User talk:Trailblazer101

Welcome to my Talk Page! If you are leaving a note, please remember to be personal attacks, and please remember to sign your message. I am not available all the time due to my personal life and other commitments, though I will respond at a reasonable time; my time zone is displayed on my userpage for reference. At any point, I may choose to remove discussions that are concluded, as I do not prefer the archive system for my talk page. Past discussions can be found in the edit history, while WikiLove messages that I have received can be found here .

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

Trailblazer101 is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hey, I'm pretty sure you've added production weekly as a source in the past, so I'm wondering how reliable they are for unannounced projects? Trying to decide if it's worth making a draft for a Wiccan series that they recently listed. -- ZooBlazer^talk 02:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a lot of times that they compile information of projects from reliable trades, industry insiders, and the rumor mill, such as taking information from IMDb and other unreliable sites. We've had whole conversations about how reliable they are, which led some to believe they mainly are though some information can be questionable and met with skepticism. I would err on the side of caution regarding a Wiccan series, as I saw that was reported on by those Marvel insiders. As I no longer am subscribed to it, I cannot verify what the specifics are, though I would presume it is nothing concrete and probably for the best to hold off and wait and see if anything eventuates. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the latest issue also includes "Doctor Strange 3" and "Blade". I would be cautious with the former, as well, as to not jump the gun on anything, given there have been countless rumors of that one. The Blade listing could have some additional production information. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know they tend to list projects only in development stages, but it feels weird to have listings added during the strikes right now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Though some developmental ideas can be had between producers, full on development stages are a hassle without certain crew. I find it best to remain skeptical of any development/production reports during the strikes. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their repeated talk page "revolts" and refusal to work with consensus (or lack thereof) is getting disruptive. We may need to consider taking this to ANI. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus: I concur that this has been getting rather continually disruptive and unconstructive, making me question their collaborative efforts in building an encyclopedia and working together. I would get behind a report to ANI should that be viable. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. The fact that it's basically about the same few topics (mostly AitF and Helstrom) is getting very draining and the fact we just keep going around and around in circles after setting up RfCs on the matter, which all ran their course and didn't really change any current consensuses. It's getting more and more combative and like a

WP:NOTHERE situation. Don't meant to put this on either of you, but I'm not as active at the moment if you'd like to start an ANI discussion about this. And to note, appreciate both your hard work editing throughout the site. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You and Adamstom have been around editing MCU articles since way before any of us, so it's you who we should thank — for your service and leadership. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly stayed out of the conversations, but have kept an eye on them. It's gotten kind of ridiculous seeing so many very similar topics being brought up over and over, and now we have similar discussions split between two talk pages. And honestly it's gotten hard to follow because the talk pages have become walls of text, which is why I had to adjust the auto archive. -- ZooBlazer^talk 22:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you have time, do you think you could see if you can find any good refs to add to the reception section? I've looked off and on and so far the best I've found is articles calling it one of the best in the MCU/Endgame/Infinity Saga, so I guess we can try to extract some commentary from those if need be. Unfortunately the Endgame reviews don't seem to mention the scene since it was a spoiler at the time. I think the reception is the last major section that needs expanded on the article unless there are other sections that can be added to the article that I haven't thought about. ZooBlazer 01:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I'll be able to find either this upcoming week/weekend or the next. I'm currently busy with other projects, though I'll definitely take a look when I can at what I can gather. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just wondering if you have time, could you do a full page c/e of the article? You've been one of the main editors of the article, but you'd still be basically a fresh pair of eyes since it's been a couple months since your main edits, which I think is what the article needs. I feel like the article is close to being ready for a GA nomination, so me and @Dcdiehardfan have been working on adding the last bit of info that is needed over the last week or so. -- ZooBlazer 05:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: Yes! I haven't forgotten about this, I swear! I got caught up with so many other responsibilities and projects, and just recently got hit with a bad cold, though I'll have some time to look over this and see what I can do to give it a nice go-around. I applaud you and Dcdiehardfan for all your hard, dedicated work thus far! Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I neglected the article since I asked you anyway until recently. Hope the cold doesn't treat you too badly. -- ZooBlazer 05:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the c/e! I added one last reception ref so I think that section is covered pretty much fully now. I think it's finally ready for a GA nomination. What do you think? -- ZooBlazer 07:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is where ProveIt puts it, but we should be consistent with the other citation templates on each article and put website/publisher/newspaper/magazine or any synonym at the end, as Cite web currently does. If a template is already ordered that way, there's also no need to change it per

