User talk:Steve/Archive 6

Expanding Fight Club

I have nearly all the books from my resources page, and I just took notes (mostly quotes that I have no idea how I'll paraphrase) from one book. I'm going to try to weave them together based on common themes. After I get through the books I have, I'll probably put together a packet of these studies that I shared with you. In reviewing the article (and comparing them to other FACs as of late), I feel that it may take a couple of FAC processes to really make this one flow. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why does the WikiProject Film Survey log you out before you complete it?

I went from a movie's talk page to complete the survey and was logged out between tranferring from the movie's talk page to the survey. This makes absolutely no since. Jason3777 (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Last Crusade

Hey Steve, would you like to copyedit Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? Having taken my sweet time on it and not rushed like the other three Indy film articles, I reckon this deserves FAC soon. Alientraveller (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Judging from your talk page archives, you're normally the go-to-guy for film article copyedits, so I'd be willing to bet there won't be much to tweak. But I don't mind at all; I'll see if I can get around to taking a look at it this evening. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 08:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be reborrowing Douglas Brode's book on Spielberg next week, so come back to Themes later when you've copyedited the rest of the article. It's mighty fine reading. Alientraveller (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No probs; I assumed the section was work-in-progress, so was going to skip it anyway. Steve ^{T • C} 22:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love

Hey User:Steve,
Thank you for your help on the talk page for the Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love.
I was wondering if you could help me expand on the article.
Son-Rise, an Early childhood intervention therapy was created by two parents in the '70s that got their son to completely recover from Autism and the Autsim spectrum.
Son-Rise: A Miracle of Love is a docudrama about the recovery and was adapted by the book, Son-Rise (now known as Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues).
Their is not to many references supporting the movie, the most reliable references for the film is not informative enough or 100% accurate (e.g. New York Times Film Synopsis said that (from All Media Guide) Raun Kaufman was high-functioning (a lot of other sources about the movie says that to), but it is wrong, he was severe and Mentally retarded, even in the movie.
Their is more info from the book, which adapted into the film.
Could I reference a lot from the book, and use it as a reliable source since it has the majority of the information from the movie and is more accurate.
Could you also help me with the book, Son-Rise: The Miracle Continues that I haven't created yet.
Thanx!
ATC^Talk 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi; I'll respond to this on the article's talk page shortly. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanx!

ATC^Talk 22:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing latest comment on Michel Thomas Discussion page

The newly added comment "Article does not objectively examine Thomas' life" which recommends the Washington Post article, is a re-start of the familiar debates you have tried to squelch. Accordingly, you should remove it or archive it. Facts@mt.org (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith on the part of the IP for a moment, this may well be a random reader who has read the Post obituary linked at the end of the article, only to find it heavier on the detail than ours. After all, Michel Thomas is viewed by a couple of hundred people per day on average; it seems logical that at least some of those would click through to the Post obit. The question deserves a good-faith reply; I'll try to get over there to leave one later today. Steve ^{T • C} 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films February 2009 Newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC: Premiere (The O.C.)

Thanks for the comments, could you take another look when you have time. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm offline for the next eight hours or so, but I'll definitely be able to take another look at it then. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 23:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through and altering my changes, I was quite tired when I did the new section, so I apologise if there were lots of mistakes. Your comments and work are greatly appreciated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no need to apologise for anything; it wasn't that there were lots of mistakes, just a couple of points that needed clarification. It does you credit that you took the comments on board so readily; some people would be loath to see drastic changes to "their" article, myself included if I'm honest. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnson's TS

