User talk:Alientraveller/Archive 7

Re: Film series

Sure, I'd be glad to help. What are you looking for in particular, though? Also, I will be leaving for a family reunion on the other side of the country tomorrow (packing all of tonight like the procrastinator I am) for the whole weekend. I won't be around, so I don't know how effective I will be at the moment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I'll work on it when I get to work in about an hour.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going by the list on each page. I figured, Kitty was barely noted in the first two films. In the first you see a glimpse of her in the class room, and in the second she just goes running from Stryker's men. Not very important to the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You can do how you like. Just follow the coding. Remove whatever you need so that it matches the others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why's that? I didn't see any problem when I just checked it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I've seen worse on some pages that have lots of coding. What frightens me are the coding you find on user pages. I copied mine, and even then I it took me forever to figure out what did what for each code.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what happens when you keep expanding your cast.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Good move. I was considering the same idea myself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'll be around Wikipedia for the next few hours (at work now and not doing much before my vacation), so I'll be available for a bit. If you want to write prose for X-Men film series, I find it best to find reviews of The Last Stand that usually look at that film and the ones that came before it -- that's how I wrote the reactions at Spider-Man film series. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, honestly... it's been a while since I've seen the movie. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall the "United" part in there, I only remember the "X2" popping up, but it's been awhile for myself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Transformers (film)

The article Transformers (film) you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Transformers (film) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Lauren^whisper 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers (film)

I'm sure its good-article status is due in large part to your contributions. --EEMeltonIV 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It really is. This says you've made 491 edits (69 minor) to the article, with Bignole at 62 edits, JediLofty at 23 edits, and EEMeltonIV at 17 edits (11 minor). Great work! It's awesome that the article is at this status even before it's hit the UK! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just keep the BOM stuff. Unless there is a specific record broken that a news organization is reporting.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to convey when you say "brothers"? The film doesn't explicitely refer to them as any form of relation other than friends at one point (which is how I took Optimus' words), but the sentence in the article reads like it's trying to say they were family members. I don't know what the comics and book said, because they wouldn't be relevant to the film itself. I don't see a point to mention it if it's merely to qualify the fact that they were once friends.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Says so right when the interview starts. Did you want to know how bad they are, or if there were some at all?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you right now, the very first question (that's the question, not the answer) will spoil part of the movie for you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

LOL, yeah, I kinda can't wait for Potter either. The only one I've seen in the theaters was the last one. I'll probably see this one after the fuss had died some. Could you look at the last edit on Smallville (TV series) for me. I've been trying to tell this editor that all dates have to be linked, but she won't listen. She is also removing the links to articles and putting in her own choices. I've discussed this on her talk page and so has another editor, but she refuses to listen. I figured you might take a look and give your opinion on it. I thought it was clear cut, be she just ignores me. Even when I go in and correct some good edits she made, she simply reverts the whole thing to her version. I've already indirectly broken the 3RR by trying to keep the article up to MOS guidelines because of her, so I'd rather stear clear of the article until tomorrow.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

You sure? because she removed every comma for all the dates (which according to the MOS for dates, there was a consensus that the commas should stay for American english articles), she changed the Vancouver link to "Vancouver, British Columbia" which isn't a page, and deleted all the Amazon.com links, all with an edit summary of "minor"...that seems really deceptive to me, especially when most of those edits just created more problems. Anyway, your opinion on an image. Does Shawn Ashmore not look like Harry Potter in this image? lol. It reminds me of the scene in "Goblet of Fire" when he and Voldermort are going at it with their wands.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me)

LOL, Jimmy Dean the country singer?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, my first thought was actually Jimmy Dean sausage, but then I thought, maybe he meant someone else. I didn't know there was a Jimmy Dean singer. I figured you might have meant James Dean though. lol. I never really thought that though when I saw the image, I think the lightning bolt and kryptonite glow made me immediately go to Harry Potter. Not to mention he's wearing eye glasses.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. The comedy was awesome. The "shaky" action scenes is something I've noticed more and more. They do it to make you feel like you are really there. I personally find it annoying. Also, it's like they think they can fool you by gettibg in real close and showing the fight scenes all fast. It was still good. I can't wait to see it again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I picked up on that. Sometimes the action stuff would get so loud you couldn't follow what was going on dialogue-wise. I'll be in-line for a sequel myself. I definitely had a lot of fun watching it, which I think was the key to the movie.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That is why I said you'd have been spoiled if you read that first question in that link you sent me the other week. The first question was about the limited use of Starscream. You were yelling mentally for Starscream to shoot Megatron, or for Optimus to shoot Megatron? It seemed that most of the Decepticons really just cameoed, even Megatron. Hopefully, they will find a way to bring at least him back, because I'd like to see him take an Earth form and get some more screen time. Bumblebee is by far my favorite. The movie was really about him and Sam. I love how he tried to help Sam get the girl, and then later how he's following him and protects him from Barricade.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was kind of a useless death. I barely saw the character, so I didn't really care that he died. Though I would have hated it if Bumblebee bit the dust.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Shawshank Redemption

Hi, can you explain why my editing is considered to be a copyright vio? I was editing the plot because the original article (the one you reverted) was the one with a cop vio from http://imdb.com/title/tt0111161/synopsis -- and in the talk page, we were discussing how the synopsis although is brief, is incorrect. If the plot is too long, I am letting everyone to edit and make it shorter. Reverting it to the original copy vio seems weird. Thank you. HoneyBee 20:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter Talk

Yes, I know - I'm sorry. I'm in the middle of writing my dissertation and needed to let off some steem :D

Need your opinion.

