User talk:Darkwarriorblake


TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Total Recall (1990 film), "about the 1990 science fiction action film Total Recall starring Arnold Schwarzenegger that questions how real your mind is if it can't be picked apart and put back together on a whim. It took about 15 years and up to $80 million to bring this project to life and Schwarzenegger had to wait until he could get his friend to buy it before he could be considered for the lead. Noted as one of the most expensive films ever made at the time and among the last major blockbusters to not only use practical effects but use them extensively. Famous for, among other things, a three-breasted woman, and Schwarzenegger committing the world's first do-it-yourself divorce."! - As it happens, today is the 15th anniversary of my first DYK, DYK? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your boundless enthusiasm and efforts Gerda Arendt, congratulations on your anniversary! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Hello Darkwarriorblake, Sorry about the recent string of failed Featured articles. I think your work is of the highest quality and hope the beast in all these articles that have failed to get up to snuff for the reviewers. Anyways, I have used your extensive expansions on culturally significant films as a basis for my most intensive and ambitious expansion projects expanding the article on the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre. So far, I have kept the edits in a separate userspace to refine and expand everything within my own time for later (and gradual) transference at a later date. I know 70s films do not stretch within your usual range of articles, however, I was wondering if you would be interested in working on it with me or, at the very least add some imput/advice. Please note: The current state is quite long and I plan on splitting it into separate articles to cut down on the length but that will be whe I can figure out what to include and what not to include in the main space. Best of luck on your endeavors and if you need a hand with gathering information dont hesitate to message me. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Paleface Jack, it has been frustrating as progress has been very slow, during Covid I was getting many more articles both completed and passed, whereas I think this year I've only managed the 1 while others are getting knocked back either for no participation or just difficult people. With all those Covid restrictions gone I don't have as much free time at work to pump these out else I probably would've considered going on to the 70s as I completed the 2000s+, but completing the 2000s+ seems a million miles away now. I've taken a look at your work and it looks good, the amount of books you've read for it is insane, I don't know how you find the time, great job there. It all looks fairly solid, I'm not sure I can add much, but I'll keep an eye on it and add things where I can if it's any use. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from you, I appreciate it. Lot of that stuff was from one of the foreign language Wikipiedias, where it was already FA. More details on the design and other things were just gleaned from my own research. It is fine if you feel you cannot add much. I believe contributions big and small are great. This film has a lot more influence than I realized and I feel it definitely should have been added to AFI, though I get the controversy if it were to be included. Article length, though I somewhat agree with the word limit, can also be a detriment cause I am an avid reader and love long film-related articles. In terms of 2000's films what other ones are you considering besides those on your userpage? Paleface Jack (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I find the 2000s pretty hard, if you look at the top films of each year it's all Harry Potter, Transformers, and Lord of the Rings, or Avatar, and I just wasn't into any of those. Like 2003 in film, there's not a film among those top 10 I care about much enough to work on in any significant capacity. Compare that to 1987, when you have Lethal Weapon, Robocop, Predator, Spaceballs, Full Metal Jacket, The Lost Boys, Masters of the Universe, The Running Man, Prince of Darkness, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, hell I even have a soft spot for Mannequin and Throw Momma from the Train. It might be because I'm a child of the 80s and 90s, so I'm really not sure where to go there. The 2010s has a few more options like Fury Road, but yeah the 2000s weren't a great time for films I'd consider classics personally. I know if I ever get to 2020 that'll be a struggle because virtually nothing came out because of Covid and what did come out I'm pretty meh on. Crank High Voltage in 2009 is fun, but I don't think it's something you'd find enough content on for a Featured Article. I was gonna do Inglorious Basterds for 2009 since it was the last film I watched with my dad, but I recently tried rewatching it and found it pretty boring, so I'll see. I did look at V for Vendetta or Constantine but I think they're both the same year and might be hard to work on, and I'm looking for some easier, quick wins right now. I was gonna do The Matrix for 1999, for example, but I've been rewatching the American Pie series lately and I actually really enjoyed it, so now I'm thinking to focus on that.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of options, prominent movies does not always need to be the case. Dinosaur is, in my opinion, an underrated classic that has a lot of technical innovation behind it. For me 2005 is pretty easy with Peter Jackson's King Kong, that film will forever be my personal favorite and one of the best. I could go on about a bunch of others but I would just sounds like a madman. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake:I don't know if you would have any ideas about this, but I recently come across a complicated situation with the Texas Chain Saw revion. Some information suggests the box office numbers available online are not accurate and (unfortunately) will probably never be definitively pinned down. The reason being, the film's distributers were tied to organized crime and flubbed the numbers (and cooked the financial reciepts) so they did not have to pay those involved with the making of the film any money (makers and cast were payed in a percentage of the film's box office that they never recieved). Estimates are anywhere between $40 to $100 million. The reason I am saying all this is I dont know how to properly add that to the article, do I mention it in the box office section or do I place it in the Litigation section?--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paleface Jack, I'd look at maybe Batman Returns and Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Batman Returns in particular has a budget all over the place. In terms of discussing the flubbed numbers, you can say something like "The budget for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is estimated to be between $40 million and $100 million. The figures are unclear because the mafia connections behind the film were later found to have deliberately released inaccurate figures to avoid paying residuals, etc." If some of this falls under litigation, you could briefly mention something like "the figures are disputed because of mafia connections" and then discuss it in detail in the litigation section. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you meant the box office, but same advice applies. Aliens has a very large box office gap for instance though not for reasons as untowards as on TCSM Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Starship Troopers nomination

