User talk:Bignole

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

Want to learn how to properly archive? 10 March 2006 - 7 July 2006 10 July 2006 - 30 September 2006 1 October 2006 - 30 October 2006 31 October 2006 - 14 December 2006 15 December 2006 - 28 February 2007 24 February 2007 - 30 March 2007 1 April 2007 - 5 May 2007 6 May 2007 - 14 June 2007 15 June 2007 - 18 July 2007

I reserve the right to archive talk discussions at my leisure, but will make sure the discussions are closed before I do. Thank you. See also: Wikipedia:Talk_pages § Etiquette

Jason Voorhees

Meh... still not crazy about the colour of the infobox. Why can't it just be white? Paul730 00:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind something dark like black or grey, but Jason just doesn't strike me as a multicoloured kind of guy. I get what you were trying to do with the red, but along with the blue letters, it looked too Supermanish. Paul730 00:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's better. Looks a little licac-y but I don't mind it. As for Supes... go Marvel! Paul730 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Superman is a pussy. (oh, how I love pissing off DC fanboys) Rogue would strip him of his powers, Wolverine would cut all his arms and legs off, and then Dark Phoenix would obliterate every atom in his puny body.  :) Paul730 01:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix is fire and life incarnate. She is... the Phoenix! Besides, if that didn't work, Scarlet Witch could just turn him into a carrot or something. Paul730 01:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Still say that carrot plan could work. ;) My main issue with Supes isn't his powers; it's his personality. I've already had this discussion with User: Zythe, but I just see Superman as a Mary Sue. He's too perfect. It's boring. I like the X-Men and Buffy; heroes who have a genuine dark side and are real. One of my favourite superheroes is the ever-underated Cyclops because he's so flawed (and I love his costume). Paul730 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have to respect your passion for the character. And I'll admit that I came this close to buying a Smallville boxset a few years ago, before deciding not to. I'm sure the DC universe is good in it's own way, but I'm just so much more attracted to the Marvel universe. It's more gritty and political; it feels like the real world only with these strange mutants and "superheroes" running rampage through it. Paul730 02:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, congratulations on the GA status of Jason Voorhees. It really is an impressive character article, and it should be used as an example for other character articles. I was wondering your stance, though... when is it most appropriate for a film character to have his own article? I wonder because I found a lot of WP:WAF-violating character articles that I've linked at Underworld (series), even for characters that appear in only one film. Obviously, Jason Voorhees is completely acceptable, along with horror icons -- just wondering, in terms of cinematically unique characters, what should the criteria be to warrant the creation of a film character's article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Should I reverse my proposed deletion of Selene, then? I don't believe there's anything to salvage, and I don't know if it's worth keeping available. If some passionate Underworld fan comes by, the article could be recreated with some real-world context. I'm not interested enough in Underworld to do that myself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ha. Yes, Bignole, I highly suspected that the intended word was "psychologically" and not the word "psychology" for this edit...[1]...without the possessive letter s to the name Jason that you moved later on, of course, but then I wasn't sure if the word psychology wasn't the intended word after all, as in "Jason's psychology"...even though it sounded a little off. Anyway, I love the awesome work that you guys have done and are doing to this article. It's really a great article, although you, of course, already knew/know that. Flyer22 00:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

Hey I just want to apology's for what we fought about in the smallville group can you forgive me Supermike

IMDb

So here we make our stand. Too bad we never polished that anti-IMDb subpage; couldn't have expected an actual proposal to arise. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville - Robinepowell's changes

I've reverted back to a version of yours from earlier this morning - there are too many small, non-beneficial changes mixed in with the occasional good tweak to bother sifting through every single one. Please let me know if I've inadvertently undone something of yours. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Buffy