Need your opinion on this talk page. Talk:Autobot Matrix of Leadership Oldandslow217 10:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Beast Wars

Hi there. As i know you're responsible for the look and maintenance of most, if not all, of the current IDW Transformers comic articles, I wondered if I could get your feedback on something. A while ago, I proposed on the talk page of the Beast Wars: The Gathering page that, as the Ascending is out in August, the page could be renamed and expanded to cover that and any future BW comics. However, Ive just found out that a Beast Wars (IDW Publishing) article has indeed been created. My thoughts are: should it and the Gathering page be merged or should it be a parent page as the current The Transformers (IDW Publishing) page is now, with each comic series having their own article. I'd be grateful for your thoughts.SMegatron 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. Thank you.SMegatron 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: simp animatics

That'd be good as well, but I (where ever they go) I do personally think that the animatics justify inclusion. I mean, it shows the film's early stages doesn't it? And they were, if I'm not mistaken, the first actual footage of the film to be shown. Gran² 19:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As said, I don't mind whether there mentioned in Amination or Marketing, I just think they should be mentioned. Anyway, I think they only way we'll ever truly find out the main stuff that was cut or altered will be the DVD commentary(ries). Although didn't the Empire peice mention the had cut the ladder sequence, which was in the first animatic? Gran² 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good good, and I found the Empire thing "I really miss that joke about climbing the ladders", well I mean, that's something about ladders. Anyway, it was only a minor, not that funny joke, not a massive change. Gran² 20:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bryan Singer

Fair use is only invalid when there are free images available of the subject. If you can find for us or produce for us a free image of Singer, then please do. AlistairMcMillan 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There are various free, out of focus, badly framed, badly shot photos of Singer at ComicCon on Flickr. By all mean if you can locate a good photo of him, I will gladly delete the screenshot myself. However, believe me, I have looked and I couldn't find any. AlistairMcMillan 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you seriously believe that the fair use claim is invalid, then how can you possibly justify still using the image but just lower in the article. How the heck does moving the image lower solve the problem? And if you can produce a free alternative then please do. I've searched for one and failed to find any. If you don't produce a free alternative, then I'm just going to move the image back. AlistairMcMillan 20:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Block

I wouldn't worry about it too much. It's only three hours, and I stand by you. It's unfair that you get blocked for reverting vandalism. ColdFusion650 22:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Care to do my to-do list in the meantime? I may as well go to bed. Alientraveller 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Got you covered. ColdFusion650 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• (Copied from User talk:ColdFusion650) I appreciate your comment of support to Alientraveller - however as I pointed out to him earlier (before he blanked the message) Sysops are required to treat WP:3RR violators equally. I also note that what you both indicate to be vandalism does not immediately stand out as such at this time - however even if it is - it would not be a type of vandalism that allows for breaking of the three revert rule. Given specifically that your talk page states that you wish one day to be an admin - Can I suggest that you report persistent vandals to WP:AIV and you will find that a sympathetic admin will consider your request to block such a person - thus removing the requirement to revert constantly.--VS ^talk 02:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with ColdFusion. Anyway, is the guy looking for a free use image of Singer? Well what's wrong with this [1] ? How is that blurry? Or crop this [2] or this [3]. Gran² 06:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Narnia Game

Thanks for your help. I am new to this, so didn't know how but appreciate your help. Swisspass 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once more for your help. I'm now going to try to start adding game screens, do those need citations too? Thanks Swisspass 11:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Jason

I'm still looking for some descriptions to add more detail to the article, but i can tell you personally that they didn't involve Jason specifically, just his mask. But, I don't know what the defined age is for something called a "Children's book". I mean, wouldn't Harry Potter be a children's book? It's dark, but it kind of started out that way, didn't it?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they were also written for children in the fact that they weren't gory or anything like that. I've never personally read them, but most reviews for them say they are quick reads that really aren't for people looking for real horror novels.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, when I find the full descriptions for them, and maybe some reviews that will show that they aren't hardcore horror books, but more in-line with R.L. Stein's Goosebumps books.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to contact an Admin to see if I can get the page and its history merged to the article. I don't want to lose all those edits. As for the images, the worst that will happen is they get tagged as "orphan", because they don't show up on any page while they are hidden. Which, I'll have 7 days to put them in the article. Thanks for reminding me though, I meant to contact an admin about the move today, but I forgot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to put out the word on WP:FILMS and WikiProject Horror about the article. Other than copyediting, was there anything that wasn't clear? My concern, which you showed me before with a couple things, is that people who are not familiar with the character might come across a statement that isn't explained enough for them to understand. Since I've read the two books I mainly used, and I know the character and movies front to back, I tend to read it generally understanding all that is said. As for Transformers, I think you'll enjoy the movie. Since I wasn't really into the toys or cartoon I can't say how you'll relate since you were a fan prior.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for all the copyediting you've done so far. I really appreciate it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean fiction got in there?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, are you aware that the c/e so far has drained almost 3kb from the page? LOL.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What kind of rewrite do you think it needs? I'll read over it and see if I can spot problems. I try and add some stuff about why they went with Jason, which appears to just be because Steve Miner felt it was the best direction to head in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's with an "e", which I corrected the mistake I just made in recent addition. As for the character throught the series. I didn't want to venture into too much film talk because the article was becoming so long. I could probably go through the beginning of each film and see if they talk about why they chose to keep the character. I know that Part V was the only one that tried to detach from the character by not using him as anything more than a psychological threat.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you could always shorten the films section. Plots are for their own articles really. I wrote Jack Sparrow to a medium extent, and then start trimming from there. Alientraveller 14:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty short as it is, considering it consists of 11 films. It probably shouldn't be too to look through the book (I have it beside me), and then I think Miller's quotes can go at the end of all of them, as you placed it earlier.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