@InfiniteNexus: Roger that. I do recall that being implemented in practice on some of the DC articles, I'll adjust the refs as needed and keep that in mind for further ref updates I'm planning. Appreciate the message! Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick update in case you haven't noticed, but ProveIt should now order the parameters in {{Cite magazine}} and {{Cite news}} consistently with {{Cite web}} (unless my changes are reverted). InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I noticed they didn't move while I was c/e-ing the Batgirl and Lost Kingdom articles, though didn't bother looking into it. Glad to see it worked out for the better, and I hope they stick! Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Trail, I am not subscribed to Sneider's newsletter so couldn't see all the details. Does he specifically say there will not be a second season, or does he just say that the 9 episode halves will not be called first and second seasons? I ask because our previous understanding was for the 18 episodes to be a first season and then another season to be coming after that, so splitting the first 18 episodes into two groups that are not called seasons would not mean the second season is no longer happening, unless Sneider specifically said that. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Happy to clarify. Sneider stated "I’m told that the old footage effectively constituted six episodes worth of material. Scardapane wrote a new pilot episode, plus two more episodes that were tacked on after six episodes that were previously shot. For those doing the math at home, that’s a total of nine episodes, which will be released as the first half of Daredevil: Born Again. The nine-episode second half of Born Again will come a while later, but technically, it won’t be called Season 2 for contractual reasons. Actors often receive raises between seasons, which is why you have to think of Born Again as one big 18-episode limited series. Given that, I was led to believe that the second season is not happening and is actually part of the series being a limited series as a whole, similar to how the likes of

Better Call Saul (season 6) was released in two parts. (I tried seeing if archive.today could bypass the paywall though was unsuccessful. I'll see if I can't find another method for others to view his site's articles in full as needed.) I will note that I was skeptical of the 18-episode first season and another second season given it was cagey wording that was admittedly unclear, and it seems, at least from my interpretation of all the sources, that this was always the intention. (I didn't bring up my skepticism earlier because there wasn't much evidence to support it, until now!) Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I was always a bit skeptical as well. My interpretation was that Marvel hopes this could continue after 18 episodes, so they said it was just the first season, but they aren't at that point yet and when we heard about season 2 plans it was probably just the second half of the 18 episodes rather than an actual second season. Sneider's 'one big limited series' wording I think supports that for now. Thanks! - adamstom97 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that was my same thought process. Glad I could help. You're welcome! Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Trail. Pinging @

Oh definitely. I was not expecting it to be used as a source (because I am not one) and didn't want to interject with it out of concern with being a potential conflict of interest. I can add the PW links directly, though unfortunately I still haven't found ways to get public versions of the issues as they are only recent. I didn't want to add the info myself and wasn't expecting it to be used as predominantly as it has been. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, totally. We always have issues with PW citing because only the most recents are online, and even then not really accessible. So whatever you can add as online versions is great, and you can also do offline {{Cite magazine}} citations as well if that helps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that! I'll have time to get to the sourcing of it all later tonight. I know ComicBook covered the Thunderbolts castings, so I added that in. I'll definitely try to incorporate the magazine cite for PW as needed. This has all been admittedly exciting and I was somewhat expecting this to happen, though I think this is manageable from my end with the sourcing of it all. I just wish PW made it easier (and cheaper) to access their listings! Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that you recently closed a discussion here. Just an observation and word of advice (which you can choose to ignore if you wish) per