Hi, I wanted to ask your advice about something. You say to list the original movie as Buffy's first appearance, even though it's non-canon, and I agree with you. However, what should I put for the characters whose first appearance was the Unaired Buffy pilot? It's quite a bit different to the actual first episode of the series, featuring an entirely different actress as Willow, but was never actually aired on TV or released to the public (you can see it on youtube but). Also, there are characters who appeared in the pilot, who don't appear in the first episode, but then appear later in the series played by the same actors. So putting Harmony's first appearance as Episode 2 isn't entirely true, because she was originally in the pilot, even though the pilot isn't canon... I'm confused. Paul730 23:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. :) Love the heading to your comment too; I didn't think you were all that much of a Buffy fan. Paul730 23:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you maybe take a look at the Andrew Van De Kamp article and tell me what you think of it? It's an FA fictional character article and I like the short and simple layout of it (character history, characterization, cultural impact). I was thinking of using it as a partial basis for the Buffy article, but I was wondering about the plot summary. Andrew's is rather long and detailed, far more so than the one in my Buffy sandbox. I know excessive in-universe detail is generally frowned upon, but as you said, Jason's story is much simpler than that of a TV character so it's not the ideal basis. I don't want to sell Buffy short, and with all the trivia and relationships section gone, the article's looking pretty short. Paul730 04:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just merged the character history and appearances section in my sandbox, creating an "expanded universe" section encompassing noncanon material. I know you say canonical issues are irrelevent in an encylopedia, but I don't think it hurts to point out the controversy, especially considering that Whedon has commented on it in several interviews. Anything wrong with this, or is it a step in the right direction? I'm not sure where to mention her cameos in Angel, currently they're hovering around the season 4 section but it looks quite crap. Paul730 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Action figures! Thank you, I knew there was something I'd forgotten about.  :) Actually, Buffy doesn't appear in all expanded universe material. There's books about other Slayers in which she doesnt appear; does that mean the sentence should stay the same? I'm relucant to inlcude the cartoon in with the main show because it was never released to the public, and I tried to separate the old comics and the Season 8 ones because Joss Whedon makes such a heavy distinction between them. With this in mind, do you still think I should do what you say? I've said this before, but Buffy is not like Jason or Superman, who have been created over several decades by many writers; Buffy has one clear writer who guides the series and it seems odd to include expanded universe stuff in with the canon stuff. I was kinda using Darth Vader as a loose basis, layout wise. Paul730 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Why couldn't it be Appearances>Movie>Television>Comic continuation>Expanded universe like it already is? Do you mean the EU stuff should be an independant heading rather than a subsection? The Season 8 is not expanded universe; it has more in common with the television series than it does with the original comics and is marketed as such. I get that you think it should be OOU, but lumping all the comic together when they have so little in common with each other seems strange, at least to me. The old series was just monster-of-the-week stuff set in between episodes, whereas this is a proper independant story arc. As for the cartoon, it was never released ever and can't even be seen on youtube, so is it worth mentioning at all? I only included it as a note following the video games. If you see anything glaringly wrong with the page, please feel free to change it; if I disagree I'll take it up with you. Paul730 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Treating non-canon material like it's a leper" lol... slight exaggeration I think. Believe it or not, I am actually an inclusionist when it comes to non-canon stuff. I think they have some interesting stories to offer and count many of the old comics in my own "personal" Buffy canon. In fact, when I started editing Wiki, I got told off for not making a distinction between the two. I just keep whining about it coz it's such an issue for other people that I want the article to be clear. Sorry to have gone on about it so much, I'll try to impliment your advice. :) PS, I watched F13 Part 5 last night and quite enjoyed it. People are too hard on it, it's a decent film and it continues the theme of parental vengeance from the first one, if not as well. It's much less depressing than Part 7. Paul730 23:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol... you're such a bitch (meant as a compliment - nice people are boring). As for Jason masks, I like the one in 3 but not the face underneath, like the one in 4, 5 isn't great, don't like 6 (Jason looks fat in that one), love 7, 8 looks good haven't seen it in detail, 9 was horrendous I hate it so much, 10 was great :P, and FvJ was great. Don't even get me started on Michael's masks - they were all crap except the first two (esp 5 and H20), but the new one looks okay. In fact, the remake looks excellent. I enjoy remakes, I look at them the same way I do the Ultimate comics; they're not a bastardisation, they're a fresh take on something you love, even if the original will always be better in the end. Paul730 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My God, you are way too hard on the Jason X mask. How does having a little pointy nose make it regurgitated fecal matter? (nice imagery there BTW!) Jason X is NOT BAD. Talking about the Halloween series; Halloween 1 is my favourite movie of all time, 2 feels like a F13 movie (forgetable characters, OTT violence), 3 is dismissed completely out of existence, 4 is good coz of Jamie but I hate how they killed Laurie, 5 is feeble, 6 is crap but I love Tommy (mainly coz of the cute actor playing him), H20 is awesome - Laurie is a well-developed and likable character, I love empowered women as you might have guessed, Resurrection is crap (They killed Laurie again?), remakes looks great and I like that they cast Danielle Harris as Annie. Overall, I hate the Halloween series. The constant retconning and terrible continuity just destroyed it for me. Lets hope the new one is better. (BTW, this might surprise you, but I preferred the Texas Chain Saw remake to the original) Paul730 00:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"Regurgitated fecal matter"? That's disgusting, Bigs. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And so is the mask in Jason X.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the original Texas. I looks like someone just murdered a bunch of bad actors out in the country and filmed it on a home video. I get that the whole snuff-movie feel of it was deliberate, but storywise I just didn't like it. I know what you mean about the slow pace of Halloween - I watched it and Elm St with my friend and he was like "Elm St was amazing but why'd we have to sit through that other one?" BTW, what was the reason Michael came after Laurie in H20? I can't remember there being a reason other than the usual. Oh, and Jamie was only sixteen in H6, the Thorn impregnated her, it wasn't her choice. Paul730 01:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've only seen Hellraiser 1. It was okay, I enjoyed watching it, but it didn't leave as much of an impact on me as The Big Three. Pinhead seemed cool enough, although my friend Sian (who's a massive horror buff) says he gets Freddy-ised in the later ones. I hate Freddy so much. He's good in the first one coz he's this unseen presence, but in FvJ... I went into FvJ rooting for Freddy coz I love Nightmare 1, and by the end I was like "Go Jason!". The best thing about the Nightmare franchise is Nancy. She's the perfect heroine in a horror film; she's