At Worlds End

The cast image is not needed, Is it? See the Talk Page for GA reviews. Vikrant Phadkay 16:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: E.T.

I dropped some sources there, but I haven't gone through them. When I looked, I was having trouble finding anything other than straight up "book" sources (i.e. the kinds you have to buy), and I'm hesitant to buy something I don't know would even help me. Have you asked Awadewit to help find some more sources? Do you have a local library where you are? I'd check the books that Awadewit listed in the first FAC (I put them on the E.T. talk page) to see if they are available there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right in the idea that every article is different, just like every film is different. I'd say, focus on all the objective information first. I'd personally rather see 10 good articles than 1 featured article. Mainly because, I'm sure that 10 GA's from you will be sitting, in the least, right below that FA notch. Also, it's easier to work on that type of information for a bunch, and come back to one later and try and find things to improve specific sections, like "Themes" or something else. LOTR, I'm sure will have a lot of themes and scholarly talk about it. It was a huge trilogy, just like Star Wars should have a lot of stuff about it. E.T. I can see where it would be more pronounced in the Christian area. The problem is, every joe, bill and harry can write whatever the want on a film, that doesn't mean much. Have you plugged a film into the "scholar" search for google? Any film? If it isn't a literal book, that you find, any urls are generally for websites that barely look better than Angelfire. None really look that credible. It's a tough call. I think the biggest problem is that now you have Awadewit saved on that E.T. FAC and he's pretty hard on film articles. That's one reason why I had him peer review Pilot (Smallville), because he's also a good trimmer of wordiness. Some of his talents come in real handy, while others are a bit clouded on things. I personally disagree that every film will have something written about it, and if one doesn't then it can never be FA. My understanding of "comprehensiveness" is that it's the most comprehensive of what is available. If no one wrote something thematic about a film, then you wouldn't have a section devoted to that type of thing, but that wouldn't make it any less comprehensive. It's a fine line, because key word hits only prove the name shows up somewhere in the text, and not that it shows up in the way you want it to. I think E.T. is just one of the lesser talked about films of Spielberg, at least, that was how it appeared when I was trying to find some sources, unless you want to go into the Christian themes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We only have access to these articles if we head over to our library, and even then I personally don't have access to every one, because not every article is at every library. It's tricky. Have you found anything when you do a scholar search on google? I think your UK version of google should turn up different results.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll never pass off the idea that academic sources that require someone to go to the library to view them are not notable..lol. It sucks, I know. I'll look some more today at work, and see if I can find some online journals. I'd put in a request at WP:FILMS and maybe some other projects for help on the themes section of E.T., and point to the FAC's concerns that need to be addressed. You might find some more help there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and work on some other articles. Take your mind off of E.T. It will fresher if you go work on a few other articles and get them to at least GA status. That's why I had to step away from the TV episode article review battle, and go work on the many projects I had on backlog. Thankfully, I finally implimented that Smallville (season 1) page, so I could get rid of that sandbox. Next time though, I'm going to have an Admin merge the histories, because I lost 400+ edits when I deleted the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you haven't actually abandoned the E.T. article! I don't think it is a lost cause by any means. I'll try to work over the next few days to read over some of the criticism I've found. If you email me (I think my email here is enabled, though I'm not positive. drop a line if it doesn't work), I can send you six or seven papers/reviews by respected film critics that I've found online in databases so you can do this yourself. Calliopejen1 14:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I hadn't even returned to cast my support for the article. Congratulations.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Batman Begins Sequel Mention

I wasn't advocating a big description of it, just a mention of saying that there is a sequel that is confirmed and a possibility of more sequels. I don't understand why you have a problem with any mention of it or a link to it?Arnabdas 17:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:PJOscar.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PJOscar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Official site ref

Thanks for the quick ref fixings, I was in the middle of doing it (I had a hilarious edit summary..) but you beat me to it. Anyway, as said, there's a load more info from the official site source, buy I nearly went mad using it because the scroll bar is so sensitive and the print so small. So I'll leave it in your capable hands for the moment, I'm pretty sure I've got the main points from it. Gran² 19:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TFMovieprequelMP.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TFMovieprequelMP.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --EEMeltonIV 08:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Batman films