Thank you for letting me know! I don't typically make a habit of closing discussions, though I believed it was best to do so for these ones given the circumstances. I'll definitely keep your advice in mind for future discussions! Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you were part of a Marvel Cinematic Universe taskforce on this website. I think that's really neat! I've also noticed your similar extensive work on DC Universe (franchise) and its related subjects, and wondered if there was or would ever be a similar task force on Wikipedia for that universe. Could I get some information about that? I figured I'd ask you, since you seem to know what you're doing on here.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Have a good one! ReddlSKye (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, @

WP:TASKFORCE. It took 13 years before an MCU taskforce was created and that was done with immense editor interest, so I would imagine it would be a long wait before something like this were to eventuate. Probably several years out from now or more. In the mean time, feel free to help out where ever you can and don't forget to reach out to myself, fellow editors, or those two WikiProjects I mentioned if you ever need any assistance. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much! Although, I'm hoping that since the clear intent for a cinematic universe to come from DC has been declared, precedent may have been established, so perhaps things won't take so long to get off the ground. Again, maybe in a few years, as you said. (p.s.) the discussion you had that you linked very well explains the reasoning behind why no one has started up something *yet*.

Have a good one! ReddlSKye (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When we write an article like this, we don't list in the lead who is back in the cast or who is new, because the lead should not be a listing of 347593847 names. Whether a reliable source describes a piece of information in detail or only in two or three sentences does not mean that its content is invalid/false/null, and

I believe adamstom already articulated my rationale perfectly in his revert. Please discuss your concerns on that article talk page for a more generalized discussion. The critical acclaim piece, as I mentioned, is passing mentions in the refs cited, and that section needs more expansion to justify any such reception information consensus to be included in the lead. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect rationales indeed. ภץאคгöร 22:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't tolerate passive aggressive behavior on my talk. Please constructively take your concerns to the article talk if you have an issue with the edits, not here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct on Thunderbolts*. The info should be in filming pertaining to the chronology. I opened a talk discussion on the page so you and other wikipedians can discuss with User:Grandpallama why this is wrong. I know of this editor from experiences on other pages. They can be pretty thorough/petty to a point (sometimes about the wrong things, in the wrong way). Feel absolutely free to delete this message from your talk page and shoot me an email if you'd like once you've seen this.

Have a good one. I'm heading off to hit the sack. LMK if you wish, I'll see it in 8-10 hours. ReddlSKye (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I've watched you in other discussions go after an IP editor in the discussions of the Japanese cherry blosom tree. Even if you banned the adress, he could walk across the street and start up a new adress. The simple thing to do would have been to protect the page from the get-go and not discuss with the IP editor. However, that is irrelevant in this article. Using past info is not helpful now. We are speaking on a press event relating to Thunderbolts* ReddlSKye (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the IP editor who sought me out at my talkpage? The IP that was harassing said talkpage to the degree that admins had to pageblock them? The IP editor who was part of an ongoing sock investigation that resulted in their getting blocked?

I'd say that's irrelevant, indeed, and again invite you to strike your unwarranted personal attack. Grandpallama (talk) 01:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where making an observation about your past behaviour in other situations qualifies as a personal attack, but I will cross the word "petty" from my comment. ReddlSKye (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to go to bed now. No hard feelings, peace & love to all. Have a good one llama. ReddlSKye (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, that project is in the filming stage. anything that happens during that stage of filmmaking (even casting) is to be written in that section. Marketing during filming, casting during filming, even though in the contemporary film industry where such dedicated phases of a film's conception exist, those go to the major section wherein it is/was the current phase of the film. Please, discuss this further on the talk page of the film ReddlSKye (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are also invited to read

MOS:FILMMARKETING. If you have a policy-based argument to bring to the talkpage, you are free to do so. I'm going to stop commenting here, because I doubt Trailblazer101, whom I seem to recall having collaborated with just fine in the past, enjoys having their talkpage used as a battleground. Grandpallama (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Woah there, let's all take it easy. I wasn't expecting my one revert to generate such a reaction. This has truly been blown out of proportion and has detracted from what is the relevant point of discussion here. Please, let's focus on the contents of the article, not other editors. I would also urge this discussion to continue on the film article's talk page and not on my user talk. @