intelligent, likable, aware of what's going on around her and not afraid to fight it no matter the cost. I love Nancy and Laurie, why did they have to kill them? :( Paul730 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen New Nightmare. :( I want to though, it looks good and has Nancy/Heather in it. I really enjoyed Nightmare 3, but I can't remember much of it. I agree with you 100% about music, all my favourite movies/shows have great music; Halloween, Terminator (how awesome does Sarah Connor look?), Buffy & Angel, Doctor Who, the X-Men movies. My favourite episode of Buffy is the finale "Chosen" because the music makes it feel so unbelievably epic. Just look at |this trailer to see. Paul730 02:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Music is crucial. I get all teared up everytime I hear the Terminator music, and Buffy and Angel's deaths are all about the music. Oh, and the Legend of Zelda theme tune. That gets me all excited to save the world from Ganon. :) BTW, do you know if they're making any more sequels or remakes in the F13 series? I would love to see Crystal Lake Chronicles get made. Just think, it would be like a Friday the 13th movie, only with good characters! I generally prefer TV shows to films because there's less budget and more character development. And as for Sarah's wet hair... well, she must be doing something right to catch Spike and Angel. Paul730 02:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My best friend was obsessed with it since forever, and I was always like "Oh wow, a cheerleader kicking people, that's exciting". Then one day he made me borrow his boxsets and I thought I might as well give it a chance. I soon realised that the point of the show wasn't the superpowers or the demons, it was the people, and all the other stuff was just window dressing. The first time I realised I was hooked was the episode where Xander became evil, and I was "Noooo! But he's Xander!" Then I cried when Angel died. It's just so good. All the stuff which people criticize like "Riley is crap" and "Season 6 is too dark" is completely justifiable because I understand what the writers were trying to do. If they hadn't broke up Buffy and Angel, it would have got stale, if they hadn't made Season 6 dark, Buffy's death would've felt like a cheap trick. There were so many moments where it could have jumped the shark but didn't, it's the most perfect show ever! Paul730 02:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've angered the Buffy fan! Buffy may have been dropped by the network (big deal, the stupid networks don't know what's good for them) but it came back. Then, after it ended, it came back again. Buffy, like it's heroine, will come back no matter how many times it dies because the fans love it so much. Buffy is studied as a work of art because it's so perfect. From what I've heard, Smallville has already jumped the shark because the writers have run out of ideas, so just introduce as many DC characters they can think of. Also, Buffy has Angel, Spike, and Xander; Tom Welling doesn't come close to that. :P Paul730 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit that the flying bit was pretty cool (I've actually seen that ep on TV, what a coincidence). However, it cannot beat Buffy's self-sacrificing swandive into the portal in "The Gift". Paul730 03:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The bit with the missile was cool; the funeral probably would be sad but since I'm not emotionally invested in the character, it didn't have much effect on me, I'm afraid. If you want something simultaneously happy and sad then watch this; it's sad because Tara dies in the next episode. Nobody is allowed to be happy in the Buffyverse. Paul730 04:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The heat vision was okay, nothing Cyclops can't do better (even though I know he doesn't have heat vision yadda yadda). Anyway, your theory about Spike is flawed. Yes, there are two vampires with souls, but their characters and storylines were completely different. Saying that Spike and Buffy is just a rehash is ridiculous; their relationship dynamic is completely different. Buffy and Angel were angsty teenager lovers, Buffy and Spike were two confused adults who hated each other but needed each other regardless I don't see how soulful Spike could be classed as jumping the shark at all. Personally, I found Spuffy far more entertaining and realistic than Bangel, and one of the highlights of the show. Oh, and I'm aware that Spike played Braniac, he's much better looking than the comic version I must say. And Seth Green's career could kick Baldie's career any day of the week. (The fact that you're resorting to network opinions and actor's resumes, which are poor indicators of a show's actual quality, to prove your point shows how much you're grasping at staws to prove Smallville's superiority :P ) And one-eyed Xander is cute, especially since he conveniently lost all of Nicky Brendon's weight and turned into James Bond in the new comics. Paul730 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-sacrifice? Screw giving back a necklace, Buffy killed the love of her life to save the world! She plunged a sword into his heart and the sent him to hell for all eternity (or four episodes, whatever) because she had to. Also, what about the episode of Angel where Angel becomes human but then reverses it because he knows he hasn't earned it yet? Watch this and tell me he isn't as much a self-sacrificing hero as farm-boy! And then there's time he gave up his son so he could have a happier life, or when Cordelia became part-demon so she could continue helping Angel. Paul730 15:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you totally miss the point of a vampire-with-a-soul. Angel doesn't kill people, Angelus kills people, Angel looks for the good in people; he was the only one who tried to get through to Faith and he succeeded, and now Faith is on the side of good. Buffy and Cordelia wanted him to kill Faith, but he refused because he had to save her soul. I'm starting to think you're a little bigotted towards poor vampires. ;) Also, Clark was born with his abilities he didn't ask for them. Clark only wants to be normal, but can't because he can never escape his destiny. Sound familiar? That's Buffy in a nutshell. I think this argument is getting silly now because the characters actually share many similar traits; Buffy was probably based a little on Superman, and Smallville was probably based a little on Buffy. Let's just agree that they're both good shows (even though Buffy's better :P ). Paul730 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, interesting connection. I would even go as far to say that Buffy and Clark might get along quite well, but I think she's more of Batman gal what with the black leather and the darkness. And it's interesting you say that Buffy wouldn't be accepted, because that's exactly what's happening right now. She's at war with the human race. The government hate her and the Slayers because they're a "master race" and they think they're more of threat than the demons themselves. Very X-Men. As for Supes; aren't aliens pretty much part of society in the DC universe? Paul730 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the series will end with him literally in spandex? And what's wrong with Smallville Aquaman, I thought he was one of the better DC introductions. I heard that Heroes (which I haven't seen yet but the first ep is on again tonight) makes Smallville look a bit old hat these days. What's your response to that? Paul730 17:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the Aquaman show set in the same universe as Smallville? Lol, just remembered that Aquaman gave Captain Hero fish rot - play safe kids! How come Batman isn't in Smallville? I really do respect Smallville; I always thought that a similar show for X-Men would have amazing. Kind of like X-Men Evolution, only... better. Paul730 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God, Heroes is soooo good! I've only seen the first two episodes, but I definitely recommend it. It's so intriqing what with the bizarre, unplained powers and random connections between the characters. Kind of like Lost, only... good. Paul730 22:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations in lead sections