Haha, thanks. I was more like, "Uh, Melty girl, didn't you happen to see he implemented my suggestion?" Of course, Bignole provided a good solution like usual. What of the bank manager, though? I've honestly tried to find some indisputably attributable source for his role, but the exposure seems limited to your run-of-the-mill movie sites. I mean, even the Gordon wife/son pair got Variety mention... and I suspect Annoymous will be revisiting this issue yet again in due time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Me, neither, man... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I told you he wouldn't let go of it. He even lists the small role in the "Selected filmography" of William Fichtner and included a prose sentence about his minor role even with all his previous and more prominent roles simply not mentioned in the prose (an act which reeks of fanboyism). I have not been able to find any attributable sources -- BOF refers to the NHL.com blog, and the site owner says he reported Fichtner's involvement before, but I could find the entry about this. Not to mention that they have a cast list with Monique Curnen as Detective Ramirez - who the hell? In regard to the bank manager, it seemed like common sense to all but him that it would be a minor role, and it's already been explained that the other minor roles would be excluded in due course of time if they are shown to be unimportant to the film's plot. Yet he persists. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Cast section of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)

Hey Alientraveller, I noticed you added the "list-to-prose" cleanup tag to the cast section of this article. Of course, according to WP:MOSFILMS the cast list should be written as Actor as Role, but I mentioned the table version (as is currently in place in this article) on the talk page of the MOS and there was no real concern. Lists are sometimes more accessible to readers than prose, as they present the information in a more standard way. After all, the whole point of doing Actor as Role is to provide the reader with information about the role; that is already done (though, admittedly, in an in-universe way, something I intend to clean-up as soon as the last book has been published) in the individual character article. For those characters that do not have articles, there is a note at the bottom of the article. Therefore, I think a list is better suited to this article, especially with such a large cast. (It was definitely better suited before the film was released, when it included a column for sourcing each cast member, making it one of the only cited lists online; however, if you don't think listing everything so prominently is necessary now that IMDb has [or will have] an accurate copy of the cast list, I can understand.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, I can understand that. As I said, before the film was released it was more effective, as IMDb wasn't accurate yet. I'll do my best to try and convert it. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh-oh

Somebody came out of nowhere and made You Only Move Twice an FAC (here). If you could take a look at the page, it would be much appreciated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

300

Thanks Alientraveller, it is nice to be here. It was my intention to remove Daryaee from that article. Maybe you haven’t read the discussion surrounding the issue. Thanks anyway.Talsal 16:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I'm so glad that I decided to leave 300 in the hands of other editors... the political and historical controversy over the film has really become banal and tiresome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just been watching the FAC process for 300. An editor thinks that Iranians deserve more coverage, so it's like, "Here we go again," for debating the balance of information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

HI Alien or (wikinewbie!). Great to see your work is still great on films - i've lost count how many crucial film articles you've been involved in getting up to GA status its quite astonishing -shame about Casino Royale though not reaching FA. However in doing so try not to frighten away new wikipedians like you did to User talk:Acebloo however invalid his edit might have been. As a newcomer he needs to learn the ropes and develop into a good contributor - they need welcoming rather than barking at! But I guess it was a bad edit by him ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Raiders of the Lost Ark is quite superb! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yippy Ki Yay

You beat me to it. I was sitting there checking all the countries' languages and when I saved you had already removed them..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Valkyrie

Yeah, I can't stand depending on IMDb for any future stuff... I've used the cast/crew information to put together more complete Infobox Film templates of already-released films, but the site is so odd in offering up future film information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Underworld

I did enjoy the films, but not that much to tend to the actual film articles. I wanted to put Untitled Underworld prequel (now a redirect) somewhere per the merging that's been done to announced films that were uncertain to develop, and I just got caught up creating a film series article. I'd like to see a prequel; now that Wiseman is done with Live Free or Die Hard, maybe he'll do it after all. Or not. He doesn't seem very prolific. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh god... Van Helsing was terrible. The concept was intriguing, but the execution was oh-so-poor. Not one of Jackman's finest roles. It would be nice to have the concept revisited with a decent screenwriter and a director that can create the right atmosphere. Less special effects, too... it was ridiculously obvious abuse of them. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A franchise article in what sense? Like Entity in popular media? I've rather liked the concept of film series or series-related articles 'cause with the nature of the industry, it seems severely misleading for an uncertain film to have its own article. A couple of editors have the impression that Silent Hill 2 (film) will be made just because it has its own article; talk about circuitous logic. (Though some much-publicized unmade films like The Hobbit and Halo could be fine... haven't really made my mind up about that.) Not to mention, the overall cast, box office performance, and critical reaction information is nice to compare, like with the decent-awesome-meh arc of the Spider-Man film series. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure where I would draw the line in permitting an unmade film to have its own article; the criteria hasn't really been established, and I'm tired of people citing the existing articles of unmade films as a reason to keep one that's up for a merge or deletion. Something like The Hobbit has no production value at the moment, so is it really film-related? There are articles like Mad Max 4: Fury Road and Luke Cage that just repeat, "We're going to make it, we're going to make it," yet nothing is ever underway. How unique or how published should the event be to warrant a stand-alone article, you know? I'd defend Watchmen tooth and nail 'cause it has such a huge development history, definitely too large for a broader article. I haven't come across many other unmade film articles that are similarly protracted. If you notice, with my future articles subpage, I keep headlines instead of actually implementing them because I don't want to write Film adaptation sections unless I have to. It's too difficult to keep an eye on these broader articles in most cases. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers: Movie Adaption

I have the comic book and it is not called "Transformers: The Movie Adaption" - they don't use a "The" at all. That's why when I made the article, I did not either. I moved it back. if there is a problem with this, contact me. Thanksuser:mathewignash