I made a response here. If it is unsatisfactory, I can pull up many of the sources for you and send them to you privately (as they are copyrighted) so you can see the wording that they use, the sources that they rely on, and the rest. Hopefully, this section will be enough to verify that the sources (like Pearce's) are medical texts that also extrapolate on Johnson's condition so that the section is not Synthesis. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, User:SandyGeorgia supplied much of the information on TS during the original Samuel Johnson FAC process (and the Samuel Johnson's health page) and was the one who did the bulk of parsing the texts. She tends to understand which sources are more reliable than which and determined the weight of each text. If there are any major questions about the sources, I think she might be able to deal with it (as I lack the medical expertise or background to really handle such an in-depth discussion on the matter, I am just a literature scholar). Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for taking so long to get back to you; Sunday plus a 3-year-old means logging in for more than five minutes at a time is seldom possible, and I wanted to take the time to consider your reply before commenting. Give it a couple of hours and I'll have responded over on the FAC page. Steve ^{T • C} 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films

I noticed your plan to be more involved with the Featured Article process. Definitely should acquire some tacit knowledge in writing such articles! :) Does this mean you'll be putting your involvement with film-related articles and project pages on the backburner? —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. The article-building I do will still be largely film-focused; it's still what I'm most comfortable with, and I'll continue to contribute to the project talk pages. But as you know, I was feeling a little directionless; helping out with FAC reviews, even in the small way I've managed so far, has helped rekindle my interest, and should incentivise me to contribute to WP:FILM more too. I'm hoping it'll be win-win. Steve ^{T • C} 08:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. I have no problem with you doing your thing; just that you are a terrific editor to have around WikiProject Films and that it would suck for all ties to be severed. Happy that it's not the case! I assume that you'll take what you learn to fix up Changeling and eventually nominate it as a FAC? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Well, yes I'll be taking to FAC, but not after learning any further tips about how to go about it from there. Barring the odd tweak here and there, I think it's been pretty much ready for a while now. The only thing I'm really waiting for is for the theatrical run to finish to satisfy the comprehensiveness requirement and maybe get some retrospective commentary on how it was perceived to have performed. Steve ^{T • C} 14:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As part of my practice for themes at Fight Club (film), I've been working on Apt Pupil (film)#Themes. Are you able to understand my summary of the first two subsections so far? If not, any specific points that you think I could improve on? —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not ignoring this, btw, I'll take a look this evening when I'm able to logon for periods of more than five minutes at a time. Steve ^{T • C} 14:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

See, now I feel like I want to find fault with the sections, just to show I've read them, and to give more than a two-line reply, but they're pretty clear. I suppose on the first couple of passes I wondered if Bowden's becoming a "vampiric extension" of Dussander's evil should be interpreted straightforwardly—in feeding off Dussander's stories Bowden becomes more like, an extension of, Dussander?—or if I was missing a more profound meaning, but it seems clear now. So yes, this reply doesn't feel adequate, but the section is perfectly understandable so far. Steve ^{T • C} 22:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! It's reassuring to know that it reads understandably to you. I still have more to say about sadomasochism and related themes (Frames of Evil's Apt Pupil chapter is incredibly dense). There's also some material from New German Critique that I could incorporate into the theme of obsession, but since it's part of a larger topic, it'll take some time to digest it and present it into something readable. Not to mention the Jump Cut article... it's purely online, but when I printed it out (no special formatting), it came out to 23 pages. Have you seen how editors handle online articles that lack page breaks? I'm just going do "Picart & McKahan, pp. x" unless you think of another way to handle it? I think in the post-Fight Club future, I'm going to work on more reasonably covered articles like Apt Pupil... it's really nice to flesh something out and not worry that it's not comprehensive enough. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A Game of Thrones

How was A Game of Thrones? I've eyed the A Song of Ice and Fire series but my last bout with fantasy (The Wheel of Time) was not that great. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I made it through the first couple of hundred pages of The Eye of the World; likewise, I didn't get along with it—I'd go as far as to say it was one of the worst-written, most derivative fantasy novels I've (attempted to) read in a long time. A Game of Thrones, however, is excellent for the genre, with mercifully few supernatural elements—no trolls, elves, wizards, prophesies, or orphan boys' discovering their lineage. It's more a political thriller (though still epic in scope), and better for it. Recommended. Steve ^{T • C} 13:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I made it to Book 4 or Book 5. (This was over five years ago or so.) There were some fun elements in the series, but the more I read, the more I realized that the author didn't plan to fulfill the prophecies so readily. So the adventure went on and on... and I got off the boat. Seems like I'm better for it. :) I tend to read nonfiction these days because I think when it comes to fiction, I'm more into elements of the story than the actual writing style (though I do expect sound writing). I'm almost done with Benjamin Franklin: An American Life; never realized how much time he spent on your side of the ocean! Not sure what I'll read next, but I'll definitely keep A Game of Thrones in mind when I get the itch for fiction. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

