User talk:Steve

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Userpage	User talk	Sandbox	My contrbs
Userpage	Leave a message	Sandbox	Contributions

• To keep discussions centralized, any new subjects posted to this page will be replied to here.
• If I leave a message on your talk page, I prefer to continue the discussion where it began, but reply wherever you see fit; here or there, I'll make sure I see it.
• Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
• New discussions start below old; you can start a new topic.
• If you wish to talk privately, you can email me.
• Discussions are archived periodically.

Archives

July 2007–December 2007 (88kb) | December 2007–April 2008 (57kb) | April 2008–October 2008 (75kb) | October 2008–December 2008 (58kb)

FACs needing feedback view •
Battle of Saipan	Review it now
Infant school	review it now
It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water	Review it now
Seattle Kraken	Review it now
2015 KNVB Cup final	Review it now
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now

Fight Club

I'm pretty sure that you are right about the Empire readers ranking the movie characters, but it was not evident in the link. Do you know if there is another URL that explains the ranking process? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, the main page says "The goodies, the baddies and the uglies YOU voted for!" Think we need to back up the statement in the article with another footnote or not? —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the main page is where I saw it; a little difficult to cite. But presumably this will be in the latest print copy too; I think Alientraveller has a subscription, so might be able to point to the appropriate page number. Steve ^{T • C} 14:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good idea. I will ask him about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the Australian edition of Empire. Go Indy! Alientraveller (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I saw your issue with assessing Two Lovers at WT:FILM. Besides doing Ctrl + F5, you could make a null edit. I've experienced situations like you did, and the null edit usually works wonders. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I was actually a little annoyed with myself because I thought I'd already done it a couple of times. Evidently not! Steve ^{T • C} 14:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, do you mean Ctrl + F5 or the null edit itself? Sometimes I find that Ctrl + F5 doesn't quite work, but null edits update the page just fine. —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The null edit; it wasn't that it didn't work, more that my brain had deceived me into thinking I'd already tried it. Steve ^{T • C} 15:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films November 2008 Newsletter

The November 2008 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. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

Hi Steve; thanks for the note. It is of my understanding that Erick meets WP:N, as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources unrelated to news articles while the storm was active. In particular, Tropical Cyclone Report this, this, and this. I find that for a minor storm, these examples, as well as the sources utilized in the article, demonstrate sufficient notability to warrant both an article and the potential to be designated as Wikipedia's best work. I have to go at the moment, but I'll explain further in a while. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Quickie suggestion regarding Wikipedia:FCDW/WBFLN

Sounds good, thanks for the suggestion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Khan

I was worried about that too- more than 2/3rds of my requests came back with nothing off interlibrary loan. Overall, however, I think it tells a better narrative and has more context at least (before there was nothing about how the director got involved, and looking at it with an outsider's eyes there were jumps that weren't quite explained.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 05:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template talk:Infobox Film#Written by?

Hi. Thank you for your response. The correct credit on Beverly Hills Chihuahua should be "Screenplay by: Analisa LaBianco and Jeffrey Bushell, Story by Jeffrey Bushell" according to the former. I'm not sure how best to implement this in the article, so I thought it'd be best to leave it to someone familiar with film articles. If you know how to deal with it, please feel free to. :) Thanks. - Mark 13:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Changeling

Hi Steve. Just stopping by to congratulate you for your outstanding work on this article. It is an exceedingly good article. Well done! With a bit of work I think it will be ready for FA. I'll try to lend a hand with any copy editing or improvements that need to be made if you like but most of the work seems to have been done, and very well at that! The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the only contributor, but that's very kind of you to say so, thank you. If there's anything I could use advice on at the moment it's in deciding how to cut the article size town a tad; it is already above the normal readable prose limit for FAs, and there's bound to be some additional production material available once the DVD comes out, so we might need to make room for that. If you have any suggestions on this score, please feel free to leave them on the article's talk page. Thanks again, Steve ^{T • C} 08:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Bold formatting

