Talk:The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

Title

Please do not change the name of the film to The Incredible Burt Wonderstone. This is not currently the name of the film despite what IMDb says, IMDb is an unreliable source that can be user edited, including the title. All major industry news sources including Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety refer to the film as Burt Wonderstone, the only people who call it the Incredible Burt Wonderstone are citing IMDb, including their fake, user created cast listings and the premise on that site. It is not the title, at least not yet, and changes to that without a source directly connected to the film will be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwarriorblake (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Chad Kultgen

The sourced information on this page says New Line bought Chad Kultgen's script. There is no explanation being given for the obfuscation of this information other than the guy doesn't have an article on the Wikipedia, ignoring the fact there was never a link to such an article on here in the first place. His individual notability doesn't erase his history. We don't just take down notes on people who have an article. Balph continues to vandalise the article to this effect without justification. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for someone who isn't familiar, can you point out which sources verify this? - SudoGhost 17:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, the first few references, and a few others further down do verify this, so I'm not sure why it's being removed. WP:N specifically says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list" so the reasoning given for removal in the edit summaries isn't reflected by what Wikipedia's guideline on notability says. - SudoGhost 17:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. There were more obviously but I don't overuse sources for a single piece of info if I can help it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Premise"-section

There's not much information in the "Premise"-section that we haven't already read in the first sentence... May someone please add something to that "Premise"-section? --193.175.206.234 (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no information to add at the moment. And the opening is a summary of the article so it is going to replicate the main content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Bluerules disruptive cast editing.

The user is attempting to assert a cast ordering more inline with his personal preference, believing the cast order has some kind of hidden subtext in regards to the characters value in the film, citing no guidelines or evidence for such a claim, yet user waves it with authority. User failed to heed WP: BRD after 2nd edit, 3rd technically since he made a similar one a few weeks ago and continues to edit war to get his favorite ordering in place, giving no reason for why cast list which is here, present, has been in use, is easily checkable, is somehow not good enough for him, except that Jim Carrey is listed too low and user has assigned Carrey a value greater than the other cast members and so chosen a listing better fitting to his beliefs. User cites other articles to back him up like Dark City because...I dont know why, but brings to guidelines to the table. User is being disruptive, and yes persistent disruptive editing is vandalism. Feel free to explain here why what is here is not working, I advise not to continue to edit war over it or say "because this list says he is more valuable". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Bluesrules has ignored the discussion and reverted again, again without providing any guideline or reasoning for why the change should be taken over what was there or using the poster credits, user is only interested in getting his preferred cast order and little else. Has ignored 3 full warnings and an edit warring warning. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't know anything about a discussion until now. You said nothing about this discussion being opened up in your previous messages, nor did you provide a link to my user page here, which would have notified me immediately about this section. Next, you are reverting virtually every edit that is not made by you here because you want this article to reflect only your personal preferences. I could understand your reasons for not wanting the cast order to follow the on-screen credits before the film was officially released, but with the movie currently out and people having seen the billing order, you're now being stubborn. The film itself considers Carrey more prominent than Gandolfini and Arkin and this is shown in the end credits. He's billed last on the poster to give his name additional emphasis. Do you honestly believe Arkin and Gandolfini are more important to the plot? Also, your revisions of my edits have caused removal of the names of the other characters. Bluerules (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I linked you to WP: BRD four times, here and on your talk page, "bold. revert. discuss", and if you have the page on your watchlist it will show up glaringly. Next, "Next, you are reverting virtually every edit that is not made by you here because you want this article to reflect only your personal preferences." is a lie, of the last 50 edits shown I have reverted:

• [1] who removed sourced content without explanation - guideline
• [2] which double linked an already linked item in the infobox - guideline
• [3] someone else reordering the cast to fit their own preference for Carrey which is not what we do
• [4] an unsourced item of information which did not benefit the article, an article aiming for quality anyway.
• [5] an untrue statement, both based on the content of the reviews and the figures given.
• [6] Your first unnecessary cast change, 2nd technically since you copy pasted the one you did last month and in doing so removed a bunch of sourced content
• [7] labeling of antagonist and protagonist which has a guideline WP: PROTAGONIST against it.
• And then your edit warring cast changes.

