptic Talk✉️   16:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image sizes

Hi, I was just hoping for some clarification on a comment you made. After I put a new photo of George Lucas on the page for The Empire Strikes Back, you said "You don't specify image sizes." What does that mean? I scaled the image to what I thought was an appropriate size.

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't specify image sizes. The images are viewed on different screen sizes and specifying the image size messes with that for people because it will always be 256px regardless of the size of the screen. There's no need to specify sizes, the image as it was and is, is no different in size to what you specified except it doesn't create issues for users. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it's 256px? On the Help:Pictures page it says, "By default, thumbnail images on Wikipedia have a width of 220 pixels (px)." Wafflewombat (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is the standard size and your specified size are impercetibly different, but one allows for it to scale to the device and the other doesn't. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for clarifying. Wafflewombat (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:TV series - Banshee Title Card.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TV series - Banshee Title Card.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire edits

Hi, I have a few questions about edits I made to The Empire Strikes Back, which you reverted. I hope you don't mind; I'm a new editor and I'm still learning a lot, so it's helpful for me to ask questions of more experienced editors.

  1. When I moved the location of several images, you said, "messing with image locations messes with the entire formatting of the text." Are you saying that once an image is in an article, it can never be moved?
  2. There was a sentence that I modified, which you reverted: "Anthony Daniels was reluctant to return as C-3PO because he had received little public acknowledgment for his previous performance as the filmmakers portrayed the droid as a real being." I removed the underlined portion because it didn't make sense to me. Since you restored it, can you please explain to me what it means? Why would an actor receive little acknowledgment for his performance as a droid if the droid was treated as a real being? Shouldn't it be the other way around, that he may have received little acknowledgment because the droid was not treated as a real being?

Thanks! Wafflewombat (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You moved images specifically adjacent to text where the subject is mentioned which either introduced large amounts of blank space, compressed text between images on the left and right, or just generally made the article look messier and difficult to read. They've been positioned as best as possible stay self-contained in their own sub sections so as to not interfere with the following subsection. It's not always perfect but the changes made were significantly worse off. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The studio treated C3PO as if he was a real being and deemphasized Daniels' involvement so he wasn't getting much recognition or credit for his role in the original film Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Regarding C-3PO, here is what Rinzler says:
On August 3, 1977, R2-D2, C-3PO, and Darth Vader had put their footprints in cement in front of Grauman’s Chinese Theatre, but Anthony Daniels was the only actor from the film present in costume—and even he was feeling a great disparity between the fame of his character and the trajectory of his career. "It’s like that poem ‘all for naught since no one ever knew,’ ” Daniels says. “Star Wars was such a hit, but the filmmakers seemed to want to deny that I existed. ‘See-Threepio is entirely mechanical,’ the publicists for the distributors once actually claimed, and I have to be honest and say it hurt."
The important part is that the filmmakers said, ‘See-Threepio is entirely mechanical'. They treated the droid as a machine, and not a living being, which meant they deemphazied Daniels' humanity and didn't give him credit for his performance. Does that make sense? Wafflewombat (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the current text says, yes. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining this well. The current text on the Empire page says the filmmakers treated C-3PO as a "real being." Rinzler says the opposite: the filmmakers treated him as "entirely mechanical." The Empire page and Rinzler have conflicting information at this time. Wafflewombat (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made another attempt at editing the segment to properly convey what Rinzler says. Wafflewombat (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing in general

Hi again. I noticed that you reverted more of my edits to Empire. I have made many edits to the page, but whenever I make one that is more than just a small grammar or syntax edit, you revert it. You claim I am removing "random info," but my edits are far from random. I care deeply about Wikipedia, and I only make edits I feel are important. Sometimes, my impression is that a sentence is unnecessary, superfluous, or doesn't make sense, so I delete it. This is an important aspect of editing: trimming material to ensure the article is easy and enjoyable to read. I understand you are a much more experienced editor than I am, and my impression is that you have put a massive amount of time and effort into the Empire article, which I appreciate. But Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and I feel frustrated that you won't let me make edits that include removing small amounts of information. I have a copy of the Rinzler text now, so my edits are coming from an informed place. I have found numerous small grammar and syntax mistakes in the article, so I feel my contributions have been valuable, but I am starting to feel unwelcome on the page. I feel you aren't taking my views seriously; when I claim that general readers will not know what background plates are, you reject my opinion without pausing to consider that my view may have merit. When I said the segment about Guinness needed work, you shared quotes from Rinzler, which was generous and helpful, but once I edited the segment, you reverted it without stating why. I hope you will take this feedback not as a personal attack. I respect all you have done, and are doing, for Wikipedia, and my feedback comes from a place of wanting to collaborate with you to make the Empire page the best it can be. I hope you will listen to what I have said, and reply at some point in the future. Thank you. Wafflewombat (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to edit on Wikipedia you have to accept that some edits will be undone, especially when you're removing content based on personal assessments. You've literally made dozens of edits, I'm not sure why restoring content that you removed arbitrarily is causing a great issue for you. This, {{
WP:STATUSQUO. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the reply. The pattern I have noticed is that most of the time, when I make an edit that is larger than a small grammar edit, you don't agree with it, and you revert it. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just noticing that we don't agree on a lot of edits. What I'm going to do is continue to make small grammar edits on the page, but if I want to make a larger edit I'm going to post it as a suggestion on the Talk page, for you and others to review. I'm hoping this will save you the hassle of combing through my edits, and going forward I will no longer get frustrated about my edits being reverted, because I'm not going to make them until there seems to be a level of consensus. Wafflewombat (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements

I'm responding to a few of your edit summaries.

I'm not going to discuss the Daniels segment anymore. My feeling is that you are misreading or misunderstanding it, and your feeling is that I am misreading or misunderstanding it. Since it appears neither of us is going to be convinced otherwise, I'm going to drop it. I hope you understand that I was not intending to be disruptive with the edits. I made them because I thought you and I were finally on the same page about the meaning of the segment, and I thought you had made a small mistake in omitting a few words.

The only reason I moved the images was because you expressed the importance of eliminating white space around images (you mentioned this on this page, under "Empire edits"). If my moving the images made things worse, it's because my computer must be formatting the page differently than yours. When I moved them, the white space was reduced for me, and nothing else was impacted negatively. I say this so you understand I was not intending to be disruptive in this case either. It must be a device formatting issue. Wafflewombat (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misreading it, this is a separate interview where he explicitly says they pretend C-3P0 was a real robot, and yet you've continued to modify the context o that text regarding this at least 3 times by this point. That's not a disagreement, it's you inserting factual inaccuracies, me correcting it, and you doing it again. As for the images, I don't know what resolution or device you're using but if you've previously moved the images to those same positions and I said it caused an issue, why would you then move the images again to the similar positions as before? Plus I reinserted the anecdote about the Stormtrooper stepping on Vader's cape and you've made an issue of that as well. You've made what must be a few dozen edits without issue but any edit you make that I challenge you on you're either here debating it or on the film's talk page debating it. Not every edit you make is going to be accepted and it probably seems more because you keep changing the Daniels and Guinness information so I have to keepundoing it, but those are small amounts of the high number of individual edits you've made to the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of Wikipedia culture is that content is up for debate. I posted the segments I have issues with, or questions about, on the Talk page because I would like to hear the opinions of other editors. Is there something wrong with that?
The first time I moved the images, I did not take into account how it affected the white space and text formatting. You explained to me that these are considerations one must take into account when moving images. So when I noticed that there was extra white space, I moved them again and took into account all the variables you mentioned. If they ended up in the same spots as before, I can see why that would be frustrating and confusing, because it seemed to you that I wasn't listening. When I moved them the second time, I didn't check to see if they were in the same spots as when I moved them before, I just checked on the white space and text wrapping, and I figured that if those were improved (or at least not impacted), then you would welcome this change. But clearly if the page was negatively impacted on your device, then I'm glad you moved them back, and I'll take more care in the future to ensure that my device is displaying pages correctly so this doesn't happen again.
I've now done a copyedit of the entire article, and I'm going to move on to other pages. I invite you to consider that my work here has been in good faith, and if I have made mistakes or misunderstood sources, it's not because I'm trying to make your life difficult. My goal during the editing of this article has been to make it the best it can be. I hope you will consider that if I've inserted factual inaccuracies, it was because I didn't realize they were inaccurate, and I believed I was making the article better, not worse. I'm sorry if my mistakes have been irritating or frustrating. Wafflewombat (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Sjones23

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tarzan (1999 film) § Plot rewrite. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CE request completed

Thanks SheriffIsInTown Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Lion King II: Simba's Pride § Changes to the plot and lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens (film)

It seems like I'm not writing in English or you are ignoring my comments because of

WP:OWN
. Either way I'm going to reply below...

About "along with those of Bill Paxton and Jenette Goldstein". Article only states: "Most of the cast was also praised, particularly Biehn, Goldstein, Henriksen, Henn and Reiser". As you can see, no point of highlighting Biehn and Goldstein when there are others mentioned.

As for the image: "Sigourney Weaver's performance as Ellen Ripley received critical acclaim (unsourced claim), earning her a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actress. Her nomination was considered a milestone since the Academy paid little attention to science fiction films since its inception." This text is mentioned again in Accolades section, where it actually belongs: "Weaver's (pictured in 1989) Academy Award nomination for Best Actress was considered a milestone when the Academy paid little attention to science fiction." You insist on writing the same thing over and over again with different pictures.

And lastly, "mostly rave reviews" is DIRECTLY taken from the source, it's a verbatim quote. "generally positive reviews" is actually your own interpretation of it. ภץאคгöร 13:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]