← Did you read about this? The Visitor was a fine film, so McCarthy seems like a wise choice. Looks like I have something to add to my reading list! —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I did see! I'm glad they've got a bona fide "good director" to do it. I was initially pleased that David Benioff was co-writing too; I remember thinking his 25th Hour script was excellent, though his subsequent involvement in Troy and Wolverine has dampened expectations ever so slightly. :) Steve ^{T • C} 15:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC thanks

Steve, again, and as always, thanks for all of your helpful input everywhere in the FAC process. That old offer still stands ! (I see a note above about Film elections ... is that something I should weigh in on?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm going to once again evade the question over RfA; I just don't have time for it right now. Indeed, I chose not to run for a second term as a Wikiproject Film coordinator so I could concentrate the limited time I get in other areas. FAC is one of them, and I'm enjoying it so far; it gives me the opportunity to read good articles on subjects I wouldn't otherwise be exposed to. No false humility here, I'd likely make a reasonably good admin, but right now AN/I's gain would be FAC's loss, just when I'm getting confident enough to register solid supports and opposes! But I promise that when more time becomes available, I'll knock on your door for that nom. Thanks again, Steve ^{T • C} 14:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As usual, your head is on straight :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Omitting "that"

Hey Steve! I'm sorry but I missed your question in the shuffle. I also come from a technical writing background and I've had to adjust my style somewhat for Wikipedia. Changes my editor routinely requests, such as changing "in order to" to simply "to", don't always fly here. I also edit dissertations for PhD candidates. Your question is timely because I recently worked with someone whose committee chair requested the blanket removal of "that" from the dissertation draft. So, "The group commented that CT scans are almost always necessary" became "The group commented CT scans are almost necessary". In fact, I dislike these types of changes immensely. If clarity is lost, the "that" should never be removed as far as I'm concerned. If it's a neutral change, I would never request it but leave it to author style. I hope that makes sense! --Laser brain (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Steve ^{T • C} 22:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Friday FAC

Thanks for the comments, that's what I needed. I actually wasn't away of the noun-ing rule. I'm sure I do it all the time. You mentioned your disdain for "various", and suggested "several", and as I'm going through the page (I'm work in WORD, while at work, so that it's clear that I am making corrections..I just cannot do a lot of Wiki stuff while at work.) I started thinking, "Isn't 'several' one of those weasel words?" I've kind of always been under the impression that vague numerical values are discouraged, because "several" could mean anything. That's why I often substitute those instances for words like "various" and "multiple".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. Both are slightly weasel-y; the difference is that where an exact number is unknown, "several" is slightly more direct than "various", which (to me) sounds a lot more vague. But don't take my word for it, I'm no expert (I've spent half the afternoon ridding an article I've written of multiple uses of the passive voice—a byproduct of my background in technical writing). I hope the rest of the FAC goes more smoothly for you; if it stays open long enough, I'll see if I can get the chance to pop in for another look. Steve ^{T • C} 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To me, I see "several" and ask "How many is several". But, when I see "various", you cannot ask "How many is various", because it isn't a description of number, but of difference. It's automatically plural, thus you're indicating that there is more than one, and the subsequent versions are different from the original. I'll see if I can find some way of working around either of them in the body of the article if/when I come across them. That way we don't have any issue. As for the editing process, I hope that I can get the copy editing done by the time I leave work so that I can implement it all and provide a comparison link for everyone who had any prose concerns.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Working the prose to eliminate both is definitely the best approach. Remember, some words when used in the appropriate context automatically imply multiple items (such as the "various merchandise" example I gave, which can be rendered as the more informative "tie-in merchandise" or similar and retain the full meaning). Steve ^{T • C} 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you've been busy, but I've made my (first) full sweep of the article. I wonder if you'd mind taking a gander at the edits (I provided a full diff at the FAC) to see if I'm at least hitting the mark with most of your concerns. I ultimately left some "various" and some "several" terms in there given our discussion. In some instances I found a way to remove them completely and write it a different way.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll definitely take another look for you, though it might be later tonight when I'm able to get around to it. Steve ^{T • C} 07:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. If you could, leave any remarks on the article talk page. Sandy archived the FAC already, so...lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2009 Newsletter