And I haven't undone [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] (this one was later undone to recover the references removed by your first copy paste cast list change) [14] (same) [15] [16].

Each undone edit has a reason and/or guideline behind it. Before yesterdays edit, you were changing the cast order based on your own interpretation of who was important, with messages like "Carrey is billed last on the poster to add emphasis to his name. The actual on-screen credits haven't been shown yet, but Carrey is clearly more important to the plot than most of the other actors" and "Never mind that the premise makes mention of Carrey, but not Wilde, Arkin and Gandolfini", because you are under the impression that the order you are listed in the cast section relates to how important you are in the film, ignoring that cast lists can literally just be a prose section without a list for a start, then when the film comes out and allegedly lists Carrey earlier than he is listed here, you are now citing that as an excuse so that you can get him higher. It doesn't matter how important I believe Carrey is to the plot or if I think he is more important than Arkin or Gandolfini, that is not how we decide to list things here, and according to reviewers Carrey is THE most important person because he is the actor saving the film, should we tehrefore list Carrey first? Is that how this works? No. You also don't explain how this works in a credits list that is listed alphabetically or by first appearance. Is the first to appear more important then?

The only reason you can give for the change is that it makes Carrey seem more important, that is not a valid excuse and you've failed to give any more compelling or different reasons here. And "Also, your revisions of my edits have caused removal of the names of the other characters.". No they didn't, I incorporated the addition of Zachary Gordon and even sourced it because I pay attention to what I am doing.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not have this page on my watchlist. If you had bothered to provide a link to my username, I would have known right away about this discussion.

Your fifth revision is proof that you're altering this article only to fit your viewpoints. The Incredible Burt Wonderstone receiving mixed to negative reviews from critics is not an untrue statement and this is reflected in the information provided by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Rotten Tomatoes states that out of 150 reviews, 93 were negative, and according to Metacritic, 21 of the 35 reviews on the website are mixed. But you removed that information because you thought it was untrue. As for the edits you say you haven't undone, you've listed only nine out of the numerous revisions you've made on this article.

You're focusing on things I said over a month ago, before the on-screen credits were shown to audiences. I don't know if you realized this or not, but back then, I placed Carrey second in the cast order. I had assumed that's where he would be in the credits considering all of the focus he was given in the pre-release material. So if I was still putting Carrey second in the cast section, then you could argue that I'm basing the order off of personal preference. But I'm not; I'm placing him fourth, which is where he really is in the end credits. Incidentally, the grounds for your first revision were "per credits not preference." That's what I'm trying to make the cast reflect and you're still blocking my edits. What does basing the cast order off of who the reviewers liked the best have to do with what I've been saying? That's not prominence, that's memorability. I wanted to know if you really believe the poster order accurately depicts the prominence of the actors or you just don't want what you wrote being messed with. Deciding the cast order for films that bill the actors alphabetically or by order of appearance is irrelevant here because The Incredible Burt Wonderstone billed the actors by prominence.

The reason I am giving is the film itself says Carrey is more prominent. You actually have the gall to accuse me of making excuses when your main line of reasoning is the poster order is apparently "easily accessible" and "already in place." To that, I have two things to say. One, the official website is also easily accessible and the cast section there places Carrey fourth. Two, incorrect information is still incorrect, regardless of how long it's been in place. Lastly, your revisions did cause character names to be removed. When I changed the cast order, I also added the names of Herbig's, Garrett's, and Jacobs' characters. By reverting my edits, you deleted this information, and currently the article only has descriptions of who they portray, not who they actually are portraying. Bluerules (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, one of those users. I know I've only listed nine edits because I flat out said lets look at just the last 50 edits. Try to keep up sport. The Film Project generally doesn't even include interpretations of reviews like mixed or negative because they are open to interpretation, but both sites giving low 40s or lower scores and all the reviews saying "Hey its crap but Carrey was good" are not generally mixed and we do not say 'mixed to negative' because it doesn't make sense. Quit your WP: OWN bitching because it isn't going to gain you much ground here. I'm not interested in having a long drawn out argument with you, and I do not care about this theory you have where film credits = prominence or how you've ignored the three or four ways I've said that is wrong or situations where that would not work and therefore not be true. So you can drop that. What I asked for is a reason for the change, you can give none beyond this theory of yours, you claim the current is incorrect but give no reason why except your ridiculous prominence theory which I've explained time and time again is not how credits work all or any of the time in regards to their importance in the film (i.e. order of appearance, a-z listings, what happens then? your entire 'system' falls apart), people do not sit their deciding the credits order based on how important they think a character is in the film.