WP:STATUSQUO, which should be upheld until such consensus determines an outcome on the film article's talk page. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

you have instigated this to become a disruptive discussion by accusing fellow editors of personal attacks rather than focusing on the content I did not instigate the personal attack, nor did I bring the content discussion here. Grandpallama (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to point fingers or who said/did what. I just want the discussions to focus on the content, and the best way to do that is to centralize it on the actual article's talk page rather than continuing to debate over other editors' supposed acts or intentions. Accusing another editor of making a personal attack is a serious matter, though there are other places for you to address these concerns, not here. I encourage you to be

WP:CIVIL and WP:Assume good faith when interacting with other editors, and when you do get reverted, not to resort to reverting again and becoming distracted by what other editors may have done. I urge both of you to redirect your discussion and focus to the article's talk page for a constructive discussion on the marketing/filming details there, and to set aside any personal feelings in doing so. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I encourage you to be WP:CIVIL and WP:Assume good faith when interacting with other editors I would encourage the same of you. For all your talk of stating that you're not pointing fingers, you seem very determined to keep suggesting wrongdoing on my part and that my civilly asking another editor to strike an uncivil comment is, itself, somehow uncivil. I won't post here again, but apologism for personal attacks has no place on WP. Grandpallama (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite fond of anyone bringing their own debates onto my talk page. I merely called out your behavior which seemed uncivil to me, coming from the perspective of having only made one revet and then being greeted to all of this mumbo jumbo, especially when you are the one who perpetuated this conversation here where it is of no importance to me or my talk page rather than focusing on the content. That in of itself I see as being disruptive behavior, hashing out your own debates and personal feelings towards another editor on someone else's talk page rather than their own, or a more procedural place such as the

WP:BRD cycle, which is a policy whereas the MOS is typically a guideline for advice on how articles should be structured. I have not seen ReddISKye violate a policy in this matter yet or make allegations of other editors of severity that made any cause of concern on my part. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI, ReddaISKye was violating the policy on sockpuppetry and evading their indefinite block. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for posting again, but now that it's a new day and the sock has been blocked, I want to point out a few things. Then I really will leave this.

• The sock pinged me to this conversation to ensure I saw their comments about me, including the claim I was "petty", which is an undeniable personal attack; I didn't come here of my own volition to stir up any trouble, and one doesn't ping an editor unless they want them to see what was said, a deliberate provocation in this case. I know you were upset this occurred on your talkpage, but your annoyance was absolutely misdirected.
• The sock was acting in bad faith from the outset, but you'll notice that my only comment to/about you, before you weighed in, was to suggest that it wasn't right to use your talkpage as a battleground. I did not intend to litigate content here--I engaged only to ask for the uncivil comment to be struck. And FWIW, admins agree about my read of the incivility here, which is part of the sockmaster's history.
• the
  WP:BRD
  cycle, which is a policy It is not, and no editor is obligated to follow it, especially if they are citing clear guidelines or policies to explain their edits.
• the MOS is typically a guideline for advice It's not just "advice". Wikipedia guidelines are "sets of best practices supported by consensus" that users "should attempt to follow" unless there is good reason not to.
• I'm not sure why the MOS says a release date counts as marketing, though that has not been how these MCU film articles have done things as per the local consensus of the MCU taskforce on how these are formatted and structured, which should remain consistent. Because they have so frequently been a locus of anti-MOS editing, Wikiprojects are specifically and expressly
  prohibited from establishing a local consensus that goes against WP policies or guidelines: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope". ARBCOM even passed a motion
  that local consensus cannot overrule global community consensus, as expressed in policies and guidelines.