Just wanted to give you a heads up, some of your citations on your Starship Troopers article are out of order when you cite some of them. I don't know if that will be an issue when people review it but I thought you should know. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for reversion?

As my edit summary described, random photos of cast members is not desireable; see any movie article that has many readers and editors who routinely watch them. Most of this IP user's edits have been reverted by others. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What research did you conduct to evidence "random photos of cast members is not desireable"? You removed images from a Featured Article, and it passed Featured Article in that state, you need to properly justify your actions, not me. Lots of quality articles have images. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going by what is most common in film articles. Generally speaking, keeping article consistent in format is desireable. Dumping large blocks of photos of celebrities, not related to the production (as opposed to, for example, cast pressers, location shots, etc), and often at wildly different ages from when they appeared in the film, isn't necessary and is unhelpful to the reader. Images in articles are desireable - large clusters of various cast members - not even in order of their prominence in the film (and including bit players) isn't good visually. If you review other prominent articles about films, you'll find typically only a photo of the lead actor and possibly the director - if even that. Most articles don't employ random photos of the cast.
I wasn't aware that SPR was in that stage when it was a features article, and I agree that my edit there wasn't appropriate. I'll take greater care to assess the article's status and prominence before removing in other articles.
It would be helpful if you used an edit summary to explain edits. I wouldn't have had to come here and ask about it if it had such a summary. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean you're acting like you know what you're doing and saying that you're basing your actions on other articles not having images, and yet your edit history is you going through articles taking out images that people have put in? So maybe re-examine what you're doing before arguing with me about what images to use. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you go through my edit history, you'll see that I've been reverting one IP editor who's been on a campaign to add these large blocks of images. One editor, singular. And if you review that editor's history, you'll that that multiple editors have reverted these additions. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how have you ended up at Saving Private Ryan? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP had made edits to the article, but hadn't added the images. I skipped ahead without checking. As I said, I take responsibility for that error. I think it's petty to just mass revert all my edits summarily, but whatever. I'll start discussions on the article talk pages. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't mass reverted them, I reverted the ones that looked normal until I noticed that the images seemed to have been added recently by the same Ip. So there is confusion on both ends but editing Saving Private Ryan exacerbated that. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Again, I F'd up with that edit, no question. SPR is one of my all-time favorite movies, I was careless. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent ping

BTW, if you have zero interest in this discussion, feel free to bow out. Just hate for the project to lose another FA article, although it is in serious need of some tidying up. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Returns

Look, sir: the best way to contribute without having to sabotage as you are doing, is to help me in this case. I am telling you this in good faith. How can you possibly claim that what I do is not constructive? I bet that you did not even take the trouble or the trouble to consult the sources that I myself seek to prevent you from ruining my edition. I am not vandalizing anything. It is obvious that what you express to me in your messages is pure arrogance, so much so that I will not edit that article again so as not to lower myself to that level. JeanMercier90 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I hadn't checked the sources, I wouldn't know they credit IMDB or that they're blogs. Reverting edits when an issue has been raised isn't acceptable behaviour so I don't really think you're in a great position to criticize me for undoing the damage you are doing to the article. Not all websites are acceptable, blogs are not, listicles are not because they're hardly ever researched they're just there for clickbait and to work the google algorithm, and sites getting their information from IMDb or WIkipedia are not, and that was all your sources. Literally the only useful one, having looked at them all, is maybe this one, and a better source would still be preferred. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, looking at the Catwoman article, someone has added a bunch of actress names who were potentially considered for Catwoman, all sourced to this article which doesn't list any of them at all. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, I repeat that you did not check my sources. I know which page is a blog and which is IMDB. My editing doesn't damage anything, especially if I have sources that you don't look at. Leave your arrogance, at least I will dedicate myself to other articles and matters. Good luck. JeanMercier90 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally just said I checked your sources. I didn't say you sourced IMDb, I said your sources, such as barstoolsports, say at the bottom that they got all their information from IMDb. I also said that similarly, the information you happen to be adding at Batman Returns was also added, unsourced to the Catwoman article. No credible sites back up what you are claiming. I checked your sources and they weren't quality sources, that's the end of it. One chunk of names you added had no source at all, but we wouldn't mention every person who was ever looked at for a role anyway. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Shouldn't the poster used be the original release poster? The one currently being used is of a 1982 re-release. Here is the original poster, and I hope you consider uploading it. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox image is intended for ease of identification, and teh 1982 poster is used on most home media, it was even on the VHS. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See you here. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Starship Troopers (film)

