User talk:Trailblazer101#Production weekly

Hi, this is an automated reminder as part of Global reminder bot to let you know that your permission "patroller" (New page reviewers) will expire on 00:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC). For most rights, you will need to renew at WP:PERM, unless you have been told otherwise when your right was approved. {{grey|To opt out of user right expiry notifications, add yourself to m:Global reminder bot/Exclusion.}} Leaderbot (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, Trail. Are you familiar with the IP at Special:Contributions/92.20.112.81? If you see their contributions, and their talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:92.20.112.81&oldid=1290789305 here], they're quoting you as the reason to mass remove the superhero genre across a multitude of articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I received a ping for that comment and checked back on the discussion. In that instance, I suppose I should have specified that {{em|these}} television articles, referring to the MCU ones, typically do not include the superhero genre in the lead because they are self-explanatory due to the nature of the franchise and company behind them. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Alex 21: I just checked back and found the IP was referring to this edit on the Lanterns (TV series) article from a different IP, though I have reverted similar edits on other superhero TV articles, mainly the MCU ones. I re-reverted their most recent genre addition at that article because "superhero" being the primary genre is debatable for that series considering one could argue detective or sci-fi is more defining for that series' approach. I should note that this year I have encountered a variety of IP users from this range alone. When dealing with these IPs, which I believe are one and the same but have yet to gather enough evidence to request a rangeblock, I have mainly just been requesting semi-protection and did so for the Creature Commandos (TV series) article as a safeguard. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, that's a fair enough explanation. Saw the EW report as well. This sort of situation is just annoying. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I understand and empathize with you. I've had my fair share of difficult situations like this trying to do the right thing in defending the encyclopedia and getting a bad rapport from others. It truly is a thankless task made no much easier by IPs not understanding site policies, guidelines, or the intent of our fellow contributors. If you need any help with this, I am just a click away, and will be keeping tabs on this IP and any others in their range for the forseable future. Hang in there, Alex. Cheers! Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey, if you didn't know what my single-word edit on the page for Eternals was, you could have taken two seconds to look at it instead of blindly reverting it. Your own reason was that my edit was an "unexplained change", but Wikipedia does not have a policy of reverting edits that do not have reasons provided, and it certainly does not have a policy of reverting edits without knowledge of what they even are. In fact, the official policy for edit reasons states that they do not need to be explained if they are "obvious" and that editors should not revert a good edit because of a missing summary. If it's too much work for you to look at an edit before you revert it, you don't have to do your stupid pretend job of being a wiki-cop in the first place, so don't, and let someone less lazy handle the actual vandals. Shangra (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:No need to throw a fuss and call people "pinhead". You should assume good faith and use an edit summary so other editors are aware of your intentions. "Divisive" is a more formal wording in my book. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::"Divisive" means that something divides something else. "Divided" means that something is... being divided. It's a passive participle, which describes the object of division. The film divided its response into positive and negative reactions; it was divisive, and its response was divided. This has nothing to do with formality; it's just how English works. Look the words up in a dictionary if you really can't figure this out.

::It's interesting that I'm supposed to "assume good faith" with someone who didn't assume it with me and also just doesn't have a clue. You are a pinhead. Shangra (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith. You changed adequate wording without an explanation, so I was unaware of your intentions. If you want, the wording may be adjusted to state the film was divisive and the responses were divided, as that is the most accurate wording. Also, you should not WP:Edit war over content, as that is against site policy. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You're the one who started reverting this inarguably correct edit and won't back down even when provably wrong about it. You're the edit warrior. Shangra (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Take it to the article talk page. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Here you go! Thanks for the waste of time. Shangra (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the link to WP:FILMRELEASE -- I hadn't read that before. I should have looked into it more before reverting -- my apologies. Thank you again, and have a good day :) —tony^{st (talk)} 19:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oh no worries! You must have posted this just as I sent you a message at your talk. I've been encountering a lot of Indian-based IPs in recent months, and this has been on my radar for a bit. WP:FILMRELEASE tends to get overlooked in film infobox edits. You're all good, Tony! Take care. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to drop a template here per Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, but consider this a warning for edit warring on Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd like to add something. I just blocked the other user you were warring with for 24 hours. I blocked them mainly because they reverted after my comments at WP:RFPP, which included a ping to them. However, consider this an additional waring to {{U|Ahecht}}'s above. If you revert again at the article, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Roger that. I realize I did not handle the situation in the most adequate way, though I refrained from editing once I knew I was approaching too close to 3RR, hence the discussion I started at the article's talk. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 22:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sinners (2025 film) § Edit War Dispute. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I was gonna revert that edit on Blade but ya beat me to it.:) Hurricanemaster089 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Heh heh, perks of the rollback feature, I suppose. Always glad to know someone else is out there watching these articles. :) — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 16:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. For your information, I gave the user an only warning for harassment. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Oh, no worries. I reported them to WP:AIV and they got indef blocked. I appreciate you having my back! — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::No problem at all! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Trailblazer101 - hope this note finds you well! I'd like to follow up on Margin Call's GA review (as you mentioned in early May that I could reach out again if you haven't gotten to it within two weeks) - do you think if you would still be available to provide feedback? Thanks! W9793 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:@W9793: Thank you for the message! I apologize for not giving this as much attention and time as I would wish, but it is on my priority to review. I should get through a review this week, and will try to hold myself to at least starting it this Sunday. I've been quite busy in other areas I edit, but I promise to get this done for you. :) — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Great to know thanks a lot! W9793 (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's a good place to start. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

According to [https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/3/36/Bruce_Banner%27s_brainscan_from_The_Incredible_Hulk_%282008_film%29.png/revision/latest?cb=20250603020727&format=original Bruce's brain scan results] from The Incredible Hulk, [https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/0/08/The_mail_package_to_Bruce_Banner_%28Earth-199999%29_from_The_Incredible_Hulk_%282008_film%29.png/revision/latest?cb=20250617133200&format=original The package he received from Betty in a letter], and the [https://assets.scriptslug.com/live/pdf/scripts/the-incredible-hulk-2008.pdf?v=1729115023 screenplay](seen on page 74), his name is "David Bruce Banner", not Robert Bruce Banner. Peter-616B (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hello. I have reverted your additions again because the claim requires a third-party reliable source to be cited for this. We cannot simply cite screenshots of the film or its script alone to verify this is true. As far as I recall from that film, Banner used "David" as an alias, which was a minor reference to the Incredible Hulk TV show. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's clear from his brain scans that his first name is David, even before he fled, and the screenplay book refers to him as David Bruce Banner. Peter-616B (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::So I posted a screenshot of the brain scan results and a link to the screenplay to Bruce, and I panicked when I got rolled back Peter-616B (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia still requires a reliable third-party source to be cited to verify this content. I would suggest starting a discussion about this at Talk:Bruce Banner (Marvel Cinematic Universe) to gauge the perspective from other editors of that article. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1296834885&oldid=1296833094&title=Ironheart_%28miniseries%29 yoru revert] of my edit, and your citation of MOS:THEINST as the rationale, I notice that the second bulleted point states, "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized in running text, regardless of the institution's own usage." I assume that this the portion of that guideline you were citing, correct? Does this mean that the use of the capital in the running text of The Black List (survey) is incorrect? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:That is correct. The "The" only needs to be capitalized at the start of a sentence. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)