Can you let me know where the archived discussion is? I have been working on a new draft of the "Cast" section at User:Erik/Sandbox#Cast, and I've been trying to figure out the best approach to formatting these sections. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here you go! Steve ^{T • C} 16:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion brings up a point that I think may be misinterpeted. MOS:BOLD permits the formatting in definition lists, and I am not sure if "Cast" sections fit the bill. The example given is Proof, which is a disambiguation page, so I am not sure if it can be adequately compared to prose articles. It just seems different from Sandy's example with David E. Kelley... did she get that example from another place? Also, feel free to share your thoughts about my "Cast" draft so far! There's also a "Production" draft at WT:MOSFILM which another editor and I actually developed separately and at the same time, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The David E. Kelley permalink was the one in the guideline back when I asked the question; it's obviously been swapped out in the meantime. I think any conflict between the guidelines is probably minor enough to be resolved with a little rewording, but it might be worth asking the question again at WT:MOSBOLD, in a simpler and less tortuous manner I asked at the beginning of the year. I've been operating at a reduced output this month, but I should be able to contribute more to these discussions, and take a look at your revised "Cast" draft as the month progresses. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 16:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I asked for clarification. —Erik (talk • contrib) 13:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I spotted that earlier and watchlisted the page in anticipation of a response. A further example to use if the discussion takes off might be the one we use at WP:MOSFILM#Cast and crew information. For me, I probably wouldn't use bold at Tropic Thunder, as the effect of using bold to make entries stand out in prose is diminished when the bold names are right beside each other like that. Other uses, such as we've employed at Changeling and Dark Knight et all I think will be OK. Steve ^{T • C} 13:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you have time, can you share your thoughts at Talk:Valkyrie (film)#Long-term layout? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of Alientraveller's re-sectioning? I've weighed in my thoughts at the discussion. Also, there is a user who looks like he/she will be challenging WP:NF (see user page), apparently stemming from not being able to have The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader‎ as a stand-alone article. —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on the WP:NFF thing, and I'll take a look at the Valkyrie changes a little later. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the image upload; those things scare the wits out of me. Well, what few wits I have anyway. All the best (still waiting for that RfA), SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all; if you have any others that need looking at, let me know. Oh, and in case you were wondering, I wasn't wikistalking you :) It was a six degrees thing through the Tourette's navbox after looking at John's Not Mad. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 01:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can sort that date mess at The Tic Code, do whatever you want. The out-of-control footnote issue was to satisfy another editor, a long time ago, who was focusing undue attention on that issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Me again :-) FYI: User talk:AnnieTigerChucky#The Tic Code. And for goodness sakes, don't be concerned if you do wikistalk my edits; I welcome all the help I can get from good editors. You're doing a very nice job of cleaning up that mess, and I really appreciate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie and The Naked Brothers Band (TV series)

Dear User:Steve,
Thank you so much for that wonderful job you did on The Tic Code article.
I was wondering if you could improve The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie and The Naked Brothers Band (TV series).
Polly Draper is the creator, executive producer, head writer, and frequent director of the series, whom are the stars, Nat and Alex Wolff's real-life mom.
Draper's husband, Michael Wolff stars as the dorky accordion playing dad on the series, as well as, serving as the series' co-executive producer, music producer, and music supervisor.
Thanx again for that lovely fix on that other article.
ATC (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to say so. I'm at a reduced output this month, but if I get the chance, I will take a look to see what improvements I can recommend/implement at the Naked Brothers articles. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Christmas

Steve, I recognize what I'm doing. I was obviously not in the best mood, but you know what? How many people actually register on forums? And how many of them are the same blokes there spouting their ignorant rubbish? I did not know the statistics by the way: wow. Alientraveller (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Obsessive-compulsive disorder

I'm sure you are right to banish Hoover. Anyone who reads Schott's "No Left Turns" (republished by Ballantine in 1976) will realise that it was his paranoia (probably related to his pathologically repressed sexualty) that was Hoover's real personality problem. The `not turning left' was certainly grounded in a real automobile accident and so was much more a semi-rational phobia than a symptom of OCD. It looks like one episode from Schott's book has been taken out of context amd misinterpreted. But I'd be interested to hear your views on Princess Alexandra of Bavaria, and historical cases in general for that matter. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether the article needs a "famous people with the disorder" section at all (is this the medical article equivalent of Wikipedia's ubiquitous "In popular culture" sections?) is a different matter, but Hoover seemed especially out of place given the one behaviour cited as if to prove his having OCD. Any attempted additions to the section should of course be well-cited, but where it is less clear I recommend at least comparing their behaviours to the six characteristics of OCD that make up the diagnostic criteria. Princess Alexandra's eccentricities may well have been down to OCD. But they could have been down to any number of other disorders too, or even none at all. Steve ^{T • C} 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes tend to agree that "in popular culture" rings a bell here. Perhaps it's ironic that David and Howard are now left to fight this corner bravely. There is, of course, a deeper problem with retrospective diagnosis for medical conditions recognised only in the modern age. In his day it was agreed that Mad King George was simply mad, but only later did we understand why. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You raise a good point. It's almost impossible to say for certain in articles on historical subjects that they suffered from a particular disorder; as you say, George's Porphyria was only identified long after his death. For our purposes, where no absolute cast-iron source proclaims it, I would imagine that the best we can do in these cases is to hedge the wording somewhat. Something along the lines of "[X] showed signs consistent with [Disorder Y]." Steve ^{T • C} 00:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