Re EW

Yeah I thought that to, especially the part listing the writers I was like "I'm sure I wrote that.." And other stuff to, although this isn't as bad as some things I've seen, including a tiscali "biography" of David Mitchell that was essentially large chunks of stuff I'd written for his page. Anyway I added the budget from that source (seemed pretty official), and there are a lot of little details left in that source as well, very useful. Gran² 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

X2

I wasn't sure, but do you ever access Comics2Film.com? You might be able to find a ton of headlines filed under X2. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones 4

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indiana Jones 4. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 16:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alientraveller, I realize the IP didn't have any sources and was being insulting, but you were both edit warring over the inclusion of the title. I'm not going to block you for 3rr, but please don't wear yourself out over this kind of thing in the future. Try slow-reverting (come back the next day and revert something).--Chaser - T 16:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OKay. It's just should I always issue second level warnings in these constant vandalisms? Sigh, it is difficult to just keep articles factually accurate though, with these rumour-spreading editors. Alientraveller 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the warnings were fine (the important things is there's some talk page message referencing 3rr and/or revert-warring, or, in this case, sources). Again, I just want to encourage you to not revert-war so you don't get needlessly blocked. In general, if whatever you're reverting is really bad, other editors will soon revert it also.--Chaser - T 18:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

hey man, you may wanna let your boy bignole aware that hes been 3ring alot on the transformers page. its always in good faith, but you never know what someone may report ya know... just lookin out. Robkehr 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it takes extra effort to come over to my talk page and let me know personally. I'm not too worried about the 3RR though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the support, I havn't given into to the name change, there's no way in hell it should be changed, but I'm trying to get the guy to calm down. He's not exactly helping though, seems to take everything I say including "you were right" as a personal attack against him... Ah well. Anyway, saw that you've seen Transformers, what did you think? I won't be able to see it till next weekend, I'll camp out at the cinema. Simpsons on Friday, HP 5 one Saturday (should have seen this yesterday but the cinema ticket thing was broken..) and Transformers on Sunday. Works for me anyway! Gran² 20:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent news, and I'm really believing that Shia will be a huge film star from now on, the amount of work he's getting. He really has come a long way from his Louis Stevens days. And as for TSM, I told my mum that I would be going to see it opening day last year, whn of course opening day was July 27th. And my best efforts of "you know it actually comes out on the 26th, and we could even go and see it on the 25th", fall on deaf ears. "You said Friday, we're going Friday that's final!" #sigh# Gran² 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I think you guys should look at this if you already haven't. Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Citations in the lead - drafts.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

TSM Cast

I was thinking, would it be a good idea to have a cast and characters section on TSM's page? I think it could be something would be repeatedly added in crappy way later on, unless we have a clear one now. I've mocked up the basic outline (not descriptions, just the main parts) here. Thoughts? Gran² 16:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, I really just based it on the trailers and common sense. I think its pretty much the main importance characters, I put Moe and Burns in just in case, although I don't think they have that big a role. But, as you said, we'll get a definitive idea once the film has been released. Gran² 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh, we need to do something about the plot it way to long. I tried to cut it down, but I'm not very clerical (I think that's the right word) or something. And it never has any really effect. Could you re-write it at some point, I'd appreciate it. Gran² 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I was kind of apprehensive about it all day, but I actually loved it. The plot was very good, albeit to short, the film needed an extra ten or so minutes in my view. Anyway, main point, it was very funny, some jokes did fall flat (mostly the American pop culture ones, but that's expected) and the slapstick ones got the biggest laughs. But I liked most of it, and the animation was near perfect. Loved the acting to, Kavner was by far the best and Castelleneta was good as well, and I personally loved Shearer as Arnie. So I actually its got a relatively good chance for the Animation Oscar (I'm hoping the environmental message will see off the Rat), but its sure to be nominated. Gran² 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Three for me (hopefully down to just one after the weekend) and then possibly The Dark is Rising later on in the year, although that would have been better if they hadn't Americanized the lead character.. Gran² 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good good, and agree with the plot rewrite. Anyway, two other things. I lowered myself to by The Sun four times this week so it claim my free TSM stuff, the primary focus of which is a "Behind the scenes DVD", so when it comes (in a month or so...) there will hoepfully be some new production info to be added. And also, I've re-ordered the proposed cast list (same place) in relation the film. See what you think, or if we even need a cast list. Gran² 19:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah crap... some guy's nominated it for GA, nine hours ago, and didn't actually think to say so on the talk page... Brilliant, I think I'm going to fail it myself actually, as its only been out for two days it not ready yet... Gran² 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose, I don't really mind that much, but its just the principle that the guy didn't even do the nomination properly so I had no idea, that's what I object to. Gran² 08:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen cast note

Hello. My name is Tom. I am not trying to be rude, or appear as an arogant "newbie", but I would just like to note that my contirubtion to the cast section of the Watchmen wiki page clearly had a citation leading to the Comingsoon.net article that I recieved the information from. If there is something I am not seeing I would be glad to discuss it, but I don't see why an addition that I did provide a source for is not being accepted. Thanks.