You are being disruptive with the article over an ORDERING of names and continuing this ridiculous discussion over an ORDERING of names, because you believe the order is incorrect even though I'm pointing you with a glaring neon sign to the poster that is RIGHT THERE. It is not an insult to Carrey to be bottom of the starring list, he is not at home crying about it, and you fail to give any reason for the change again that you haven't already given and I haven't already debunked. Unless you can come up with some actual reason, don't bother replying. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes and what you demonstrated is you revert the majority of edits not made by you and you inadvertently proved you're trying to make this article reflect your own viewpoints. Critics giving this film "mixed to negative" reviews is not an interpretation, it's a fact according to the information provided by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. The statement "mixed to negative" refers to the general range of the reviews; they were mixed at their best and negative at their worst. Now you're trying to dismiss what I've written as a "theory." This isn't a theory; it's a stone cold fact. It's a fact that credits are an actual part of a film, unlike posters. It's a fact that credits do bill actors by prominence. It's a fact that Jim Carrey was billed fourth in the end credits of The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, above James Gandolfini and Alan Arkin. It's a fact that these actors were not billed in alphabetical order or the order they appeared on-screen. When the end credits bill actors alphabetically or by appearence, that's a completely different can of worms, but it's irrelevant here because this film billed the actors by prominence. If the credits aren't based on how important a character is supposed to be, but they're not alphabetical or by appearence either, then what was the basis for their order? You seem oblivious to the fact that posters also bill actors alphabetically. Do we rely on the order provided by the poster when that's the case?