X and Y never sounded better. Eat your heart out Coldplay! Martinevans123 (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your help in improving Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan to be the best that it could. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Thank you for the replies on the FAC. That cleared it up for me.—RJH (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of FACs... do you know why the one for GoldenEye was closed early? Did not seem to have any supports or opposes. It seems procedural to me, maybe because it was located at a page that didn't end with /archive*. Any idea? —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it was because of a combination of factors. There are 40+ open FACs and a lack of reviewers, and the FAC had received no new comments or replies for three days. But the largest factor was likely the fact that the nominator made no effort to either participate further in the FAC, or make the suggested edits to the article, since the nomination began. Thus, it stalled, and should probably only be resubmitted when the nominator has time to participate. Steve ^{T • C} 14:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Latter Days

Great work on the lead!THD3 (talk) 10:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Forbidden Planet

Steve, I know you're quite a big fan of J. Michael Straczynski so I wondered if you've heard the rumours regarding his Forbidden Planet script: it's actually a trilogy with the first film a prequel, and James Cameron is interested. [1][2] Alientraveller (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links; my time online recently has been severely curtailed, and I hadn't seen them. I knew he'd penned a remake, but didn't know any of the details. Cameron's involvement could go either way, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 23:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Lest my stupidity ever be in doubt, I was watching E.T. with my son this afternoon when I recalled that Spielberg had declined to re-add Harrison Ford's cut cameo in the 20th anniversary version. For about two seconds afterwards I pondered how awesome it'd be if Spielberg and Ford would do some kind of mega-blockbuster together. Cue repeated slapping of own forehead. Steve ^{T • C} 23:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way Steve, what do you think about what's been going on for a few months now at Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End? Someone actually believes Will and Elizabeth did not have a son and is now trying to use multiple IPs to make it look like it's more than WP:UNDUE. Alientraveller (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I almost posted a response there myself this morning along the lines of advice that you shouldn't feed the trolls, but I didn't know how you'd take it. Based on his/her latest message, I think the IP is almost certainly trolling, and deriving great amusement from doing so. But to resolve it quickly, and to save time in the long run, use the IP's lawyering against him/her. It wouldn't be a massive problem to throw a cite at the end of the line, would it? The IP can't argue with that. Steve ^{T • C} 12:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was in a hideous shopping centre today so I had time to think it over. You're right; now that I've added a cite to all three pages, it'll convict them even further. Alientraveller (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional clean-up to TDK's reception. Alientraveller (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem; I'm at least partly to blame for the section's becoming so bloated. :) Steve ^{T • C} 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha, sorry, I didn't notice your cull of the section earlier. Did it really get as large as this? Crikey! Steve ^{T • C} 23:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tragic Kingdom's FAC

Thanks for your comments. We'll renominate at a quieter time. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Movies