Back on May 2, you made a statement on the film discussion page about requiring or not requiring citations in lead sections. Your opinion is needed on Wikipedia talk:Lead section where this is currently being debated in numerous sections, but most recently in Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Citations_in_the_lead_-_drafts, where a draft proposal is being formulated for inclusion in the style guideline. —Viriditas | Talk 11:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice comments. I hope you'll stay and discuss, as I find your perspective essential to the discussion. —Viriditas | Talk 19:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I think it is important to have it in the lead guideline, as this topic keeps coming up and needs to be clarified somewhere. —Viriditas | Talk 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you find some time to take a look at this version and modify it to meet your criticism, or if you choose not to, make recommendations on the talk page? You seem to have more experience with this topic than anyone else. —Viriditas | Talk 20:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to continue if you dislike the topic; it does get quite heated and some editors do not understand the concept of collaboration, making it difficult to contribute to policy and guideline development. I just thought you had something to say on the matter as I remember your May discussion on the Film project talk page. Don't do anything that makes you unhappy. —Viriditas | Talk 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! —Viriditas | Talk 21:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I just saw your latest comment. You have a unique talent for cutting through thick swaths of forested discussions with your machete-sharp keyboard and getting down to brass tacks. This is exactly why I asked you to share your views. —Viriditas | Talk 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If you need help on Jason Voorhees, just let me know. —Viriditas | Talk 03:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I already replied there. Keep fighting the good fight. Alientraveller 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've responded and hopefully have avoided sounding like I'm regurgitating the discussion too much. It'll be interesting to see where the discussion heads. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