I'll say it again: according to the film itself, the order here is incorrect. That's still a fact, whether you want to admit it or not. After all, you see the end credits during a film, but you don't see any promotional posters. The official website (which you've ignored the existence of) is also easily accessible and bills Carrey fourth on both the home page and in the cast section. Since you value the importance of things that are "RIGHT THERE", why is Gandolfini included as part of the main cast instead of being placed with the rest of the actors who aren't prominently displayed on the poster? Yes, I know Gandolfini is on the bottom portion of the poster, but his name can only be seen through a high resolution. Even if you still refuse to listen to me, I'll still respond. Refuse to budge all you want, you're not going to win this, so stop preventing the cast section from being per credits. Bluerules (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not engaging you anymore you're oblivious. Did the credits say "In order of prominence"? Oh wait, they didn't? Didn't think so. Did they say "other orders are 'incorrect'"? Nope? I wonder why, since you're so sure you're right about this. The order is not 'incorrect', it's a list of billed stars that doesn't have to have an order AT ALL but we at the project choose to use the poster credits so when pathetic people bitch and moan that their favorite should be higher, we can say "Order by poster credits" and shut down that kind of childish editing. You are reusing and reusing the same argument about prominence and I've said about 6 times that its a load of bullwiki, you still fail to give any reason to choose one over the other that is in place and not causing any problems to anyone but those who believe in the false theory of credits by prominence. The discussion is going nowhere and is therefore over. Also there is no 'winning' this, it's not a contest but the use of the word shows that you are not interested in the article being better or 'correct', just winning the argument, your edit warring clearly displays that alongside the amount of time and effort you are putting into arguing about a god damn ORDER instead of moving on. Normally I wouldn't bother but I've seen you doing this across multiple articles and if this is what you are like the first time you don't get your way then it's better to shut you down now before you become a larger problem to the project. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Predictably, you didn't listen to thing I said. Why do the credits need to say "In order of prominence"? The end credits to G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra didn't say they were in alphabetical order. Does that mean the order wasn't alphabetical? It doesn't have to be spelled out to be true. You ignored the fact that posters also bill actors alphabetically, which puts a hole in your "Order by poster credits" reasoning. Case in point: The Man with the Iron Fists billed the first six actors alphabetically on the poster, while the end credits billed the eight leads by prominence. Incidentally, it turns out you were the one who reverted my initial edit to the cast order there because you didn't realize the poster was billing them alphabetically. You ignored why what I've been saying is a fact, not a theory. You ignored the fact that the credits are an actual part of the film. You're still ignoring the official website. And you try to attack me for not moving on. Mister pot, meet mister kettle. I was at least willing to let the poster order stand before the film was officially released. Now that it's in theaters, you have no good excuse for keeping an incorrect order in the cast section. You just personally prefer it and Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Bluerules (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You've blithely ignored everything I've said and accuse me of not listening. If the poster orders alphabetically, what does that have to do with anything? It's the CREDIT, it's the credit in place and tehre is no guideline or authority that says we use one over the other because the order of credits here is not important, as I've explained (and you've ignored) we use the poster purely because it stops people like you from doing stuff like this, until people like you turn up and start doing stuff like this. The order is not incorrect because there is no correct order, just the order in place, what does the website have to do withg anything? WHAT!? Jesus christ do you understand the restraint I'm having to use not to call you every name under the sun for your complete and utter ignorance? The credits are in an order based on an official and final piece of media we have available, there is no guideline backing you up just your personal preference for film credits. I've explained this to you time and time again and you repeat your gibberish over and over and continue to edit war over something which should NOT BE A BIG DEAL TO ANYONE NORMAL, and it wouldn't be to me but you've been so disruptive over it that I cannot let it go lest you carry on doing this kind of thing over the project. You've been reported to AIV for your continued disruption and continued to edit war before discussion is over and when no side has any kind of backing, edit warring again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh hey, you're happy to use the poster when it suits your order preference, how peculiar. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference is you're merely accusing me of ignoring you in an attempt to save face, while you actually are ignoring me. The fact that posters also bill actors alphabetically is why you cannot always use the poster credit for the cast order. As you didn't realize this, I'll have to mention that was my response to you "explaining" why you use the poster. Reverting my initial edit to The Man with the Iron Fists proves you are oblivious to alphabetical posters and you blindly follow the poster credits. Seriously, would you have kept that order in place if I didn't inform you it was alphabetical? It doesn't matter if the poster is an "official and final piece of media we have available", it's not part of the film. The credits are an actual part of the film. Material that comes directly from the film is more important than material that doesn't. After all, the main focus of this article isn't the promotional material, it's the film itself. Thus, the order is incorrect according to material from the film. What does official website have to do with anything? Like the poster, it's also an "official and final piece of media we have available", it's also "easily accessible", and it's "RIGHT THERE". So what makes the poster more important than the official website, other than your preference of it? I forgot to mention that you didn't tell me why Gandolfini is included in the cast section when he's not prominently featured on the poster. You say this "should NOT BE A BIG DEAL TO ANYONE NORMAL" when you're making a big deal out of it, so what does that make you? You claimed you were done here, so I saw no reason to not fix the cast order if you weren't going to bother supporting your case for the poster order. Finally, what's the point of your link? I didn't change the cast section there to be alphabetical like the poster, and I didn't change the starring section here to put Carrey fourth. Bluerules (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read all of that because I'm sure it's all as stupid as the rest of the wall of text you've written. Call me oblivious but I don't see how this poster is alphabetical. Is it the Steve, Steve, Olivia, Alan, James part or the Carell, Buscemi, Wilde, Arkin part? I'm not that great with my ABCs you see but damn dawg, dat dere dun luk no alfabeticul 2 me. The website is right there, it's less there than the poster which is RIGHT ON THE ARTICLE, and like the film, there's no reason to replace what is here with what is there. I didn't make a big deal out of it, you did, I explained the situation and you wouldn't let it go because you want Jim Carrey higher. And the point of the link is you are making a big stand here that the poster is not part of the film and so we should use the film credits because it is reflective of the importance of the actor, but when it suits your preferred listing, you will quite happily use the poster over the film, CONTRADICTING EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING. Like I said, replying to you made me read most of your comment and it was stupid, and soul crushing and just repeating the same stuff again. Quit wasting my time.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