Wanted was worth the Netflix slot for me. I didn't love it, but it was fun to watch for some scenes that made me grin. It's not McAvoy's best; he's more enjoyable in Atonement and The Last King of Scotland. The film was so different from the graphic novel, though... I didn't read it, but I skimmed through it at the book store, and other than the main characters, there was no resemblance. So much source material being butchered these days... we'll see about Watchmen. As for The Day the Earth Stood Still, I liked it less than Wanted, so that's probably not a good sign for ya. I think it started off strongly with reaction to the arrival, but afterward, it kind of floundered about with some VFX scenes thrown in along the way. When it comes to science fiction films, I like the geopolitical angle, but the scope of this one was too limited. I saw the original film some time ago, and I think that the attempt to remake it hurt the way it could have developed. Also, while I believe in addressing climate change, we should fix it for the sake of ourselves, where the film suggested that we would destroy the whole world because of our actions. The earth will endure; it's been through a bunch of ELEs. Makes me think of what Carlin said on the topic. :) Basically, I doubt it's worth seeing. I do wish that there were more modern sci-fi films that dealt with alien arrivals, and I am tired of stock footage of riots and religious prayers that go with one that do exist, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you seeing the same thing as I am with this premiere information at Valkyrie? The coverage is from mainly gossip columns... the person who wrote this also wrote this. In addition, Daily Mail almost looks credible except for how it reports that the film was universally panned, when this was clearly not the case (though not critically acclaimed, either). Doesn't help that it's from News Corp, which seems like a proxy war from Friedman and his associates. I've looked for more solid coverage about these premieres, but there does not seem like anything indisputable. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your reading of the situation. While the basic factual information presented by these gossipmongers is correct (dates, times, name of theater—um, that's about it), I wouldn't be comfortable citing them due to the concerns you raise; these columns have a vested interest in talking up the story, and this could well have been a non-issue on the night (or a big deal—the problem is, we don't know). I'd hold off adding anything to do with why the premiere was held where it was, and what occurred, until it's presented in a more obviously reliable source. As for the Mail, it doesn't have a great reputation in the UK, and the comment I referred to as an "outright lie" was its claim that rushed re-shoots occurred after test audiences fell asleep. Now that's just bollocks. Steve ^{T • C} 15:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that this kind of issue is hard to convey in words... it's a bit of tacit knowledge. Do you think that there's any kind of independent noticeboard that can review this situation? —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this for some reason. Anyway, do you mean something like WP:RS/N? Any explanation of the background posted there might either be too short to properly convey the nuances, or too long to generate interest, but it might be worth dropping them a note if the issue persists. Steve ^{T • C} 01:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I am not too worried about it... I will try to see if we can just use the other sources provided instead. By the way, did you see the statistics for the article? I checked, and it got more attention than the other films that opened Christmas Day! —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Emmerich and Foundation: ew. Let's hope that the film industry works its magic and this project can go the way of Fahrenheit 451 or Logan's Run until Emmerich is replaced by someone capable of adapting what's going to be tough source material. (I've played out a film adaptation in my head, though... I think that it is better as a mini-series, due to the disjointed eras.) Any opportunity to see Changeling yet? Any interest in seeing Valkyrie? Oh, and what did you think of Frost/Nixon?! Saw it on the same day, did we... I thought it was a very well-done drama film with a terrific performance by Langella. Sheen really does look like the Chesire Cat, no wonder there were rumors about that for Alice in Wonderland. Howard seems capable when he's given free rein of a given topic, as opposed to trying to compress The Da Vinci Code into a film. (Not feeling like Angels & Demons is going to be so critically acclaimed.) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean, sometimes it's like there are two different Howards. Though I do think what made The Da Vinci Code the worst film I saw that year is what made Frost/Nixon pretty good rather than great. He still can't resist talking down to his audience, playing to the lowest common denominator and generally just over-explaining even the simplest detail. Langella was great though, and while you might be unfamiliar with David Frost, I thought Sheen's impression of him was scarily accurate. Two visits to the cinema to see Changeling have had to be aborted so far because of last-minute childcare glitches, so I think that's one destined to wait for DVD, along with Valkyrie. As for Foundation, "ew" pretty much covers it. The Foundation survived the Anacreonians, the Korellians, the resurgence of the Empire, and even The Mule. But you don't have to be Hari Seldon to predict what Emmerich is going to do with it. Steve ^{T • C} 14:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

More wharrgarbl from our friend at FOX News. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and is it a coincidence that this review is from The Times, owned by News Corp? Say it ain't so, Joe. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films December 2008 Newsletter

The December 2008 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. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Help in finding sources

Hey, after getting Star Trek II to FA I've been working on improving Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country in a push to eventually promote it too. I was wondering if you could dig up the bibliographic info for some sources, since the ones you found previously I had not realized existed (maybe my library database isn't that great, I duno.) There's no hurry, just let me know if you'd be willing to do it. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. To tell you the truth, the list of sources for Wrath of Khan was e-mailed to me by an editor who just happened to notice my umm-ing and ahh-ing over the article's comprehensiveness in its FAC, and hadn't the time to participate himself/herself. I haven't the tools or access to retrieve these kinds of sources, and don't know how the editor would feel about my pointing you on-Wiki in his or her direction, but I will forward your request to the editor by e-mail right now. I've unwatched the FAC pages for a while due to a massive real-life workload, but let me know when you put Undiscovered Country up and I'll try to do a review. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources now posted at Talk:Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country#Citations for use. These were taken from Film Literature Index and Film Index International. Best of luck, Steve ^{T • C} 10:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you and the other editor! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ennui

