User talk:TheRealFennShysa/Archive 1

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 18:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cool.[edit]

Just had to say, after looking at your user page, you have a much-envied and cool job! The Wookieepedian 04:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ROTS DVD Trailer[edit]

What’s wrong with you? I’ve never posted ANY external links on that page. Look at the history page. Please at least bother to investigate before accusing someone. Copperchair 02:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the link to "spread the joy." It's the underground sites (killerfilms.com in this case) that get fans their Star Wars fix. It has been downloaded nearly 250 times in the last 24 hours. Some of us just don't want to have to pay Lucas for some of that, especially after all the re-releases we've bought all these years. The Wookieepedian 03:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair, did I accuse you? No, I think you'll find that I accused "whoever" posted it... perhaps you should take a chill pill and relax for a moment, my friend... Now, regardless WHO posted the link, or your motivations, the fact is (and this is undebateable) that the trailer was released for now to those with Hyperspace accounts, which is a paid service... if you don't have a Hyperspace account, you don't get access. It doesn't matter if you want to pay Lucas or not, or whether you feel that you're entitled to something or not (which you aren't), you're re-posting stolen intellectual property. Now, odds are, no one's probably going to do anything about it, but (and this is directed at Wookieepedian) by posting that link here, as I said before, you've opened both yourself and Wikipedia up to the possibility of legal action from Lucasfilm - I wouldn't do that again. TheRealFennShysa 15:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You DID accuse me. You said to me: I removed the external link, as you should never have posted it. I am a lawyer, so don't come telling me about a legal action... Copperchair 07:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And the "YOU" was posted in regards to whoever posted the link, as anyone who follows threaded conversations online should EASILY be able to understand... I'm sorry you fail to grasp that... lawyer or not, you seem to have difficulty in understanding how people relate to and work with one another, expecially in regards to your unnecessary and destructive edits of a certain online article, and your continued efforts in that direction, even while under a RfA for those same actions... TheRealFennShysa 14:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Special[edit]

Hey Fenn, thanks for your recent work on the holiday special article. It was certainly in need of the copyediting you did, as I'm hoping to eventually prepare it for featured status. The Wookieepedian 07:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I understand. The Wookieepedian 07:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fenn[edit]

Thanks for getting a pic up on the Tenn. Theatre, looks good. What a grand place! I had a pic up I took, but they A-Holes, took it down, oh well. PS: I' must note when that movie is coming out, please keep me posted. Thanks, Scott in Farragut Scott fisher 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who 1996 poster[edit]

As I queried on the talk page for the movie article, are you certain this image isn't a fan-made poster? Aside from the fact it doesn't seem to match other promotional items related to the movie (i.e. the logo), there's no insignia anywhere to indicate that this is a Fox or BBC promotional item. Incidentally, I would advise you to add more information to the image page. You pretty much need to provide either the publicist information for Fox or BBC (whomever issued the poster) or a URL to the site where you downloaded it from. I just had an image deleted because I tried to use the "it came from my archives" explanation and that just isn't accepted anymore, unfortunately. 23skidoo 18:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poster is a Fox promotional item, sent to TV stations for their own promotional purposes, usually for newspaper or TV Guide advertisements - I found it in my archives recently from the time I worked at Fox, back when the movie aired. This is NOT a fan-produced item. The lack of identifying marks comes from the fact that this image was designed to be modified by the individual stations. It was not downloaded from anywhere - I scanned it myself from the original this morning. TheRealFennShysa 18:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I recommend you include a note to this effect on the Image page, so that the copyright police are aware that it's a genuine promo item from Fox. Cheers! 23skidoo 19:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who run time[edit]

I just stuck the commercial DVD in and timed it to the end. It clocks in at 85' 47" from first frame to last of the end credits. But I've raised this at Talk:Doctor Who (1996). Perhaps we can discuss it there. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A New Hope[edit]