After railing on me for apparently ignoring what you wrote, you're now trying to justify ignoring me because you think my message is stupid. That's no excuse; I had to read all of what you wrote to make sure you were thoroughly refuted. Now you're saying I wrote a wall of text? Do you have any sense of self-awareness? Or are things you do acceptable only because you, the great Darkwarriorblake, did them? You claim you're not making a big deal out of this and I am when you still refuse to allow the cast order to be changed, write long passages here, and throw in as many insults as you can. What next, going to say you're rubber and I'm glue? I never said this poster was alphabetical, I said posters are alphabetical and that's why you can't always use them. By the way, it seems you can't even get the poster right: there's no Steve, Steve, Olivia, Alan, James part, the poster says Steve, Steve, Olivia, Alan, Jim. And if you're trying to make the parts consistent, the other part should be Carell, Buscemi, Wilde, Arkin, Carrey. I know that's petty, but it's deserved when you're trying to act intellectually superior. But speaking of "James," you still haven't told me why James Gandolfini is included in the cast section when he's not prominently featured on the poster. The official website is linked on this entry. Sure, you have to click on it to see it, but you also have to click on the poster to get a good look at the names. Plus, the official website is an "official and final piece of media we have available" and it's "easily "easily accessible" just like the poster. The fact that I edited the starring section The Help and not the cast section is still lost on you. Starring section of the infobox =/= cast section of the page. I guess you have to cling to something to convince yourself that you're right. Bluerules (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The starring section should reflect the cast section, its the most basic of things, why would one be independent of the other? The fact you edited one and not the other is not lost on me, you can't pick and choose which credit order you are going to use in different parts of a single article. I mean you CAN, but you CAN'T if you're trying to be remotely good. You seem to be under the impression that the article is using the 5 names on the poster higher up and not the white credits at the bottom, as we at the project do on all the many Good Articles we have passed, same for the rest of the infobox credits (where do you think they are coming from? Like I said, you don't understand anything about what is done on the film articles but you keep on ranting anyway and no, you not being able to read those credits doesn't matter. The poster links to impawards where the full size poster is and where it features the same credits as the website you are so fond of, so that's TWO places using the same credits as used on this article. To be clear here because I can already see you getting it wrong and complaining again, on the website, click the button in the bottom right marked credits. Please don't say prominently again, I don't give two wiks what you think is prominent, how is Gandolfini less prominent on the poster than ARkin? Is it because his picture isn't on it? Are we inventing a 5th qualifier for what equals prominence now? We can use posters but only use people whose picture is on it? Unless you have support for the change, stop talking because the discussion is going nowhere, NOWHERE, NOWHERE, you keep repeating the same crap and making up new excuses as you go. If I don't respond to something you say it's not out of ignorance it's because I don't have the time to waste on every pointless thing you raise, like Jim vs James, jesus fwiking christ. Insert you repeating the same thing again and again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your claim of the starring section and the cast section needing to follow the same order is contradicted by the entries on The Man with the Iron Fists, Fast Five, Prometheus, and Dredd having orders that differ. You've made significant edits on all four pages and you're fine with the starring sections not reflecting the cast sections there. As it just so happens, they're also all classified as good articles. By ignoring what I've written, you've hurt your case again. When I first brought up the subject of Gandolfini's inclusion in the cast section, I said "Yes, I know Gandolfini is on the bottom portion of the poster, but his name can only be seen through a high resolution." You were arguing in defense of the poster because it was "RIGHT THERE," when James Gandolfini's name sure wasn't right there. You attacked the official website for being "less there" than the poster on this article, when one click brings you to the website, but TWO are required to see the high resolution poster on IMP Awards. It also takes two clicks to see those credits on the official website. The reason why Gandolfini is less prominent than Arkin is because, again, you can only see his name through a high resolution. I'm not saying he shouldn't be included in the cast section; I want to know why you think it's acceptable for him to be there when he's not in plain sight on this article, when you've been putting a high value on things that can be easily seen with the eye. And you tried to accuse me of contradicting myself. But I'm actually glad to see we both agree that the starring section is supposed to reflect the credits on the bottom, not at the top. I'll be sure to inform the wonderful people who refuse to let Heat's starring section contain more than the three names at the top of the poster that good articles use the bottom names. Bluerules (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bangs head on table*, do you think this is reasonable that you are STILL talking about this or that you trawled my edit history looking for minor discrepancies? The infobox cast list follows teh poster, if someone changed the order of the main cast list and I didn't notice, that isn't a support of you being like this. I worked on Fast Five BEFORE we decided to use the poster because I remember the argument spawned from a conflict at The Hangover, YOU changed the ordering of The Man with the Iron Fists and I'm pretty sure I undid it, you redid it and I couldn't be bothered fighting over it. Actually that is exactly what happened [17] [18], I said the exact same thing then and you just reedited to get your own way (so not the smartest idea to bring that up, but look who I'm talking to), and at Dredd someone again changed the ordering and its not something I can normally be bothered arguing over, but you've been edit warring and so unreasonable about it and ignoring of discussion initially that this time I'm taking a stand. Ok then, you win, we will use the credits on the website because they use two clicks to get to, like the poster. Oh wait, those credits are exactly the same as they are here? Oh well, guess you win buddy :) (BTW I can see Gandolfini perfectly fine on the one click it takes to get to the stored poster on here). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So after looking through my edits to find things to use against me, you suddenly take offense to me looking at the film pages you've made major edits on. These aren't "minor discrepancies," they contradict what you've been saying. And you know this, but you put on a condescending facade to compensate for your mistakes. Unfortunately, that just hurts you more because you act like I'm not aware of things I already discussed. I'll quote myself here: "The Man with the Iron Fists billed the first six actors alphabetically on the poster, while the end credits billed the eight leads by prominence. Incidentally, it turns out you were the one who reverted my initial edit to the cast order there because you didn't realize the poster was billing them alphabetically." Alas, it appears you don't want to discuss the fact that the actors were billed alphabetically. If you won't respond to this, then you're admitting that the two orders don't need to follow each other. I'm not interested in your excuses for Fast Five and Dredd, the articles can still be "fixed." In fact, it would be easier to argue that those films should have parallel cast and starring sections; Dwayne Johnson was billed twelfth, not third in Fast Five and the credits to Dredd were in order of appearance. And what about Prometheus? Yes, I was the one who placed Charlize Theron higher in the cast section, but you didn't mind after my second edit and you didn't accuse me of "wanting" Theron higher. I stopped pushing my edit prior to the film's release there and I stopped pushing it here prior to The Incredible Burt Wonderstone's wide release. To top it all off, you ignored the fact that all four articles reached good status despite the starring section not reflecting the cast order. That proves the starring section and the cast section do not need to follow the same order. You appear to have forgotten that you argued in favor of the poster because it's "RIGHT THERE" and Gandolfini's inclusion still runs contradictory to that. Meanwhile, the credits that are one click away on the official website (and therefore "MORE THERE" than the credits you're talking about) still put Carrey fourth. As you're unable to address your contradictory arguments and the fact that the credits come from the film itself, I'll take that as you conceding this discussion and the correct cast order now stands. Bluerules (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look through your edits, I looked at the 2nd to last edit where you mentioned using the poster, that's how far I had to look. The rest of your comment i don't care about, they;re all points I've addressed and you've ignored, or I've ignored because they were stupid, like "wah, you didn't undo my edit that time at Prometheus because it's your soul responsibility to know and do everything so that means you endorsed me". There is more text here now than there is in the article nad it's all over your wanting to reorder the cast. The cast order is in place, I based it on the poster because that's what I had (like I said despite your ignorant waffling, I can see Gandolfini just fine and no, the website credits do not list Carrey fourth, I explained. clearly. which. fucking. website. credits. we. were. looking. at. because. i. know. you. don't. get. anything. That's the order in place and you offer no genuine justification, guideline or rule for a change, so the discussion comes to a close. And so we are clear, me no longer replying to anything you have to say here is not an endorsement for you to edit the cast list order in a couple of days. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

