User talk:ErosionMitchell

June 2026

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at The Batman: Part II, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they were constructive.

NOTHING concrete in regards to Robin or Doctor Arkham being in Part ii of the Batman has been made official. The sources citied are often incorrect and speculative. It needs removing. ErosionMitchell (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to The Batman: Part II. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

~~Important points to note:~~

~~Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;~~
~~Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.~~

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing out my warning, seems you reverted yourself. Please take heed though, use talk page rather than reverting again. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:11, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to talk.

Wikipedia is for confirmed information only, not speculative rumors. ErosionMitchell (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and communication is required. If you feel so strongly about confirmed information, please don't take a look at population growth, East African Rift or ultimate fate of the universe. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous.

You're just allowing speculative, unconfirmed information on that page by unreliable sources. ErosionMitchell (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at The Batman: Part II. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 13:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With ErosionMitchell's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT reaction I agree with this warning. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:55, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start another discussion. I've copy-pasted your message

Explain why you're banning me from removing speculative, unconfirmed information from The BAtman Part II article. Do your job instead of godmodding a ban hammer. ErosionMitchell (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to ban you, nor have I claimed I did. In Wikipedia terms, there are blocks, temporary or indefinite. I issued you a warning, noticed my own error and struck through my previous warning. I did however state I agree Trailblazer101's final warning, because you don't seem to be willing to work with other people. Use Talk: The Batman: Part II to discuss the article. If you're not willing to learn and understand Wikipedia, this site might not be the best for you. Best of luck. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "to work" as this isn't a personal dispute.

It's simple fact vs speculation. Wikipedia articles should contain facts, not speculative with unreliable sources. ErosionMitchell (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean, you seem to be wilfully obtuse. It is a fact that it is expected. Those sources are reliable. But that doesn't matter, what matters is you don't want to listen to Trailblazer or myself. That's the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT part. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No it is NOT a fact that it is expected.

Nothing from reliable sources has indicated ANYTHING about robin or doctor arkham, James Gunn himsself said the rumor was FALSE. It says so further down in the article? The article is actively contradictory.

Those sources are also NOT reliable. Jeff Schneider regularly gets things wrongs. ErosionMitchell (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, use the talk page. Discuss the issues you have with your fellow editors. Do not revert again and again or an uncivil or even hostile tone. Talk it out, seek consensus and work together. That's how Wikipedia works. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:27, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, so one person is allowed to revert fine the other isn't?

Two-tier wikipedia. ErosionMitchell (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done talking to you. Use the talk page if there's an issue. Trailblazer101, I am not watching this page, ping me if you need me. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:36, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Done talking to you" aka you've got no response to my VERY reasonable point.

No wonder no one takes this place seriously anymore. ErosionMitchell (talk) 20:07, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. I am by no means in any mood to entertain such frivolous behavior. "Expected" does not inherently mean that something is confirmed, nor does it equate to a measly rumor. Sneider is a reputable subject-matter expert and his newsletter reports are more often accurate than the rumors he discusses on his podcast, so he is an acceptable source, per what is outlined at WP:THEINSNEIDER. At most, the only concession I can offer up is restoring {{Better source needed}} tags in the Cast section, but outright removal is definitely not in the equation. Gunn's word alone cannot be taken as gospel, and as an encyclopedia, we should derive off of all verifiable information available. We do not get to be selective in what information we deem desirable just because we do not like a particular source. If we only went off of what Gunn has said, then there would not be a lot to go off of. Communication and collaboration is required for all contributors to Wikipedia, so the lack of good faith editing has shown your tendentious editing patterns and uncivil behavior on full display. Bullying and being rude to others is not going to get you what you want, especially if you keep being uncooperative and disrespectful to your fellow editors. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥^{(discuss · contribs)} 00:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Schneider is the oppposite of reputable. He is wrong more times than he is right. Deadline, Variety THOSE are the reputable sources. ErosionMitchell (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe don't continuously insist on adding unreputable information then and doubling down with an unreputable source.

Variety, Deadline etc are reputable sources, not Jeff Sneider. Educate yourself. Especially as in the VERY SAME Article, Gunn confirmed that Robin rumor was FALSE. So the article is now contradictory nonsense because of your stubbornness. I will continue to remove it so visitors to the page don't end up confused. ErosionMitchell (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ErosionMitchell reported by User:Soetermans (Result: ). Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]