I can think of many places on Wiki to keep you occupied; [3] please let me know if I can be of any help, or e-mail if you want to. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Happens to me from time to time. I was all motivated to work on the articles for award-nominated films, but it never took place. :P Just enjoy something else for a while, even IRL, and come back to it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's weird, throughout the last month I've been very busy IRL, which is fair enough. But I wangled two hours last night during which I intended to do a bit of editing, catching up on WT:FILM discussions and contributing where necessary, and doing a bit of housework at WP:FUTFILM and related articles. But when it came to sit down to actually do that, all motivation evaporated and I ended up just reading a bunch of articles and some entertaining talk page trainwrecks for two hours instead. I'm sure it'll pass; maybe the writing of Changeling (film)—which got pretty intense around the period of the film's release—left me a little burned out. I probably just need to set myself one simple specific task to do first to get back into the groove, and I've a couple of things in mind. Cheers, Steve ^{T • C} 16:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It happens to me periodically as well, Steve, and I go off and do something else for a while; if you're not motivated to do certain things right now, doing them will just contribute to burnout. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I should take a few days off to recharge instead of lurking around the place without really accomplishing anything. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 18:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The friends will always bring you back :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you're plugging away in Sandbox: glad you got your steam back ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A few days away every month without even checking one's watchlist should be mandatory for every editor. Putting the project aside for a while to allow time to forget the less essential elements brings into focus the parts that one wants to concentrate on. Steve ^{T • C} 01:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go; works every time :-) Don't forget that RfA offer, when/if you have the energy/drive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

BAFTA Nominations for 2009

Steve,

Since you are the primary author for the Changeling (film) article, you deserve the honor of including the BAFTA Nominations in the article:

http://www.awardsdaily.com/?p=5996
Bafta Nominations - Slumdog, Button Lead
Author: Sasha Stone 15

Changeling has 8 nominations.

DIRECTOR
CHANGELING Clint Eastwood

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
CHANGELING J. Michael Straczynski