"Normally I wouldn't bother but I've seen you doing this across multiple articles and if this is what you are like the first time you don't get your way then it's better to shut you down now before you become a larger problem to the project." Nobody cared to change my edit on Prometheus and it received good status after I placed Theron third. By not reverting me, you're demonstrating a lack of consistency. The website credits that you get with one click (after all, it's RIGHT THERE) clearly say "STEVE CARELL STEVE BUSCEMI OLIVIA WILDE AND JIM CARREY." Yep, he's billed fourth. Don't forget about the cast section on the official website either, which also bills Carrey fourth. You claim you can see Gandolfini fine, I say you're either making yourself go blind or you're changing the zoom level on your browser. Or maybe both are happening. As you have no response towards the credits being an actual part of the film, the entry on The Man with the Iron Fists demonstrating why you cannot always rely on a cast order that's taken from a poster, and the presence of four film pages with differing cast and starring sections being considered good articles, you have conceded this discussion. Bluerules (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You are an arrogant idiot, you do not get to decide my stance in this discussion, do you not understand I do not have the time to address every bullshit point you bring up? What response do you want for the Man with the Iron fists when I've flat out said that I said that you altered the order, I undid it, and you just reedited it and I didn't want to edit war? Are you that stupid? Are you that stupid that when I said, before discussing the website, that I am talking about the button that says "Credits" and lists the exact same credits as the poster, yet you've ignored that completely and picked the random billing from the image? By not reverting you on Prometheus I'm demonstrating that I have a life that doesn't revolve around checking every single edit YOU personally make on one article nor can I police every edit eveyone ever makes to a cast list. The Man with the Iron fists demonstrates nothing because there was NOTHING wrong with the poster credits, if anything Crowe is arguably the biggest name in the film, hell it isn't even arguable if you want to go by prominence, you started edit warring like you have done here. ANd when you didn't get your way you drug this out picking every possible excuse you could to get your way, all the while not finding anything to back up your desire to use the film credits over what is here, you have conceded the discussion by being unable to fulfill that simple task, the cast list will remain as it is because you fail. Please. For the love of god, move on, get a life, do something productive, and stop ending your comments with "this means you concede" as if it will give you the excuse to just redo your edit in ignorance of every point raised here and your complete lack of support to change what is in place. I repeat "And so we are clear, me no longer replying to anything you have to say here is not an endorsement for you to edit the cast list order in a couple of days.", and this is now the last thing I will say, and if you continue to edit war I will point back to that sentence, I in no way accept and categorically deny any and all attempts by yourself to concede this discussion on my behalf. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