The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash

Hello Steve. Another editor has closed this FAC off before we completed our discussion. Please let me know if you have any further concerns, as I'd to submit it again. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It can seem a little unfair sometimes if a FAC is archived when the article seems close to having all issues resolved; I would guess that the delegate believed the FAC had run for long enough with too few comments that it was unlikely to attract fresh reviewers in the period available (even if I were to have changed my vote to support, it would not be promoted on my word alone), and with no fresh discussion on the FAC page between us, she perhaps reasoned that the issues I brought up were also unresolvable in the normal lifetime of a FAC. While I haven't yet looked at your recent additions closely, I see you've been making strides towards resolving the issue over the lack of Danish sources; this is going some way to addressing my concerns with the article, and I do think it will be promotable at some point. One other word of advice: generally, it's considered good form to wait at least two weeks before resubmitting an article to FAC. This might seem unfair, but it's not a slight against the article; it's just that there are not enough reviewers currently at FAC; waiting two weeks helps to keep the backlog down if all nominators abide by it, no matter the reason for archiving. And if there are any outstanding issues listed on the FAC page, it gives you time to ensure they've all been taken care of beforehand. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 10:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any comments or remaining concerns before I submit this for FAC again? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this. I'll try to take a look later tonight. Steve ^{T • C} 14:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I've had a chance to look through it, and its scope seems much better. I don't want to say it'd definitely get my support right off the bat (I might spot something upon closer inspection), but what I will say is that I think any issues that do come up in its next FAC should be minor, and resolvable in the timeframe available. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 14:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For the effort you put into reviewing and copyediting the 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash article Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Reviewers Award
		To Steve, for your numerous in-depth reviews at WP:FAC, always given with a good attitude and plenty of encouragement for the nominator. Thank you for your hard work! Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both! That was very unexpected, but your encouragement means a lot. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 19:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Split infinitives

Hello, since you're mastering the learning curve for copy-editing, I was wondering if you were familiar with split infinitives? Some of my writing was pointed out as erroneous, and I am trying to figure out how to best use them. For example, I understand that you would not insert an adverb in a "to <verb>" phrase; for example, "to roughly kick" should be "to kick roughly". What about other phrases, like "is <verb>"? See example; I am trying to discern the difference partially because this concept was actually new to me (is "actually new" appropriate?) and I'm being anal-retentive about getting it right lately. Do you have any wisdom to impart on this matter? —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's all a matter of opinion these days. I split my infinitives all the time. IMO, the only time the rule should be taken heed of is if it introduces an ambiguity. I'm no expert, so please don't take my word as gospel, but to me "it was originally written by" sounds just as valid as "it was written originally by", so go with what sounds best in the context. You'll be able to find about 100 editors willing to string me up for that statement and just as many who'd cut me down again (the rest would sensibly be at the bar, muttering "so what are they arguing about?")