IE

I use Internet Unexplored, it's unreadable for me. I've implemented a better stopgap measure. Matthew 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

Yeah, I've seen it, so I'm having a bit more fun with the article. I enjoyed it, I really liked Sam and Mikaela and I loved the Autobots. They're characters who should have a sitcom made. My only real problem was during the fights, the camera was shakey, though fortunately I could tell all the robots apart. The special effects are great: only Devastator/Brawl looked fake, as his eyes looked nothing like the other robots. It's good fun, it may get weaker on repeat viewings but me and my brother and cousin really had fun. The masturbation bit went right over their heads, but all the gags were excellent. But the sequel should be darker: maybe grimmer humour if they want. Alientraveller 19:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my view is that while the acting, script and special effects were superb, Bay shot his scenes, but didn't put much effort into shooting that script. The dialogue got a little hard to hear at times, and I've noted the camerawork during the action, so the colours got a bit wishy-washy. But I'll be in-line for the sequels: maybe Bay will get a better cameraman. Alientraveller 14:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, I adored Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox's performances. John Turturro, Anthony Anderson, Kevin Dunn and Julie White were hilarious. I wouldn't mind if Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson came back, but I'd rather the Transformers meet many more humans of their travels. What was interesting was for a big fan like me, the humans felt quite alien, what with Optimus' narration and the intercutting of all the stories. Also, Starscream really just cameoed, but I honestly was yelling mentally when he stood there as Megatron cornered Sam, "Shoot him! Just frickin' shoot him!" Alientraveller 15:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was annoyed that Starscream just sat there like a big chicken: though swatting the other jets was amazing. I definitely imagine Transformers 2 will have a war between Starscream and Soundwave trying for Decepticon leadership, while the latter tries to resurrect Megatron. For me, Transformers was about Optimus accepting Earth as his new home, and Sam and Bumblebee's relationship was the epitome of that. Earth will have hell to pay in the sequel... And a quick note on Jazz: he just... died. Nothing more, nothing less. But I'd rather him die than Ratchet or Ironhide... maybe Ironhide could sacrifice himself protecting the humans in future. Anyway, the future is limitless. Roll on Grimlock! Alientraveller 15:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

didnt know where on your page to put a comment like that... everything is in its own category, telling your boy seemed easier. Robkehr 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that guy's personal comment was idiotic... he could've found answers to half of his questions in the article itself. It's amazing that people think they can just write a diatribe on any Wikipedia article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I did put out the PR onto the main request page, but that is a lot like fishing; I don't know if they'll bite. Alientraveller 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Character list

I just created an article entitled List of characters in Friday the 13th and merged Alice and Tommy into it. It's pretty shit at the moment, but hey, I only just made it so give it time to evolve. What other characters do you think I should include? I suggest Crazy Ralph, Ginny, Chris, Tina, the main character from VIII (whatever their name is), Jessica and Steven, and Rowan. I'm on the the fence over whether to include Trish, Pam, the cyborg from Jason X, and Lori. What do you think? Oh, and did I create the page properly and everything, because I'm not sure? Paul730

I added some more characters and info to this page, but I think that's about as much as I can do because my memory of later Jason movies is kind of limited (I had to check websites just to remember some character's names). This page badly needs some consistency when it comes to infoboxes; personally I think they're kind of unnecessay in pages like this and just take up too much space. It also needs some pictures of characters, I think we should use Thom Mathews as the main Tommy picture. Sorry if it seems kind of repetitive, I found myself writing "X is the final girl" and "she must fight for her life" quite a lot. :) Paul730 20:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Future film