I don't want this to be a big deal. But it is always best, IMHO, to give the correct titles for things. We've had this discussion before, and the name of the 1977 film is Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. It may have been titled something different originally, but A New Hope is what it's intended to be called. That's it's name now. That's what he claims he always intended to call it. I plan to revert, but I wanted to give my reasons to you first. The Wookieepedian 19:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to let go of this incessant need to change every instance of Star Wars to A New Hope. The title didn't exist until 1981, and there was NEVER any mention of it before then. If it had been INTENDED to be called that, it would have been. It wasn't. The picture refers to 1976, and it should reflect the film as it occured then. What Lucas claims now does not jibe with recorded history and facts. He may own Star Wars, but historical fact should not be changed just because he doesn't like it. TheRealFennShysa 19:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The caption on the article doesn't specify the version from 1976. It specifies the film in general. That's why I had the caption referring to it as A New Hope. As it exists today is the way the film's creator intends it to be seen; the way he claims it was always intended to be seen. So you might say, from a certain point of view, today's version is the original version. I understand what the film was called historically, but we must take Lucas's word that he always intended to call it A New Hope. The Wookieepedian 19:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's insane... Lucas doesn't get to control history - facts are facts. He may disagree, and you may be too young to know what happened back then, but this blind devotion to revisionism is damaging, IMHO. Lucas has also changed his claims about his intentions many times over the years, mind you. An in fact, the caption on the picture, which is what we're talking about, does state 1976.TheRealFennShysa 19:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying. I fully reallize what happened originally. My point is that he considers the film to be as it is in its current state. We are not the ones to decide. Based on his words, the film in 1977 was intended to be called Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope until the studios stepped in and because he was unsure if he would be able to make the rest of his films. The reason he changed it in the first place was because he knew at one point taht he would finally be able to make the rest. And the novel, well that technically is a novelization of A New Hope. It's the same film. The Wookieepedian 19:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO, based on Lucas' words, I could claim a million other things. What happens when he contradicts himself again next year, next week, or tomorrow? Are you going to go around wholesale editing things because Lucas changed his mind? This isn't Lucas' site! Heck, they're not even this draconian over at Lucasfilm - I should know, I've been there, and I've worked with them... There needs to be another standard here, and frankly, I'm all for the truth, historical record, and facts holding precedence over one man's changing ideas about what he meant. Seriously, the man was a major influence on me and my career, but he's not god - he makes mistakes, and he frequently changes his mind. Frankly, your constant need to change every mention of "Star Wars" to "A New Hope" sounds like you're trying to force Lucas' POV on us, which is what the NPOV guideline is supposed to prevent. I come from a newspaper and TV background, where the truth and facts win out. In this case, we *are* the ones to decide. I'm voting for accuracy. I hope you can understand and accept this, as this is a community project, not your project. TheRealFennShysa 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not holding back historical facts or pushing my POV. I'm correcting the name, based on what the owner of the film in question intends it to be called. I mean, you and I and anyone could call it anything we want, but the fact would remain that Lucas, the sole owner and creator of the film, intends it to be A New Hope. Notice that I don't attempt to remove the historical fact that it was once "Star Wars." For instance, I wrote the very first paragraph of the main Star Wars article to say that the series began with the film Star Wars, later retitled Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. And in the actual A New Hope article, I mention in the "release" section that it was originally titled "Star Wars," and was later changed by Lucas. The Wookieepedian 20:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you also seem to have this desire to change historical record, as in the Oscar lists - in that case you are altering historical facts. Accept the fact that the film was not always called "A New Hope", and the film that won those awards was *definitely* not called "A New Hope." You're going to have to let some of these go. Your "correcting the name" is in some cases WRONG. TheRealFennShysa 20:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Very well. I reallize that's not what people knew it as originally. So I'll go fix some of my changes over at the academy award articles. The Wookieepedian 20:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care of... :) TheRealFennShysa 20:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek Fan Productions Entry matters[edit]

To 'TheRealFennShysa'- First, I wanted to say that I respect you as a fellow video maker. I don't wish to sound cheesy but I thought your "Empire Strikes Quack" as enjoyable as to introduce others fans to it. You see I have been in this fan video world too for some years. I have been inclusive and promoted fan videos in most cases. Also, I hold fan video makers to a high standard that includes respecting of copyrights of other artists and will offer my opinion on that issue. I also have seen a lot of public confusion(deliberate and non-deliberate) and deliberate hypocrisy demonstarted by fan video makers in their misinformed public comments voiced to their fans on copyright and matters about me. I try to correct misconceptions about these issues and myself. I also know there is a lot of bruised fan video maker egos on the Internet and as a response they have been very efficient in blackening my and other fan video maker's good names here and there. (I you wish to see my fan video resume I will post it on request.) ++++Now to my simple question to you that has gone unanswered for days. Please answer it on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek%2C_fan_made_productions discussion page... How about your thoughts for the Voyages of the Angeles revisions/deletions the second time? Netwriter 17:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)thanks.Netwriter 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Still waiting to hear your answers Netwriter 03:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video[edit]

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. That's fine and I'll leave it, of course. As a general rule it's probably not a good idea to add links to your own stuff, though, just as the subjects of articles are advised not to edit articles about themselves. Cheers. —Whouk (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:AFD[edit]