After telling me this discussion is over in your previous message, you decide to respond with an even longer post. So when you claim this is going to be the last thing you say, I have to take it with a grain of salt. You still can't acknowledge this simple fact regarding The Man with the Iron Fists: six of the actors were billed alphabetically on the poster. That's what was wrong with the poster credits. They weren't based on how important the actors were to the plot. Are you going to tell me Crowe, Le, Liu, Mann, RZA, Yune is not alphabetical? Yes, Crowe is the biggest star, and the names were billed alphabetically so he would get listed first. But he's not the main character, he's not the "Man with the Iron Fists", that's RZA. It's the same thing with Smoking Aces - Ben Affleck was the biggest star, so the names on the poster were listed alphabetically to give him top billing. The real main characters, Jeremy Piven and a then-little known Ryan Reynolds were billed second to last and last on the poster. Do you believe the cast order there should follow the poster, even though Affleck dies early on, and most of the movie focuses on Piven and Reynolds? So, put simply, my point here is you cannot always rely on the poster credits for the cast order. If the page is on your watch list, you can "police" my edits- just like you follow all of my edits here. Also, you still have no response towards four films with differing cast and starring orders reaching good status, proving the two do not need to reflect each other. I'll remind you again that you were arguing in favor of the poster because it was "RIGHT THERE". By that logic, the credits that appear immediately on website (and bill Carrey fourth) take precedence over the ones that require an extra click. And you still won't acknowledge the existence of the cast section on the official website, which also bills Carrey fourth. The reason for using the on-screen credits, and I've said this in my past messages, is they come directly from the film itself. You refuse to acknowledge this fact, which is why you're conceding this point. With every insult you make, you end up describing yourself better than I could. The worst part is you probably don't realize you're making yourself look bad.