LEADING ACTRESS
ANGELINA JOLIE Changeling

CINEMATOGRAPHY
CHANGELING Tom Stern

EDITING
CHANGELING Joel Cox / Gary D. Roach

PRODUCTION DESIGN
CHANGELING James J. Murakami / Gary Fettis

COSTUME DESIGN
CHANGELING Deborah Hopper

SOUND
CHANGELING Walt Martin / Alan Robert Murray / John Reitz / Gregg Rudloff

--Dan Dassow (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dan; don't ever worry about adding anything to the article yourself. You've contributed more than enough to it that if any group of editors "deserves" to include something, you are among them. As it happens, no-one deserves any such honour, and predictably enough, in the meantime I see another editor has already included the information, which is perfectly OK by me. On a personal note, I should get around to viewing the film itself towards the end of the month, so I'll finally get to see whether all these nominations are justified. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I hope that you enjoy Changeling (film). I saw this film with my wife on October 31, 2008 when it opened in the St. Louis, Missouri area. Both my wife and I enjoyed the film immensely. I was nearly speechless after the credits rolled. She knew little about the case; I in turn had read over a hundred reviews and read virtually everything that was available about the case online while researching the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders article. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Steve, since you are a moderator for Wikiproject Films, i came here. This IP 60.50.240.187 has been continuously vandalising Delhi-6 movie page by adding unsourced information and even reverting my changes by stating unruly messages. Can you do something about it? "Legolas" (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Rather than an administrator, I am in fact merely a Wikiproject coordinator, which gives me no added tools or abilities to block users. Generally, persistent vandalism should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where an admin will be able to look at the user's edits and determine if they warrant action. However, in this case, I would not class the user's edits as vandalism. This is a case where a user is trying to add information in good faith, albeit without a source, and I suspect that were you to report the user to the vandalism noticeboard, you would be told that this is a content dispute that should be resolved between you and the user on the article's talk page. Of course, persistent unsourced additions to the article by the user may eventually be judged disruptive, especially if he/she fails to engage with you on the article's talk page, and at that stage you may have some luck in having an adminstrator step in, even if it's just to drop a warning on the user's talk page. Hope this helps, Steve ^{T • C} 08:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I see this source contains a track listing for the soundtrack. I'm unfamiliar with several Indian sources; do you think that the website would be classed as reliable enough to include in the article as an inline citation? If so, that resolves the issues here and now. Steve ^{T • C} 08:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, 62.60.98.134 (talk · contribs) is the same person as 62.60.98.133 (talk · contribs), who I just got blocked for a week for the same act of vandalism. I've reported this IP and asked about blocking 62.60.98.x. So if you see the same act of vandalism again, don't hesitate to reference these IPs for an immediate block. —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As the "editor" just keeps IP-hopping, I've requested semi-protection on the article for a bit. I'll note the range for future referencing, cheers. Steve ^{T • C} 14:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is needed. I contemplated that action, but it seemed like there were beneficial edits made by other IPs. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I honestly didn't consider that. It's a good point, and one that would have come to mind if I'd spent a little more time looking at the history. Maybe I should ask the protecting admin to reduce it down from a month? 48 hours is what I had in mind when I placed the request; not too short as to be ineffective, but enough to get the point across. Steve ^{T • C} 21:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about removing protection in its entirety for the time being? I think that the only serious trouble was from that IP range with the "true story" falsehoods... —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll bow to your experience on this one. Though I'll watch the page too for a week or so. Steve ^{T • C} 22:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hah, you are just as qualified as me these days. There's a certain plateau that we've reached. By the way, I recall seeing that you had a temporary layout of Fight Club themes in your sandbox. What did you have in mind? I actually just picked up five books that have commentary on Fight Club from the library. Was a little surprised to find so many available there. I'll be printing out the academic items at some point... I bound a hundred pages or so for a course of mine, and I counted up the pages for the majority of the items. Probably will be two bound notebooks of duplex pages. I really want to get this done early, especially now that I noticed that the Featured Article of the Day process is now limited. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're right. I should have considered that with a film that is still in release, many anons will want to make improvements to the article; I will do from now on. As for Fight Club, I haven't really taken my thoughts beyond that rough structure; I just wanted to make a start on it before it turned into yet another one of those things that I said I'd do but never actually got around to. It helps that I've culled my watchlist mercilessly, and my to-do list now has just a couple of items; I don't feel quite so overwhelmed when I log on and wonder what I should concentrate on. I was surprised to step back and see how much Valkyrie has grown in the last couple of months; I reckon that will probably be at FAC before either Fight Club or Changeling. Steve ^{T • C} 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

← True, Valkyrie has definitely grown, but I don't see why it would surpass Changeling so soon. :) I don't know if I'll take it beyond Good Article status right away... I feel like this film will garner long-term attention. After getting Valkyrie up to GA, I'm going to try to focus on Fight Club. I just have to take care of real-life stuff first. By the way, for Valkyrie, what's your take on this article? Seems like some useful content, but was not sure about the publisher. I also posted a notice about it at WP:RSN. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, even as an ignorant teenage lefty I didn't trust the WSWS as far as I could throw it. I would struggle to find any story on the site that isn't shaped by its editors' agendas, so I would be very wary of citing it for pure facts, or for anything other than opinion really. That story appears to be a mix of both, so may, if used carefully, be of some use in the "Historical accuracy" section, but only if fully attributed. Steve ^{T • C} 11:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinator slot open

Due to an unfortunate recent episode in which Eco was indefblocked (and then retired) for real-life harassment, we have a coordinator slot open. See discussion here. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen

I didn't do a damn thing to the Watchmen article. 76.117.34.126 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. My comment referred to this edit from your IP address, which blanked the talk page. It might be that you have a Dynamic IP, in which event someone else may have been responsible. Apologies if this is the case. Steve ^{T • C} 21:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. I didn't do anything, so I think someone is doing and saying these things (this is a shared IP). I will make sure no one vandalizes using this IP anymore or is rude to you. I only use Wikipedia for info. Thank you.76.117.34.126 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Watchmen is an even better read the second time around if you read it with annotations (just Google for them). They show the depth of detail with each panel. Not sure if you did that, so just making that suggestion. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm sure that with my not being a comics reader I missed around 90% of the meta-commentary, so if I read it again (and I'm sure I will at some point), I'll definitely do it accompanied by some kind of guide. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 20:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

:-)