Peer review

Ok, I'll see if I can take a look at Transformers. I'm busier today than usual, juggling a couple of spreadsheet projects and Wikipedia projects. I'm not sure what can be criticized in the article, though, other than typical copy-editing issues, which seems easier to do myself than to type out exactly what's wrong with the sentence. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a question about Transformers that's been bugging me. In the film, Megatron locates the Allspark on Earth and travels there. However, he crash-lands, and Captain Witwicky gets the coordinates copied into his eyeglasses from Megatron. In the present, though, didn't the military say that they found the Allspark somewhere and moved it to its present location under Hoover Dam to shield it from detection? Wouldn't the coordinates be useless in that sense, due to the Allspark being moved, or am I missing something? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. For some reason, I got the impression it was moved there, like Megatron was. It's clear now. I'm looking at Transformers now for some more copy-edit suggestions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to try to copy-edit the article myself, or does it help you to get these copy-editing suggestions from me? It's a lot of nitpicking for a peer review, so I wasn't sure. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason the review went stagnant is because it's centralized to "WikiProject Films" instead of the general Wikipedia:Peer review page. You might get some more responses from that peer review.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea what PR you were referring to on Erik's page, because I checked the talk of Transformers and I didn't see a link. I had to check Erik's contribs to find out what all the commotion was about. By then he pretty much handled all the c/e stuff, which he's really good about finding discrepancies in text.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I had another question about the film: Why were the machines that were brought to life by the Allspark hostile? If the Allspark was the source of the Transformers, why did it create a murderous Mountain Dew vending machine? (Mmm, Mt. Dew... gotta love that product placement...) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Spicer Lovejoy

Wherever did you hear that Lovejoy is an Irishman? Thomas Andrews and Tommy Ryan are Irishmen, but they don't speak with an English accent. If Lovejoy was Irish, why did they have David Warner retain his English accent? Jienum 19:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that's just plain weird. Lovejoy, an Irishman with an English accent. Who knows? Maybe James Cameron will come up with a film featuring Japanese men with French accents. Anyway, thanks for putting me right. Is this scene on Youtube by any chance? Or did you see it on your DVD? Jienum 19:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Warner himself is English, but Neeson is Irish. I seriously doubt Warner is Irish with that accent, and what's more, when they played Ra's Al Ghul, both used English accents. He may be of Irish descent, however, but I think Warner is an Englishman; he's used that accent everywhere I've seen him (Tron, Titanic, B:TAS, Time Bandits, Freakazoid, X-Men, Spider-Man, etc.) Jienum 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

TDK

Hey, you been following the campaign at www.whysoserious.com ? Check it out; first clue is "inside joke", second is "jack the ripper". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about removing his comments. Let his attitude shine through. Bignole and I aren't in the least offended by him. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother responding to TabascoMan. There's nothing left to say, and he shouldn't be dignified with a response. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Joker Pic

There is no reason to be removing the picture other than a desire to be obnoxious. It's relevant in that section, the page is lacking in pictures as it is, and it's an official studio shot. Where else should the picture go? Stop. --CmdrClow 20:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't give him any ideas. Heh. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The rationale for the image to be used at Rachel Dawes was to illustrate a plot point. Since we do not even know what is going on in that particular scene other than the immediate act of the knife threat, it is not verifiable to make this claim. I would have supported a cropped image of the screenshot to Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes for identification purposes, but it does not show much of her look. I really do not see any rationale that would permit the image in the article, based on the lack of critical commentary in regard to the Joker's appearance or her appearance or the scene itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen (film)

Regarding this edit[4]: I've been reading the cited source (and listening to the recorded conversation with Snyder) and seem to have missed the point where he says the Antarctica and Mars sequences were cut. Is it possible we're missing the relevant source? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 08:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's possible a source has been misplaced (or removed). I only know that the particular citation has nothing relevant. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you heard, but there's a rumor that Gerard Butler may be cast as the character for the short story Black Freighter. This casting decision would make sense to me. Just something to look out for. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the computer wallpaper should stay? It's licensed as a poster, and it's an image no longer used anywhere else. I added it a long, long time ago, and now I'm not sure how necessary it is, especially since the marketing campaign will be the same here (seeing how the official site looks). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's Okay

It's alright I understand how stress can affect your mood. No big deal.

I just wanted to ask, did you really read somewhere that Snyder was cutting out the scenes at Mars and Antartica. Everything I've read from reports at comic-con has said that there doing those scenes with green screens. Also, sense Snyder has pretty much stated nis intention to stay fairly loyal to the comic, I don't see how he could cut out something so pivotal to the story

as the antartica scenes. annoynmous 02:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

review please?

User:ThuranX/Sandbox can you take a look at the two templates, and leave me comments either under each, or on the sandbox talk? thanks. ThuranX 14:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wha?

You thought that The Simpsons Movie was the worst movie ever? It wasn't perfect, but calling it the worst ever is going a little far... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I loved it. Alientraveller 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

ET

My bad, I just looked at the nomination and the talk page and neither was updated so I just assumed someone was jumping the gun. Especially because the same did it with YOMT (which he nominated, so that's why I thought it was strange). But it seems they both have passed, so congrats, about ET did, its been FA worthy for ages! Gran² 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with contributing

I noticed that you left a note on this users page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.167.96.197 regarding problems with them deleting information from articles, in particular you named Transformers. Recently, (around 2 or 3 days ago to the best of my knowledge) I added information to the Shia LaBeouf page in the 'personal life' section. The information I added came from TV.com (which appears to be a reliable source as its used as a solid reference for many wikipedia articles) and made note of something Shia had previously said about having a crush on a certain actress. The information was in no way defaming or inappropriate, as many wikipedia articles make note of actors or actresses crushes, and the information was sourced! I get the feeling it was deleted because this person didn't like it being there, or didn't want it known, rather than it being false. Is there anything I can do? While I'm not 100% positive it was this user who deleted my contribution, they are one of two people to have contributed to the article after me. I asked both users if they could tell me where they found a source that conflicts with my contribution but neither did! Thankyou. --Rosario 05:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond

File:Walther PPK.jpg		WikiProject James Bond
		Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you have made some edits relating to James Bond. May I interest you in joining the James Bond WikiProject, which aims to greatly improve the rugby league articles on Wikipedia. You may wish to seek some help about the WikiProject, if so please ask your question here. If you need help on general Wikipedia place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question. SpecialWindler talk 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(note that table was substed and is intended for new wikipedians but I invite you to join) SpecialWindler talk 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

LOTR films 2 & 3: Germany

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy#German

IMDB lists Germany on the country list for LOTR films 2 and 3:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167261/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/

It may well be that this German financial company is some kind of tax dodge, or a way of reducing fees paid in the EU, or who knows what. But personally I think that if they are included in the official list of producing companies, and if IMDB accepts this, then Wikipedia should also accept it. --RenniePet 10:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the discussion item mentioned above? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_film_trilogy#German

Have you tried doing a Google search for "Zweite Productions Deutschland Filmproduktion"?

--RenniePet 10:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

We have enough proofs, I will change it again. Helpsloose 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Buffy Questions

Cool, thanks for answering. :) Although, the release of what, DVD or the film itself? I assume you mean film, but you weren't specific. Oh, and I'd be interested to hear how you are like the Doctor, and which one. Paul730 11:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Quiet like Tennant"? You can't get the man to shut up! Lol. As for the DVD citing, I might have to look the Jason Voorhees article over - I think Bignole cited the DVD as 1980 which seems unlikely somehow. ;) I'm quite interested in Aspergers. I think I might have it myself - but then I think I'm just a hypochondriach (sp?) I do identity with some of the symptoms though; narrow interests, ritual behaviour, strange body language, paranoia, clumsiness. I also have difficulty in social situations; I have friends but I'm not friends with their friends if you know what I mean. I like talking to people one-on-one and not in a group, which can be quite lonely. Unfortunately I'm not super-smart when it comes to math and science - I'm more artistic and better at art and English. Like I said, I'm probably just a hypocondraich. Paul730 11:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm a Marvel fanboy so DC is the enemy. ;) The closest I get to reading DC is Fables. I might watch the Watchmen movie though, if it ever comes out. I remember reading previews for it when Fantastic Four 1 was still in development. Paul730 14:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are your favourite Marvel characters and why? Like I said to Bigs, I love Cyclops, but a complete list is on my user page. Paul730 15:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Even Polaris? Lol, just kidding. I love Marvel too, even if you do have to take the four decades worth of continuity spread across hundreds of titles with a pinch of salt. Looking forward to X-Men: Endangered Species (I always wait fot TPBs - the only floppy I buy is Buffy) Paul730 11:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Prestige

Aloha. I'm going through The Prestige (film) again, prepping for a second rewrite. I'm presently having trouble verifying these claims. Can you point me in the right direction? I'm trying to put Sam Toy's claims in chronological order. There's no hurry on this. If you're busy, I might just end up removing them from the article until I can get some more information. Another problem is with the dates: Jonathan Nolan estimates that there were only 57 days of total shooting. —Viriditas | Talk 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It's hard to track down some stuff. Basically, I'm looking for any information (including the Empire article itself) which lends credence to Sam Toy's claim that "Christopher Priest had been approached before for an adaptation by Julian Jarrold and Sam Mendes' producer" and that Priest "was impressed by Christopher Nolan's films Following and Memento, and personally approved the Nolans' adaptation of his novel". I can't find a copy of Toy's article, and I'm trying to put this in chronological order based on some new content I'm adding to the article. Like I said, no hurry on this. I'm going through the whole article. —Viriditas | Talk 12:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to the Empire article or know where I can find it? Is it indexed by any databases or it only available in print? I can't find it online. No big deal, just wondering if you have an answer. —Viriditas | Talk 12:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Then it can't be verified. That information doesn't appear in any other source. —Viriditas | Talk 12:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, but there's a process for verifying claims, and when popular claims only appear in one place, it's somewhat suspicious, even if they are true. That's why it's important to verify claims, usually by comparing sources. I'll keep looking. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to follow up with something you wrote on my talk page. You wrote, "Empire's articles are only avaliable in print: the whole magazine isn't online..." Do you know if the online version is completely different than the print version? From what I can tell, most of the Empire pieces that are cited in film articles can be found on the website. Are we dealing with two different versions of the magazine? —Viriditas | Talk 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Shadow of the Bat

BOF has mentioned Shadow of the Bat as the title for the third film under Nolan. I've created the article as a redirect; see further discussion on the redirect's talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: F13

Yeah, I heard. I'm hoping that the F13 films are there. Siskel is the one that was so pissed at the movie that not only did he give away the ending, but he issued out Betsy Palmer's mailing address so people could write her nasty letters.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Just checked. Not a single review by the name of Friday the 13th.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, they're all videos and the url only changes to what you are searching, not to the actual video. If you cite the review you won't be able to link directly to the video. You can link to the search that found it, and peole can find and click it for themselves. They don't have any F13 review until Jason X.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

