User talk:JediLofty

John Henry Cound Brunt

I noticed your changes, its a big improvement well done. I'll give the piece a quick copy edit if you don't mind and I might move a few things around in minor ways. I'll give you a heads up when I'm done and if you disagree with anything let me know. Once thats done I have no problem with passing this for GA.--Jackyd101 15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I jiggled things around a little bit, I hope you don't mind, if there is anything incorrect or that you don't like in what I've done then change it back or let me know. I decided to remove the MC citation, it is very small and tends to distract when looking at the page. I also reworded the lead. Other than that, it seems good to go. Let me know what you think.--Jackyd101 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, I just added a source and now I'm going to go and pass this as a GA. Congratulations.--Jackyd101 16:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :)

Just doing my job :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers 2

It may have a release date, but they only started writing it. It could be pushed back to 2010 realistically. Have a look at articles like The Hobbit (2009 film) and Wolverine (film) which are all merged. Alientraveller 10:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest reading the notability guidelines for films -- it's usually best to establish a stand-alone film article when production starts because of the uncertainty involved before then. Alientraveller's two examples show this to be the case. Also, there are probably articles about future films that have not entered production yet, but that doesn't mean it's OK for them to exist at this point. Articles like Halo (film) need to be cleaned up and merged, basically. The reason for this approach is that there are too many factors that could stop a project from entering production -- hiring a director, waiting on a writer, casting issues, budget concerns, etc. It's very rare for an article to have a case for existence if no actual subject exists, just talk about it. (It would take a great deal of talk, I imagine, for the history of a never-produced project to warrant its own article.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Watchmen (film), had it been canned. Alientraveller 12:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough guys. I stand (or rather sit) corrected! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Witch citation

Sure is! Thanks. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the conversation here, which concludes that the person originally purging it did so inadvertantly. The link leads to an actual article-interview about Blair Witch. Maybe just ask next time? :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Sorry for any frustration it might have caused. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the feedback, and the correction - I should really have known that (I got Victor every week for years whilst I was growing up :P ). I also used to teach at Ellesmere College - small world! EyeSerene^TALK 10:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Brunt

Hi. Normal Wikipedia policy is to list people under the name by which they were known, not their full name. Most VC winners are listed under their full names only because these entries were migrated over from another website. If it can be established which name they were known by then they should be moved to that name (with a parenthetical disambiguator if necessary). -- Necrothesp 12:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to modify the pages that link to this article. Redirects are perfectly acceptable and should generally be left as they are unless they are double redirects (which none of these are). -- Necrothesp 14:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers (film)

Ok, you recently reverted an edit on this article^. Is it not an American film? If so, which i'm 99% certain it is, it would mean that the edit you reverted would infact be true. Rick-Levitt ^Talk ^Contribs 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)—[reply]

I have replied on my talk page. Rick-Levitt ^Talk ^Contribs 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

Well, congratulations are in order, you are #2 in my top 5 wikipedians table!! Rick-Levitt ^Talk ^Contribs 20:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of War image Fair use rationale dispute

You nominated an image I uploaded for speedy deletion, stating your reasons as being: "Incomplete fair use rationale. Image is a screenshot from a commercial computer game, but is not used on the article for said game." However the image is both used on the dawn of war article (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40%2C000:_Dawn_of_War#Plot ) and also contains a fair use rationale. Thus I fail to see what the problem is with the image. If you could clarify your position I would appreciate it. Cheers. XJDenton 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale has been extended and the image removed from non related articles. XJDenton 18:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]