An acquaintance tells me there are no circumstances in which "actually" is necessary. I think I agree with him. :) Steve ^{T • C} 11:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) Would you say that ambiguity is introduced more often in "to <verb>" than "is <verb>"? Every time I write something, I take an extra moment to figure out what it "should" be. —Erik (talk • contrib) 11:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Tic Code

Hi User:Steve,
An admin has a few request before winning a GA award. Could you please look at the discussion page. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the deadlink to the NYT article; that shouldn't be a problem at all, as offline sources are perfectly allowed to be used in articles. All it means is that if ever anyone wants to verify the content, they'd have to go to a library or something. The main issue I can see at the moment is the lack of a plot section. Have you seen the film? If you have, and want to write up a full summary, I'll take a look at it afterwards and rewrite (if necessary) to make sure it conforms to all guidelines on style and length, etc. Steve ^{T • C} 07:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arular

Many thanks for your comments, they certainly gave me plenty with which to fill my time on a very slow day at work :-) Anyways, I think I've now addressed all the points raised, hopefully to your satisfaction -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice and quick! It'll be this evening before I get around to looking back over it, but be assured I will. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 11:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Changeling tech

I've made some changes to the article, mainly concerning the technical matters, and left one comment containing a question, since I don't have access to the reference material used in that section. I hope you don't find any of this too intrusive; please feel free to let me know if you disagree with any of it. I'll try to get in a more thorough look-through for the FAC shortly. Excellent work, on the whole! I feel confident that any other concerns will also be minor. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and changes; they all look good to me. I really should have thought to ask you to look over the cinematography section before now, but I don't like imposing on people! On the note you left, when I get home tonight I'll take a look at the American Cinematographer article to which the statement is cited to see what exact wording was used; I probably just misread it. Thanks again, Steve ^{T • C} 07:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I've found it:

Aerolight Hybrid balloons came in handy for scenes taking place in the City Council chambers, which was actually a large room on the third floor of the Park Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles. "In those conditions, it would have been very difficult to go strictly with HMIs or daylight ... The room had a lot of chandeliers and practicals, as well as natural daylight coming through the windows. The wood walls and tungsten practicals gave the room a warm feel. These hybrid balloons have two 1,200-watt HMI globes and two 1K tungsten fixtures, all dimmable. We could dial in the color we wanted. I think it worked well."

Could it be adequately paraphrased like this:

Stern lit scenes filmed at the Park Plaza Hotel using dimmable HMI and tungsten lights rigged within balloon lights, as the room's tungsten fixtures, wooden walls and natural daylight made it difficult to use either HMIs or daylight alone.

Please let me know if this is too much of a fudge of the technical details; any alternative wording suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 07:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I think I suspected correctly. What he's saying is that the practical wall fixtures gave off yellow light (tungsten), while the windows gave off blue light (daylight), so it would've been very difficult to stick exclusively to blue by using HMIs to supplement the daylight. Since the room had two different natural colors of light, the balloon light was rigged with both HMIs (blue) and tungstens (yellow), so that they could control the amount of each when they artificially added light, so that the color would match the natural mix. In short, the balloon light was rigged with both daylight and tungsten balanced lights each controlled through dimmers so as to more accurately replicate the color temperature of the mixed lighting. Make sense? Balloon lights are a preferable way of rigging a large and soft-ish light source overhead when using locations which are large but difficult to rig in (such as historic or delicate rooms) or even exteriors for certain effects. Given enough space, they can be easy to hide, since they generally just have a couple of lines rigged to weights to anchor them. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense; I think I can come up with an adequate way of saying that in a way that doesn't skirt original research, so I'll give it a shot in the article later today. Many thanks! Steve ^{T • C} 11:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1964 Brinks Hotel bombing

Fixed all that hopefully, thanks for picking it all up YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem; oppose struck. Steve ^{T • C} 12:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the extra copyediting YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yukon Quest FAC

Thanks for the suggestion to cite the lede quotes. I don't normally put citations in the lede, so it's not something that occurred to me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's generally a good idea to do that because when there's no attribution in the text it begs the question: who considered it [x]? Steve ^{T • C} 10:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit for Magic Johnson

Thanks so much for your work on the article in the past few days. You're really the king of detailed edit summaries. :) Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! When doing edits like these to someone else's article, I find it best to give more detailed edit summaries than I would normally; I've felt that slight sense of panic that develops when waking up to see someone's having made several dozen edits to one of "my" articles. In truth, the Magic Johnson article was already well-written; my edits were mostly clarifications for those unfamiliar with basketball (my own experience with the sport is literally confined to having played Lakers versus Celtics in the early 90s). All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 07:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