I've requested a merge for A Christmas Carol (2009 film), would you mind reiterating your support for the merge? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Take a look at User:Erik/Sandbox. I'm thinking about creating a template that would outline it like I showed Ernest here: User talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld#RE:Hello Abu the Bad. Can you think of any fairly simple templates to copy from? Template:Film is a bit too complicated... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, this would be one in which you could fill out the unique attributes of the fair use rationale. The licensing template is only part of it, obviously, and with fair-use hounds amok, the ten-point criteria of both standard and unique attributes would back an image best. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Future films guidelines

I'd love it if you contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) regarding unreleased films, as I know you have an interest. I tried to implement this today on the page (see the edit history) but unfortunately was reverted. I hope that you'll be sympathetic to my edits, but please join us either way! :) Girolamo Savonarola 01:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I probably need a breather, and I'm frustrated by what I perceive (as you seem to as well) to be a lack of clear objection to the content itself. Girolamo Savonarola 02:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

found it

i guess i shouldve looked at your user page instead of poking around your discussion page... Robkehr 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

i guess, but i was just lookin out. Robkehr 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Connor

No I didn't, thanks for fixing it! Matthew 09:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Characters of Smallville

I don't feel that page is a duplicate of the pages you listed. Maybe the recurring characters are and could be deleted. But the main character summarys aren't duplicates. Some of the main characters only have breif infornmation on the normal pages eg Lois Lane, compared to Characters of Smallville#Lois_Lane. The characters of smallville provides summarys for the main characters, which is only fair since there are many pages for the minor and one-time-only characters. Russell >: 4 8 15 16 23 42 13:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville (season 1)

Replied on the talk page of the article. Giggy _U^CP 03:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Good work! Giggy _U^CP 00:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

seems pertinent

Can I get your thoughts and input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortal Coil (Star Trek: Voyager)? I'm not asking you to participate in the debate one way or another (or at all); but as it seems you've been very involved with WP:EPISODE and I wanted to hear your thoughts/opinions. Thanks. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees article

My one big suggestion would be to break up some of your sentences. You are like me, I tend to take a sentence out to the paragraph length. Which I think is cool, a teacher told me it is the sign of an active mind, but as far as Wikipedia goes, they like tight concise sentences. You have the info down, I would just try to tighten it up. Overall, great article! Jmm6f488 05:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mad Men

I've been working on this for a few days now. It's a new show, and it's only just about to air its second episode tonight, so there's yet to be a whole lot of information to cite. Anyway, take a look at it and tell me what you think when you get the chance. Thanks, Cliff smith 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think an LOE was necessary, but someone already started one unfortunately. Cliff smith 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give that a shot. Sounds like a good idea. Cliff smith 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

TDK

Have you tried the coordinates on the website? I have no idea if I'm looking them up wrong, but this is what I get. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The anon. on TDK's talk said San Diego (which I expected the coordinates to show), so I figure I must've screwed it up. Just keeping the general discussion off the talk page, obviously... and I am not looking forward to handling these newcomers that are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Viral marketing campaigns are the bane of my Wikipedian existence these days... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I give up on the edit war on this stupid viral site for now... let the clock tick down, and we'll see what happens then. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Shit... the website just posted a clue for others to follow; we need page protection, pronto. (On the other hand, I'm impressed with the cleverness of the campaign, which seems likely to be genuine.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

From what the page first displayed, there needs to be collaboration between the people on the ground at that location (where the coordinates pointed) and people using the computer. Maybe there's a plane that flies over with a banner having a keyword that needs to be entered... crazy stuff! Imagine if it's a Joker-esque plane! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

BOF. First clue is "inside joke". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Second: "jack the ripper". I have to admit, this is cool as hell. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Third: "mountebank", Fourth: "crime of passion" —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm checking here. Their chat room is full -- 25 people, and there's 230 people on the forums. It's definitely keeping busy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait, are you unable to access the viral website, or BOF, or both? 5th is "head games". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