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Starship Troopers (film), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship Troopers (film) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 7 November 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Congratulations to the promotion above, and thank you today for this one, about a "1997 science fiction film Starship Troopers, one of director Paul Verhoeven's last works in the western studio system and the unofficial third and final installment in his anti-authority trilogy including RoboCop and Total Recall. The film was widely derided on its release as a pro-fascist film despite its intention to satirize fascism, which was blamed both on poor marketing and contemporary cultural leanings. It's reputation has grown over time once the satire became evident and is now considered a cult classic."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded more pics, on a mountain in the sun above the fog. - Madeleine Riffaud - remember. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang Hevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a bittersweet memory. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on SH2R Plot

I am starting a talk section on that page. Please advise.Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 15:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started the conversation.Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 15:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaScore grades for some pre-1986 films including The Empire Strikes Back

I saw that you removed my addition of The Empire Strikes Back getting an A+ from audiences polled by CinemaScore. I thought that Reddit was a source that can be used for citing information in articles. However, that blog is the only available source as of now that proves that that movie (among other ones) were in fact polled by CinemaScore. How else can I mention, on Wikipedia, that these films were polled as well as the grades they received? A24Aficionado88 (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Reddit wouldn't be a reliable source because it's just users posting information. I did go and find a proper source and add the cinemascore back in for Empire Strikes Back though. As for how you'd find more, I couldn't tell you, I only found the one I did for Empire using the screenshots in the Reddit post you linked to, and as I was able to trace it to the main reliable source I put it back in. You could try Variety's archives, or newspaper.com which if you have Wikipedia library access you can search for free. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Reddit post I initially cited also features CinemaScore grades for other pre-1986 films such as Friday the 13th, Kramer vs. Kramer, and The Black Stallion. Although they were founded in 1979, CinemaScore, for whatever reason, only displays grades for the movies they polled in 1986 and beyond on their website. A24Aficionado88 (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Predator (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Green Beret.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of John Wick (film)

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, John Wick (film), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the FA

After 468 treacherous days, you finally got John Wick to FA status. Sorry that I didn't get to review it myself; I was on a wikibreak. Anyways, congrats. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 18:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Corvette, yes a looooong trip to FA on this one, but thankfully the third nomination was mercilessly brief. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you

The Cleanup Barnstar
Thanks for all your work at Scrooged!   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you muchly Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Thing (1982) cast

Hi. Sorry to bother you. But i noticed that for the wikipedia article for john carpenters "the thing" there's only one actor in the cast section in the infobox "kurt russel". I added more actors to the infobox like keith david akd wilford brimley sense theyre important to the film too but the. You erased them and added a thing called meaning kurt russel and kurt russel only. Im confused. Why can the other actors be in the infobox. Keith david and wolford Brimley are famous actors you know?? And keith davids character "childs" is important to the film. So why cant keith davids name be in the infobox alongside kurt and the purer actors too. Please respond thank you. Joel clements is D E A D (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Template:Infobox film we use the names in the poster billing block, and even the film credits only list Kurt Russell as the star. It's not based on whom we judge to be famous enough to go in there or their importance to the plot. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Stern.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
  • Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Wick (film) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 27 February 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trading Places

I just watched Trading Places for the first time tonight, and I of course read the Wikipedia article afterward. Thanks for making it a particularly excellent read! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is lovely feedback. It's one of my shorter ones and probably the least culturally impactive(?) as a film compared to something like Terminator 2 or RoboCop, but it's definitely one of my favourite articles, there's so much great content relating to the film that you don't always get, especially for older films. Most of it is interesting too, it's rare you get juicy casting nuggets as you do with Trading Places and the influence on the cast's careers afterward. What I do like is because the opening song is free-use, you can click play and then use it as background while you read the article! Although re-reading it now, I think the Critical Reception needs some work, quite a few "X said..."'s in a row there that I wouldn't do today. EDIT: It's also rare to have some really cool era-appropriate cast images. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]