James Nesbitt FAC

Thanks for your advice, re the Bloody Sunday image in the James Nesbitt article. Once I've written a new fair use rationale (which will probably be for a completely new image), would you mind popping your head in to have a look at it? As for the Jekyll image, that's just about the most straightforward view of the prosthetics there is. Thanks again. Bradley0110 (talk) 09:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations on the hard work you've put into the Changeling article. I've had it watchlisted since last August/September and have watched it grow! Bradley0110 (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's appreciated. And I'll be happy to take a look the rationale for any new Nesbitt image you put in; just ping me and I'll head right over (caveat: as proved by the Changeling article FAC, my image policy knowledge has some gaps—though I'm learning quickly). All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 20:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for your edits to Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula, which is currently a Featured Article Candidate. Many people come along and fix a typo here and change a word there, but you sir, have done an excellent and comprehensive job copyedting the article. I can only proofread it so many times before I get sick of looking at it, and I can only take it so far without a fresh perspective. Sometimes I have to beg and bribe people just to get them to look at it and tell me what they think of the prose. But now it has vastly improved, thanks to you. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

randomness

yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking. where do you live/edit? (City and country would be nice, but whatever you feel comfortable telling is fine.) You can just shoot me an email or reply here. It's for a project, I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and congrats on Changeling! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And I'll reply by e-mail, due to previous ColScott-related high-jinks. Steve ^{T • C} 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and congratulations

Steve, it has been my pleasure to work with you on Changeling (film). You are an excellent writer and skilled editor. Thank you for the barn star and congratulations on the article becoming a featured article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films April 2009 Newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hello, thanks for the review and copyedit of the Nancy Cartwright page, I really appreciate it. If you have any time, would you mind taking a look at another page for me? I'd like to have Ice hockey at the Olympic Games at FAC by the end of the month, but I think the writing is still a tad rough (short sentences, repetitiveness, possibly a tad rambling at times) and could use a good once-over. It is a long article, so I would completely understand if you don't have enough time. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec', that's not an episode of The Simpsons; what are you trying to pull? Seriously, that is a long article. I absolutely hate to let you down, but I've almost got into trouble before by promising time I haven't got. Right now, I've lots to do, and too little available time in which to do it, to be able to copyedit an article of that size (you'll notice my FAC reviews are mostly on small-to-medium sized articles). If I can help you in any other way, please let me know. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Every now and then I like to take a break from my evil plan to turn the site into Homerpedia. There's really little else that the page needs other than a copyedit. Do you know of any copyeditors that might be able to take a look at it? Thanks anyway, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to help, but holy crap it's a long article. Gonna take a team to make it through that one. I suggest also hitting up User:Giants2008 and User:Dabomb87 as good copyeditors who may, like me, have a weakness for hockey. Have watchlisted it. Maralia (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I think its not as bad as it looks at first glance because a large portion of the page is tables. On the other hand, it is over 7000 words, which is longer than other FAs like Barack Obama and Canada... Hmm, maybe I should try to trim it down (although to be fair, those pages do have quite a few branch articles, whereas there is no "professional NHL players in the Olympics" page). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Heh, all this makes it sound as if the article is a mess; I've just had another look and the prose isn't bad. As you say, it just needs smoothing over, some redundancies and the odd clunky sentence reworked. Towards the weekend, I'll see what I can do suggestion-wise, and maybe pitch in with some actual edits if I spot something easily-resolvable. Good luck, Steve ^{T • C} 21:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash again

I'm sorry to see that you've been dragged into a dispute over your comments for the last FAC. However I think you handled this very well, and will keep an eye on this discussion in case it escalates any further. Also, as you've probably seen already, I've renominated the article for FAC. Thanks again Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw! And I'll be as good as my word and definitely review it, probably at the weekend. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 11:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thule B-52 Crash archive commentary

Steve, in response to your unfounded comments, here are some facts regarding Mr. Oskins and myself-