Of course! Obviously a good faith edit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tropic Thunder

Are you supporting promotion to A-class? I can't proceed unless we have a support margin of three or more. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another look at it later today. Erik has already supported btw. Steve ^{T • C} 09:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can, please take a quick look over the whole article since a lot has changed since your initial review. Also there is a current discussion on the talk page on how to handle the faux trailers. Thanks again for your detailed review, I appreciate it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply

[4] You are aware how this started, yes? There are some short-term issues, and a related larger issue. This is how the talk page looked for nearly two years; it was that way 1) to avoid a monster of a talk page for no benefit, and 2) to provide the FILM project with its category so there wouldn't be a fuss. After nearly two years of peace, PC78 decided to install the template and create a fuss anyway. The FILM template is a monster. Does every single article need to present a checkbox for "B" assessment? On a purely numerical basis, the FILM project has so few B or C articles that I doubt the checklist is of any real value. I can reasonably see the table come up as an error message if an article is rated B without the other checkboxes, but aside from that? It should be linked, at most. I know PC78 is now aware of the way the template looks without JS, and I think you're aware of it too. The non-JS concern is basically a symptom of a larger issue, which is "checkbox" thinking. One example of that is the "needs-image" flag. I'm sorry, but very few articles "need" an image. They're nice. They make the article look better, sure. But they aren't "needed". Even WP:WIAFA does not require images. Articles do not get written by formula.

So, since you seem to be writing the revised template, I think the template needs to be trimmed down so that it's small when not collapsed. Even when collapsed, the content seems to reflect a "checkbox" philosophy which is less than ideal. Gimmetrow 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[5] There is conflicting info about the later US theatrical release(s), by the way. Gimmetrow 22:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at some additional sources for this. Steve ^{T • C} 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's frustrating when what should be a simple matter turns into AN/I drama—for whatever reason—and I hope everyone can step away from this until the banner tweaks are made. PC78 has taken up the task of doing so (much better at this kind of thing than me), and I'm confident he'll come up with something suitable for all users, whether Javascript is enabled or not. Steve ^{T • C} 23:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

On the content issues, Roger Ebert wrote a review in May 1993. There had to be some sort of showing at the time. This film seems to have had a bunch of short runs. Can BoxOfficeMojo present that sort of information? Would it even have accurate info on multiple runs of a 16-year-old film? And can I assume PC78 reads your talk page? Gimmetrow 23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, unfortunately. The film appeared in Chicago in May 1993 in what was either a brief run or a one-off showing, and this would seem to be when Ebert saw it, but all I've been able to find to verify that so far is the IMDb entry, which I'm wary of citing due to past issues over reliability. Steve ^{T • C} 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good old Variety solves the mystery. Per this page, it had a limited released in Chicago on May 14, 1993, in Los Angeles on September 24, 1993, and in New York on October 22, 1993. This information, coupled with that from Box Office Mojo, should lend itself to a better expansion of the "Release" section. Steve ^{T • C} 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't tend to read this page actually, I'm only here now because of everything that's gone on these last few days. I'm glad that you two are discussing this article in an amicable fashion, and I'm content to leave you to it and move on. Gimmetrow, if I may correct you on one point: I did not decide to "install the template and create a fuss". As the page history will attest, the banner was added by Legobot and I merely added the assessment rating. When you subsequently removed the banner without explanation, what was I supposed to think? In any case, I hope you can agree that we both could have handled the situation far better than what we did. As I said, I'm happy to move from this and wipe the slate clean. I truly hope that you are willing to say the same. PC78 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re  : Your msg on my talk

Unfortunately his removal of the poster show's that this isn't going to die down quietly - this is getting out of hand. Exxolon (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I know it can be galling when one feels slighted, which is why I did my damnedest to keep these discussions away from AN/I, where well-meaning pile-on might have resulted in an irrevocable breakdown in communications. He's reinserted the image after the brief talk page discussion, so I think it would be more politic to let the issue rest and let the AN/I thread die. While this might not be 100% to your satisfaction, I'm sure you know as well as I do that at this stage any further administrator intervention is unlikely. The discussion will be logged in the archives if it ever needs to be referenced again, and despite the way in which this started, Gimmetrow has indicated a willingness to talk about the issues related to the article. I think that's a fair result. Steve ^{T • C} 08:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