6th is vallandigham. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you type my correction above? I couldn't remember what I entered, sorry... Flash takes a while to process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm stuck at the Dr. Death one right now. I keep refreshing the BOF thread. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweet! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You can skip to here, but no one but one person seems to know what the answer to Dr. Death is, and he's the one that found the knife image. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you access here? They have fans walking around with Joker faces painted. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Break

The card checkpoint is "unforgivable", the one about the father/son weapon is "baseball bat". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Here. There were a couple in between, but the guy seems bad at updating the rest of us. I think the kidnap one was "larceny". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The pass for the one above is "reaper". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Teaser trailer! And damned if I can't view it, my PC doesn't have QT! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

Can I suggest easing up on the tone of your comments? It would help reduce hostility in the current discussion about the Joker image, and some existing comments (by either side) do not seem to help maintain the atmosphere. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your frustration; the editor does not appear very amicable from what he's said so far, about both the image and information regarding the viral site. Do take a breather, though. His perspective is a liberal one in regard to fair use, and sadly his case is supported by articles containing images of insufficient rationale. I'll see if I can lead discussion another way, since you two are probably too much at each other's throats right now to really resolve anything. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I had the opposite of a "Wikipedia editors worthy of my respect" list, he would be on it. Dude was pretty intolerant, even after I imparted some advice to him on his talk page about handling these matters. Actually... I'm going to include him as a satisfied customer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It's possible, of course. In any case, even with the image's inclusion, it's highly likely that it would be replaced pretty soon, as opposed to the IMAX and Batpod images. That kind of longevity reflects the weak stance of the image, in my opinion, if it can't stick around "forever". I think that's how image use should be perceived, when possible -- will it be appropriate in the article into the far future? The problem is that the new image suffers from recentism, and it seems somewhat fanboy-ish to display the newest image. That's probably happened at Iron Man (film), now that I think of it... but yeah, images should stand the test of time. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he won't be sticking around. It's too bad, I saw a little Ace in him. (Just kidding.) I hate to say it, but I'm glad that's the case. I'd rather welcome junior editors that are willing to understand our perspectives and also explore others' as well. Even Annoynmous seems to be a little more friendly. So, I guess it's time to get back to editing ErikBigNolePedia. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Annoynmous has impressed me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Excitement

I don't think you have to worry... it seems to be the editor's general style. (It actually appears to me as if he/she was ticked off that the move failed, and got in a snit. Just my humble opinion, of course.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cast

I see the dilemma here. My first impression was that they seemed best as separate sections, but reading the content more closely, I can see the possibility to merge. How about something formatted similarly to Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast, with the overall casting details in the first paragraph(s), then have a subsection with bulleted entries for each primary character and their casting background? After that, a seasonal-type subsection ("Recurring characters"?) in which the various roles can be shown in prose. It's just a preliminary thought; let me know if there's any holes in this particular approach, and I'll see if I can suggest something else. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to break up the "Recurring guests" information into season-based paragraphs, though I'm not sure about using "See also"-type templates. It seems that they would litter the subsection somewhat, considering these templates usually appear right below a section heading. What about something like making sure you link to each season's page at the beginning of each paragraph? Such as, "In [[Season 1]], John Doe was introduced..." It would look a little better for the prose layout. Another possibility would be to do simple table layout in which you can have a row with a square-ish cell on the left with the link to the season page, and on the right, a long rectangular cell containing information about recurring guests for that season. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be best to fill out each bulleted entry with specific information. It's easier for a reader to look up, and leaving the list of cast and characters as it is seems incomplete. People might write in unnecessarily detailed backstories -- best to provide content there to fill that gap, I would suggest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Sigh. "A little like"?! I hate to make the AfD long in the tooth with my arguments, but I just don't understand the mindset that an editor can originally contribute anything in detail as long as it remains factual. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

TDK

Added section of critical commentary discussing the differences between the look of Ledger's Joker and all the traditional look of the character. --CmdrClow 22:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

freddy's nightmare

Sorry I couldn't finish the page quick enough, I was falsely temporarly banned because I use a library computerWikimindless 03:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

yeah true, What was wrong with the Jason Voorhes page? didn't it have a good article nomination?Wikimindless 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

buy the way, you talk about a user called "twenty two", why does that story sound familiar?Wikimindless 03:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm actually going to Germany (I don't know why I linked that) tommorow. I will work on the page and tell you when I am finished so you can link it up to other pages. I'll message you in a week hopefullyWikimindless 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)