User talk:Philippe/Archive5

Some ground rules before you leave a message (shamelessly stolen from Calton)

I am not an admin. I did not delete your page or article, nor did I block you. I may have, at the very most, suggested or urged deletion of pages or articles but I have no power or ability to do so on my own. I'm just an editor.
This also means, of course, I cannot undelete your page/article, nor unblock you. I can, however, offer you a cookie.
If you are here to make an argument dependent on arcane or convoluted interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines or rules, note that Wikipedia is not game of nomic nor a court of law. Adherence to common sense and rational argument trumps ruleslawyering, as far as I'm concerned. I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt, thankyouverymuch.
There is no Rule 4.
Do not assume I'm stupid, especially when arguing for something obviously untrue. I do not respond well to having my intelligence insulted.
Especially bogus, hostile, and/or trolling remarks are subject to disemvoweling.
Please post at the bottom of the page and "sign" your posts using the squiggly things (~~~~).
Please extinguish all cigarettes, as this is a No Smoking page.

Thank you. -- The Management.

WikiProject Wikify Alert: Check out the backlog cleanup taskforce

Messages for March, 2007

Please leave messages below this line. Philippe Beaudette 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popups issue

I see you have run into the popups issue where it leaves the $ edit summary. Apparently it's a bug with some recent changes to popups interacting with IE6.0. It doesn't seem to be a big issue, as you mostly use VP. However, if you want to fix it, you can get IE7.0 or change back to the last version of popups - see User talk:Lupin#Getting "revision $1 dated $2 by $3".--Kubigula (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually on IE 7.0.5370 - I'll check into the new version of popups though. Thanks for the help! Philippe Beaudette 05:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Penn Radio Entry

Recently you deleted the changes to the article for the radio show "penn radio" deeming the changes as not helpful. The changes were in the context of converting the show article to past tense, as the show has just today been cancelled from the CBS radio lineup.

The article should in fact be edited to reflect that the show is no longer on the air, and not be in the present tense. "The Penn Jillett show is" is incorrect. It should correctly read "The Penn Jillett show was" etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.111.37 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You're quite correct, and clearly that revert shouldn't have happened. I'm not sure exactly what happened there, but I apologize and hope you were able to revert it cleanly. Philippe Beaudette 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message on my Meg(film) article changes

This is supposedly an encyclopedia, not a message board. I have changed the article back to the known facts that are relevant to the films current status. The things I removed are just hyperbole, and were just some MegHead's interpretation of some meaningless industry jargon. There is no film called Meg, so it doesn't even deserve an entry in the first place. Regardless, as I wrote in the discussion portion of that page, wishing or hoping a film is going to be made by a certain date does not make it so.As a matter of fact,New Line has yet again pushed back the film.Nanaharas 02:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is less with the film (never heard of it, don't really have an opinion) and more with the writing. For instance, the edits that I reverted included (among other things) the sentence "Meg is the title of an unproduced screenplay, currently still in development hell. The screenplay is based on the novel Meg by Steve Alten. "

Saying that something is in "development hell" is not encyclopedic, nor is it relevant. It is, in fact, pushing a point of view which is something that we frown on here...

Were you to rewrite the sections without the POV, I think all would be well with the world. Philippe Beaudette 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Development Hell is a commonly used industry term that refers to scripted projects that have been in turn around or been delayed multiple times for many years. I even link to it's page right here on Wiki that defines it (tho if I would change a couple words phrase suchs as 'never get made'). So putting Meg in that category is not POV. The MEG situation fits that description and falls into that category. In fact the Meg article page should be removed and a short write up on it put on that page instead. I'd do it but I have gotten a lot of flack for trying to 'clean things up' , so I hardly bother contributing here anymore. In many cases (the Teena Brandon page for one...first off Teena NEVER used the name Brandon Teena) , POV is mostly what that article consists of, yet even the mere suggestion that it be re-written gets all kinds of flack and threats.Nanaharas 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]