James C. Oskins is a U.S. Air Force retiree and was a Nuclear Specialist, Nuclear Weapons Arming and Fuzing Technician, and Team Chief from May 1955 to June 1975. He had assignments with the 35th Munitions Maintenance Squadron (MMS), Biggs AFB, Texas, 702nd Strategic Missile Wing, Presque Isle AFB, Maine, 11th MMS, RAF Upper Heyford, United Kingdom, 28th MMS, Carswell AFB, Texas, 381st Strategic Missile Wing, McConnell AFB, Kansas, 320th MMS, RAF Upper Heyford, UK, 3096th Aviation Depot Squadron, Nellis AFB, Nevada. Jim worked on the Mk 6, Mk 15, Mk 15 mod 2, Mk 17, Mk 21, W39/SNARK, Mk 28, B53, W53/Mk6 RV (Titan II), B57, and B61. He spoke to international audiences on the Canadian Broadcasting Company Radio 1 "As It Happens" on the Tybee bomb (5 Feb 2008). He is the author of "Early Career Field Special Weapons History", "35th MMS Operations, Biggs AFB, TX, March 1956-June 1957", and "History of the Snark Missile" on the U.S. Air Force Nuclear Weapons Specialist Home Page.

Michael H. Maggelet is a U.S. Air Force retiree and was a Nuclear Weapons Team Member and Team Chief from 1980 to 1995. He had assignments with the 509th MMS, Pease AFB, New Hampshire, 380th MMS, Plattsburgh AFB, New York, in Rheinland Pfalz, Germany, and with the 28th Maintenance Squadron, Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. Mike worked on the B43-1, B57-2, B61 mod 1, mod 2, mod 3, mod 4, mod 5, mod 7, the W69/AGM-69A SRAM, and B83. He was certified by Sandia National Laboratories to perform depot level maintenance on the B61. Mike is the author of "The Mark 14 Bomb" (Nuclear Weapons Technician Association newsletter, Jul-Sep 2008), "USAFE and East German Special Operations Forces" NWTA Newsletter, Apr-Jun 2008, and "The Soviet Spetsnaz", NWTA Newsletter Oct-Dec 2008. Mike is a Life Member of the Nuclear Weapons Technician Association. Mike and Jim have also spoken on WFTW-AM radio with host Ken Walsh on their book, "Broken Arrow, The Declassified History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents".Mhmagg (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC) mhmagg

With respect, you give the impression of not having read the words I posted at your talk page, nor having read the internal Wikipedia links I pointed you at. Let me state this again: my comments were not intended as slurs on your names. The term "reliable source" has a specific connotation when used within internal Wikipedia conversations, one that may have a slightly different shading to when it's used in everyday conversation. I have no reason to doubt your military history or expertise; all that was meant by my comment was that this expertise had not been sufficiently demonstrated on that FAC page. Consider it less that you are not regarded as reliable, but more that the publisher, Lulu is not—simply because it allows self-publication. Therefore, we—with no prior knowledge of Mr Oskins or yourself—have no way of knowing that your book is more reliable than any other from the company. Steve ^{T • C} 00:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you Steve Lowenstein?Mhmagg (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)mhmagg

No. I'd send you an e-mail with my details, but I'm struggling to see the point. What does my identity matter? Steve ^{T • C} 06:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please send me an e-mail at mhmaggelet at hotmail.comMhmagg (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)mhmagg

Please see my previous response. Steve ^{T • C} 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geoffrey Boycott/archive1

Work has been done on your points, would it be possible for you to revisit the FAC and see what you think? Cheers SGGH ^ping! 09:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing; I'll revisit when I get an hour later this evening. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 15:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, didn't notice it's already been archived, sorry. I see Brianboulton has kindly offered to do a copyedit if you take the article to peer review; that would be my suggestion too. Ping me when you resubmit it at FAC and I'll be happy to do a comprehensive review. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 15:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have PR'd it, thanks for your help :) SGGH ^ping! 16:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)