One more thing- the talk page guidelines here clearly say not to make personal attacks. Good job. You're an ideal user. Bluerules (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to step in and intervene here. I think we should list the cast in the poster order and the starring section should reflect the cast section per Darkwarriorblake. However, the cast section should also match the poster order. Non-billed actors should be in prose. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

So the current version? That's fine by me. Non-billed are current in prose beneath the billing-block listed people. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that a ban for edit warring over that content and a second voice in favor of the order by poster credits is not enough for BlueRules, he will be right and damned be anyone who stands in his way. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The on-screen credits are information that comes directly from the film, the focus of this article. That's why I'm in favor of using them.

Like always, the pot calls the kettle back. Bluerules (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's try again to get this issue settled.

Darkwarriorblake believes the cast order should follow the poster because it's easily accessible, already in place, and there's been no valid reason for changing the order. I believe the cast order should follow the ending credits because the credits come directly from the film, the homepage and cast section on the easily accessible website feature a different billing order, and incorrect information that's already in place is still incorrect. So which one should it be? Bluerules (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue was settled, your disagreement with its outcome does not make it unsettled. Discussion was had, no one supported your position and you've since been banned twice for edit warring over it. You can't keep restarting discussion, repeating falsehoods about website credits which were explained three times to you, until you get your way. Move. On. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue was not settled because a consensus was not reached in the discussion. The only people who really cared were you and me. This is an attempt to get more users to voice what they think the cast order should follow. One user alone joining in does not mean the conflict has ended- there's a reason why Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic don't provide a critical consensus until five or four reviews are submitted. No response was made towards the fact that the cast page of the official website (and this a dispute over a cast section, not a credits section that includes people other than the actors) billed Carrey fourth. Bluerules (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not engaging you. The issue was settled, two users to one, guideline to made up self rule. Multiple bannings for edit warring. It is over. Move on. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to engage me. I was attempting to get more users involved who could look at this issue from an objective viewpoint. Bluerules (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I could see you were going for objective by repeating the same falsehoods about the poster billing block and the website billing block being different when they're exactly the same and labeling the information present as incorrect when it isn't, except you believe it is. Completely objective, not repeating the same arguments or extending the previous discussion under a separate heading at all, not all, no sir. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going for objectivity, I said I wanted people with objective viewpoints to review this issue. I was never referring to the billing block of the official website (which is used for the infobox, not the cast section). I was talking about the cast page, which is different from the poster's billing block. I said I believe the information is incorrect in this discussion. The arguments made by both of us are new for the users who haven't seen them before. The previous discussion was about me being disruptive, this is an attempt to get more people involved in the conversation. Bluerules (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the merging of this discussion with the above and BlueRules stance that it is a different discussion because the above was about him being disruptive, this is not true, the above discussion is about the content changes and the method in which he was trying to implement them. The discussion is still about the content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion was entitled "Bluerules disruptive cast editing." Gotta look like the good guy, right? Make certain people only take your side by using a negative header directed at me. Bluerules (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There I changed the title. Do you still claim that, that discussion is any different in intent than this one? Do you still refuse to let the issue rest? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what the title is called. Point is, the previous discussion was about you protesting my edits. If you're so eager to end this issue, why are you still getting involved? Bluerules (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)