State of Play

[6] Depends, you know the subject a lot better than me, but I think you could wait for other larger articles for more facts. It's only two and a half pages. Alientraveller (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I might see if I can browse it in Smith's without being thrown out; I got burned with a promised 4-page Valkyrie spread in Total Film that turned out to be little more than a rehash of the Wikipedia article with no new information. Steve ^{T • C} 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

 Done Sorry it took so long to respond. I wasn't able to get on over the weekend. Thingg^⊕⊗ 15:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films January 2009 Newsletter

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films 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. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

I've responded to Laser's concerns, and have split the development into a writing section; beyond that, I'm not sure what else can be split (the filming and effects sections are basically start-to-finish go-throughs of the shots, so it would require some radical regrouping to make them fall into neat subsections. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I think there were another couple of potential splits I had in mind; I'll saunter over to the article's FAC page in a couple of hours when I've put my son to bed; I find it difficult to get the opportunity to write something even as short as this when he's around (as soon as he sees me at the laptop he'll sjlihnnaj scxIjkpmksca Steve ^{T • C} 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support; I don't think it's churlish to want more specific headings, though :) I would just like to keep the formatting across all the Star Trek film articles as uniform as possible (once they are all expanded out fully... 2 down, 9 more to go.) I really don't want to keep asking for citations; could you just email me the editor's address so I can talk to him/her directly? If they'd rather not keep doing it or maybe can point me to a resource where I can find the information it would be a great help one way ore another. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That'll be me. I generally avoid FAC processes because, well, some editors don't seem to do a comprehensive job with articles due to neglect of print resources, especially for older films. You have put together a couple of great FAs, though! The stuff from the talk page is what I was able to procure through my library... I'm pretty heavy-handed with my research (see User:Erik/Fight Club (film) and User:Erik/Dark City). Let me know if there's anything related to Star Trek that I could help with. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

WP:FILMS Coordinator nominations

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)

WP:FILMS Coordinator Election

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)

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)

American Beauty

Nice job with the "Cinematography" section! I was thinking that for citing American Cinematographer, it may be a better practice to have them as references in a "Bibliography" section and page citations in the "References" section. This is done at Apt Pupil (film), and I see you've been doing this for the "Themes" section on your sub-page. My impression is that doing this is ideal for multi-page references for better breakdown for more immediate verifiability. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, in looking at the awards page for American Beauty, I think we may want to explore having a sub-article List of American Beauty awards and honors like Little Miss Sunshine has one. If we're aiming to be comprehensive, the table might be a bit overwhelming, even if we "hide" it. What do you think? Also, what's your opinion on the music sub-articles? Judging from the citations available, there seem to be enough music-focused articles to permit them. We could try to shape "Music" to focus mostly on the musical score as it relates to the film and keep the soundtrack focus minimized unless we find specific reasons for songs being used in the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was eventually planning for the format of the references; the {{harvnb}} template seems pretty straightforward. On this, can you clarify the page numbers for those American Cinematographer cites? The "Impeccable Images" one, for instance, states 74–109, yet there are only eleven pages (might be down to adverts, I guess), while the other says something daft like 80–2. If you've found enough sources to justify those music articles, that's fair enough; I concur with the thought that we keep the content in the main article down to the score's integration, etc. Steve ^{T • C} 21:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot help with page numbers right now since the articles were not available in scanned form. I can visit my university library tomorrow (just have a final project to finish up tonight) to look up the page numbers and to Xerox some other stuff before I move out of town. (FYI, I Xeroxed American Beauty chapters from three books and checked out two.) 80–2 means 80–82, basically. For the music sub-articles, I have not read any actual articles, but if you look at the citation listings I shared, there are quite a few music-focused articles (not to mention the awards it won). That's why I was thinking they're fine as separate articles. We don't really have a best practice for how to bridge film articles and their music sub-articles. May as well start now! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I started incorporating some information from a book on hand, but the {{harvnb}} template won't work since the book does not have an author. (It's an interview with Sam Mendes about his first film.) Any way we can reformat it to be manual? I doubt we'd run into this problem again with the other books and academic publications. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of cocking about, I realised in the end that it was all down to the use of spaces between the parameters; fortunately, the template does recognise the editor parameter. Steve ^{T • C} 10:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring it out! I have some casting information to add... do you think that details about filming's start and end (temporarily under "Casting") could go anywhere in "Filming"? I don't think we need to mix these details here since there should be enough for a fairly separate "Casting" section. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:58, 7 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