Care to have another looks at the AFD for Stella Nova (which was incorrectly at "Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand")? Grutness...wha? 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... has anyone stumbled onto your real identity yet?[edit]

Just kinda wondering, since you know, your name is attached to some of the biggest geek properties out there and all. 4.224.159.186 01:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try 'John A Hudgens'.Netwriter 20:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I make no effort to hide my identity. TheRealFennShysa 20:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, um....[edit]

Do you think you're notable enough for an article. Because I'm really tempted to write one... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I think you are notable enough (if the pages on your films are any guide). I have written a quick article (you know where to look). Let me know if there are any innacuracies. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John WI Brown[edit]

You uploaded the logo for The Daily Buzz and seem to be in the industry and knowledgable about this show. The just created article on John Brown is up for deletion, so I thought you may be interested in commenting. Cheers, NoSeptember ^talk 19:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon Park![edit]

Great Work! I've been wanting to write an article on Babylon Park for more than a year. So, now we have articles on Babylon Park, your stuff, and Star Wrek - are there any other noteworthy parodies? And since I've written articles on the Narn Bat Squad (survived AfD) and rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (appeared on the Main Page), howsabout The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<GASP!> Oh, its official. You rock. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball[edit]

Hey, thanks for the note. I blocked the IP through the run of the AFD, let me know if anything else turns up. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's a dynamic IP I'll probably just have to semiprotect the article. Let me know if another IP shows up. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROTS trivia[edit]

Just to make things clear, I'm not the one who continues to post that bit of trivia on the ROTS page. The Wookieepedian 17:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Book infoboxes on film pages[edit]

Yeah it never even crossed my mind to do that until today when I noticed RotS had its own page. I'll do that. --Skope 00:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CW Network rampant speculation[edit]

Just wanted to leave a note to say I appreciate your work on trying to keep the rampant speculation on the new network to a minimum. I've reverted a few times myself, and I see you've been kept busy. Keep up the effort; we only have to last a few more days, hopefully! :)--Firsfron 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award for a Digital Performer[edit]

Hey there. Noticed you reverted my edit but there was in fact an academy award given. My mistake, it was a BFCA award [1] Enigmatical 22:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy![edit]

I see I'm not the only net.notable (even if only slightly, in my case) who's been watching over the Animaniacs article... Jay Maynard 18:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little Carte Blanc aren't we?[edit]

Noticed that you are being quite strong in your editing with very little discussion going on at all regarding the Timeline for CGI. From your comments I get the impression you are simply wanting to compile a list of "firsts", regardless of whether they truely are something which pioneered an aspect of CGI. Yes both Jumanji and Flintstones predated stuart little but neither of them had photo-realistic hair. If you actually watched the movies you could see that the hair shown there was still very unrealistic. It wasn't until Stuart Little with the development of new software were they able to perfect the process and have it look realistic enough to use. From that moment on there were a whole spate of movies released that used the same principle including Monsters Inc which could never have featured such a realistic looking character covered in hair before. As for Titanic, Apollo 13 didn't pioneer anything!!! It certainly didn't provide anything which was a great leap, and all it did was re-create already existing footage.

I am just trying to get a feel for your reasons behind how you are editing the page. I see no point in even bothering trying to find factual resources when you are going to just remove them without any form of discussion at all. Enigmatical 01:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD and Milkandwookies[edit]

No, and I definitely disagree with the nomination, and will vote as such immediately. If you require further proof, you could see if one of the admins with CheckUser privileges can determine if Milkandwookies and I are posting from the same IP address. As I'm not he (or she), we're not. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE (why?) ↓ 16:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got to admit, I'm curious: you still think I'm him? — Mike 20:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Query[edit]

I responded to your query on my talk page. However, once you've read my reply, stop wikistalking me, please. And your personal attack masked as a warning has been {{RPA}}-ed although not entirely removed. If you have a problem with it, take it up wherever you feel necessary (or preferably drop it), but don't begin an edit war on my talk page by attempting to reinstate the (in my eyes, invalid) warning. (Policy on the matter is not clear, per Wikipedia:Removing warnings.) — Mike • 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship[edit]

Regarding your comment Paul Cyr may act like an administrator, but unless something's happened very recently, he's not. Even though we disagree on many things, I thought you should know, and probably should revert the original complaint until a real admin can look at it. Just to let you know that all users may act like administrators and short of admin tools, have the full privileges of an administrator. Given the wording at WP:PAIN, I have decided not to revert the re-addition, however as I told WCityMike, I may still remove it later if it grows more outside the scope of WP:PAIN. Paul Cyr 04:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]