LOTR

I've responded. It seems to be a dubious claim, considering the lack of widespread coverage about this company. Even if this company was part of production somehow, it's not notable enough to refer to LOTR as a German production. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

2007 film articles

These articles have succession boxes, so please do not remove them from 2008 film articles. {172.209.243.209 19:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)}

I'm filing a 3RR report. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've filed dual reports for Indy 4 and Prince Caspian; see my contribs. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was fun... two 3RR reports in one day for me. That's a new reach. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

X-Men

I'd just like to say, nice job with adding prose to the Critical reaction to the X-Men film series. You've made it very well-rounded and captured different perspectives appropriately. Nicely done! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice! I like that IGN link -- it looks great for addressing the adaptation of the characters to the big screen. Keep it up! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Very nice touch to add content about what the X-Men films have influenced. I was wondering, have you ever read Kingdom Come? I've been trying to see if I can take its article on as a project... something away from films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you get the chance to read it, I do recommend it. It's definitely up there with Watchmen. It's classified as Elseworlds, so sometimes I wonder if a film adaptation will ever come of it. Could start with the Elseworlds phrase: "In Elseworlds, heroes are taken from their usual settings and put into strange times and places--some that have existed, and others that can't, couldn't, or shouldn't exist. The result is stories that make characters who are as familiar as yesterday seem as fresh as tomorrow," to break free of canon for the next 120 minutes or whatever. But yeah, this may be a difficult project -- seems that comics are even less studied than films, and coverage is not quite as widespread, especially for this older publishing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, a user keeps creating a Helen Lovejoy page, even though he has been discouraged. I am on the brink of 3RR, so I was wondering you would mind undoing these three edits: [5], [6] and [7]. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Watchmen

I guess I want to see if I can improve beyond what's already there. After all, they say that even if an article has FA status, to not stop there. I've found journals that haven't been used in the article, so I guess I'll dissect the article to see if these can replace what seems to be "common" reviews with these more academic sources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow... look here... User:Erik/Watchmen... some of the references are terrible. (I had to use Internet Archive to retrieve some of them.) Check marks are links that seem appropriate, but the X marks are inappropriate. I might go ahead and make over the site with the stuff I found, and do a FAR. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the green check marks are what's in the article and seem appropriate. The red X marks are what seems inappropriate (with reasons given after the template). The ones without either are ones I've found on my own and may implement. (Sorry for the delay, I had to commute home from work.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is what I plan to do. I'll keep going through the references and mark them accordingly, then I'll copy the article to a subpage and see if I can colorize (in red) the sections that use the bad citations to see just how much of the article is affected. (Do you happen to know the template to render the text a certain color?) I'll also keep digging for more journal entries for Watchmen -- some of them seem quite long (I've been able to save the PDF for a few of them), and they could probably replace a bit of the context and be more supportive in the academic sense. Should I initiate the FAR with the rough draft after all this, or try to remake the article and initiate the FAR then? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I finished looking over the references, and frankly, I'm shocked by how bad the article is with verifiability and reliable sources. There's faulty citations that mention nothing of Watchmen and those that lack no credibility (there's actually a "Personal blog entry" reference!). "References in other works" could be considered trivia, due to the non-notability of each item. I seriously can't believe that it achieved FA status. I'm almost tempted to put it up for FAR with the evidence I have. It might be an easier transition if I have the content ready to replace, initiate the FAR, then move in sections slowly like you suggested. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out User:Erik/Watchmen/Draft... what's in red is the content provided by the bad links. Also, "Iconography, Art and History Allusions" is pure original research, and "References in other works" is just trivia. This is f-ing terrible. Watchmen (film)'s quality is way beyond this. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup

Hahaha...I guess not. I just can't stay away; editing articles is too much fun. And perhaps this FAR will put my mind at ease.

And such a clever title too, "There and Back Again".--Dark Kubrick 19:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, I know. I probably should've added the citations as I wrote it, but I'm going to add them before I add my writing to the article.--Dark Kubrick 17:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Magnetox3.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Magnetox3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Speilberg Plagiarism allegation

You removed my contribution to the page on Steven Spielberg, where I had added a few lines about the well-known controversy surrounding E.T.'s originality. You had remarked that my contribution was "irrelevant" and should instead be on the E.T. page. Of course, you didn't seem to think the same regarding the disproportionate amount of space devoted, on the same page, to other films like Munich and Schindler's List, not to mention the platitudes about Spielberg's cinematic integrity from unspecified sources. You kill me, dude!!

I humbly request you to educate yourself about the E.T. controversy by visiting the following sites: http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/01-02/09-17/ray.html http://www.satyajitray.ucsc.edu/articles/sragow.html http://www.tcm.com/thismonth/article.jsp?cid=171891&mainArticleId=160649 http://www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/11592464.cms http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010802/main8.htm#3 http://www.indiastar.com/satyajitray.html

But before that, kindly visit this site first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyajit_Ray

Regards.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananth801 (talk • contribs)

Thank You

Thank you for your welcome to this Wiki newbie! Glad to see that you're a Spielberg nut too, and thanks for introducing me to the concept of signatures. As a Brit I thought I'd add the bit about Dilys Powell, re Duel - Spielberg has admitted this himself often - and I also thought Allen Daviau should get a mention as a longtime collaborator. Cheers, Maryorion 12:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)