I'm sorry you had a bunch of drama on your talkpage; I've dealt with a lot of sockpuppets and sockpuppet investigations as an editor, to which my talkpage history is a testament, and I know people arguing on your talkpage isn't pleasant. Before you asserted I was being disruptive for responding to a pinged personal attack, I would have counted you among the more collegial comic book film editors I've encountered. I hope you will take into account that this entire back-and-forth was engineered by a bad actor, actively misleading you, and reconsider your take on me as an editor. Grandpallama (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhhhh. My most sincere apologies, Grandpallama. I should have dug further into this than what first met my eye. Typically I make a habit of investigating into these matters on my own though I failed in doing so here and was mislead as a result. No worries, though. I hold nothing against you. I see I was getting confused on some fronts in my best interest of maintaining the status quo of the article and got caught up with the excessive debate here, which detracted from my otherwise thorough approach. I'm not too familiar with why the MOS would specify release details as being a part of marketing, which I have not seen in many film articles I have edited over the years, so that part was admittedly confusing. I think it may be best to reach out to the MOS about this as there seems to be some confusing/discrepancy on that front. I do think the rationale adam provided on the Thunderbolts talk articulates with how the MCU film articles have been operating for years, as he is one of the more experienced editors on this front. Again, my apologies for the confusion and I hope we can do our best work together and overlook this sock ploy. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're all good. Thanks for your response here--I genuinely appreciate it. Grandpallama (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trailblazer. Hoping you can help me here, since I see you are a contributor, author or admin of some sort for the Marvel Animation page. For some reason int the last year, my name has been redirected to the Marvel Animation page maliciously. Previous searches of my name revealed pages featuring me across shows I produced for Mattel, Marvel, Disney, eOne and Hasbro. Now my name is only redirected to the Marvel Animation page discussing my firing. Can this redirect be undone? Is there and admin I can engage with? 2603:8000:DF00:1C00:C104:2148:9BD3:5E3 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I also see you were involved in a ban evasion on a page I was attempting to publish on my career to hopefully target the redirect to. Draft:Cort Lane

That is likely a lost cause, but was my attempt to have my name redirect switched to represent me and my career accurately and not maliciously. 2603:8000:DF00:1C00:C104:2148:9BD3:5E3 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, though that article fails to prove

WP:TEAHOUSE, though I am unsure if those will be successful in what you are looking for as most drafts will get deleted if unedited for six months, and this one looks unlikely to meet any of our article requirements anytime soon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

But since you unfairly intiated the name redirect, I would think that ethically that is something you should undo. 2603:8000:DF00:1C00:C104:2148:9BD3:5E3 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you I created the redirect with

WP:Good faith to avoid a redlink being used. I'm not going to just request a redirect to be deleted because you don't like it pointing to an instance about yourself that you don't like. There is a reason our WP:Conflict of interest policy prohibits people from editing content they are the subject of, and this included trying to dictate what editors should do on here about such content. Again, I'm sorry, but I cannot help you with this and it may be best for you to cut your losses and move on from this. The draft will likely go stale and be deleted in six months time anyway. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Well Trailblazer101, by initiating the redirect you have created harm to my public image, career and opportunities. You dictated that for me without my knowledge or consent, and I am NOT portrayed accurately in that article. So there is no "good faith" involved here, from my point of view. I am absolutely cutting my losses on the Cort Lane page, and only wish it could be pulled down so it can be deleted and I find a way to move on. In the interim, searches for me lead only to information about me being fired years ago and limit access to the true nature of my career and credits - limiting my professional prospects. I understand that this was done unintentionally, but I have been harmed. 2603:8000:DF00:1C00:C104:2148:9BD3:5E3 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Yoshi had anything to do with this and their username was likely used as part of said scam. I'm sorry you feel harm was done to you through this redirect, though these are not grounds for deletion by any means. I can surely look into a potentially different target for it, though I by no means make any guarantees. I am not liable for any losses you face from this, so please don't put the blame on me. On Wikipedia, editors are free to edit constructively within our site's policies, and the redirect I created is not in violation of those, and neither do our contributions require the consent or awareness from the subjects involved. You are free to take your concerns and issues up with others on this site as I have already directed you to, though I am unable to assure you of any help on my end for your unfortunate predicament. I by no means intended for any negative outcomes in creating the redirect, and I am not responsible for any losses you face as a result of it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can also raise your concerns and issues at this noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where I'm sure more experienced editors will be able to assist you to some degree on this than I can. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that recommendation. I will pursue that to try and fix this mess. 2603:8000:DF00:1C00:C104:2148:9BD3:5E3 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]