Jump to content

User talk:Steve

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rev. Stuart Campbell (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 29 June 2010 (→My entry: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.
Userpage
Userpage
User talk
User talk
Sandbox
Sandbox
My contrbs
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.
FACs needing feedback
view • edit
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted Review it now
Roswell incident Review it now
La Isla Bonita Review it now


Revolution

Steve, are you preparing for your FAC run? I haven't been keeping up with your edits there, because I hurt my back badly and am ... drugged ... so please give me a heads up before you go to FAC, so I can read it. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't think the article is too far off FAC now; I've added about 20,000 bytes since the peer review closed. In hindsight, I should have left the PR until after I got the Stoneman book, but I didn't think I'd get much from it (Stoneman has a COI in that he was the head of the Irish Film Board at the time and essentially greenlit the film). Used carefully, however, it's been a real goldmine of production information. I'm still working my way through it, but I don't think there'll be too much else to add other than fine detail; he does tackle the 18 specific points of contention from the petition, but I'll probably err on the side of caution and leave that for the existing sources, which have a little more distance from the subject. Of course, I won't take it to FAC without consulting on its talk page first. Sorry to hear about your back; I really hope it clears up soon (and that the drugs are at least offering some measure of fun; if they're not ... get better drugs!). Best, Steve T • C 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no fun, no relief ... better drugs tomorrow if something doesn't improve! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Barnstar of Integrity
To Steve, an awesome editor, for bringing a piece of propoganda ... errrr ... "documentary" to featured status, with aplomb, scholarship, diplomacy and neutrality! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, at last! It finally staggered across the line like a drunk uncle in an unfinished simile. On the plus side, I've now got the experience of seeing an otherwise excellent article receiving little input because it's on a niche subject. I couldn't have done it without your help; and the same goes for the other editors, who charitably stood aside when I arrogantly started throwing my weight around and rewriting the thing. Hopefully now I can relax by tackling something a little less in-depth or controversial. :-) Cheers again, Steve T • C 13:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my role as FAC delegate, I'm pretty steamed about how you were ignored. In my role as a Venezuela editor, I'm even more steamed that your neutrality was questioned, since the article is more neutral than I like :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed that'd be the case; I know you'd have liked the article to be a little lot more scathing, but had I taken that route I don't think it would have come as far as it has. Instead, the only option was to give enough information about both views of the film to allow intelligent readers to make up their own minds. I think it pretty much does that. As an aside, I'm currently in e-mail correspondence with Stoneman, who says he'll dig into his boxes of material to see if there's anything I can use to clear up Jayen466's last unresolved comment about the conclusion to the BBC investigation. Hopefully, I can get that in before the inevitable main page nomination next April. :-) Best, Steve T • C 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone should reasonably expect the BBC to come clean on their role in promoting propaganda :) You really did a superb job-- you can tell because one reviewer wanted you to add more negative, and another wanted you to add more positive, while the POV warriers zipped up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I never saw this one at FAC! If you want a review, I definitely owe you them in spades, so don't be afraid to call in markers :P Congrats, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?

Erik's talk page refers to an ANI thread, but I can't find it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive610. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) See here, here and here. Actually, don't; it'll only irritate you. I was out most of the weekend, so missed all the action. Long story short, Erik (who's done good work finding images for a handful of articles recently) happened across an image of a movie producer on Commons, and added a correctly-licensed cropped version to the article. A few editors thought it wasn't a great image, so they discussed it on the talk page and Erik agreed to remove it. In the meantime, the article's subject has overreacted and posted a message on his personal forum saying, "Find Erik." (as in, his personal details). His minions did a few searches and found an Erik, who may or may not be our Erik. Our Erik gets pissed off, expands the article with neutral commentary, and then the Wikipedia Review folks get involved. Hijinks follow. Erik thinks, "fuck it" and retires. The end. :( Steve T • C 14:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAC loses. Never mind Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caught up at WR-- truly awful stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shakes head in sadness. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something wierd has happened. The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010 re-created User talk:Erik on 20:22, 15 June 2010. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine; it was only User:Erik that was deleted; to preserve talk history, all I did was protect User talk:Erik. I lifted the protection a few days ago as the drama seemed to have passed. It may be that users want to try to get in touch with Erik from time to time without going off-Wiki with e-mail; I have no idea if he ever logs in to check his talk page, but there's no harm in leaving it open to edit. Best regards, Steve T • C 07:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Line on the Horizon

Hi Steve, thanks for your edit with advice for No Line on the Horizon. I've gone through the article as I archived all the urls and removed/altered what redundencies and such that I could find, but as you know I'm no great shakes with that kind of content! Here's hoping that it will be enough (though I doubt it); if you have the time, would you be able to take a quick second look through? Anything at all would be incredibly useful! Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 23:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another read this afternoon and try to leave some comments (if necessary!) tonight. Best, Steve T • C 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, well thanks for all the tweaks you've made and for all the advice in the comments too. I think I'm actually starting to learn how to write properly thanks to seeing the changes that go with the comments (I never could tell what a dangling modifier was prior to today)! Cheers, MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. All I've really done is smooth out the odd lump here and there; before I even touched the article, it read better than City of Blinding Lights did at the beginning of its FAC, so you must be doing something right. :-) I won't claim I had time to be completely thorough; others will find things I missed. But that's fine; the main thing is that I don't think you'll get anyone lodging a quick fail. :-) Content-wise, I tried not to touch anything, as that's your editorial purview. Still, if I've one more tip, it's for you to have a look for material that feels like padding. For example, "In July 2006, U2 sent e-mails to subscribers of U2.com confirming that the band were collaborating with producer Rick Rubin." To me, it seems unnecessary to say where U2 confirmed it, just that they did, and when. The medium isn't wildly interesting. That level of attribution is something that crops up a few times ("In a January 2007 radio interview with Jo Whiley ..."; "In a February 2009 interview with Sean O'Hagan of The Guardian ..."). Sometimes it's necessary, usually when the material is contentious, but here I think it just holds the reader up when all they want to do is read about U2. :-) Anyway, good luck with the rest of it, Steve T • C 20:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well many thanks again for all the edits and advice you've given; I've done a search and I've cut down on all of that kind of padding (I didn't realize just how much of it there was, and I suppose it's inclusion is a little silly; after all, it's covered by virtue of the source itself!). I've just put it up for nomination; hopefully the third time really is the charm! Cheers, and thanks again! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen at FAC. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 15:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, truly. I haven't the time to explain why right now as my son is currently sat on my shoulders pretending to cut my hair, which makes typing rather ... problematic. :-) But trust me, and leave Fasach Nua's last comment unanswered for a few hours. I'll explain later tonight. Best, Steve T • C 17:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, long story short, Fasach Nua puts great store by the WMF's mission statement, specifically the "collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain" part. And I respect that. I think the situation is a little more nuanced these days—there's a balance to be struck between that aim and making our articles the best they can be—but yeah, it's a position to be respected, IMO. Fasach Nua believes non-free images that are for identification purposes only, as seen in just about every media article infobox we have, are not justified and not in keeping with the mission. Precedent and consensus seems to disagree with that stance, but it's not a totally illegitimate one. You won't change his/her mind, so my advice to you is to nip any potentially protracted argument in the bud; acknowledge the opposition and let it stand. If it were me (and I did expect to say this over at the Revolution FAC), I'd say something along the lines of, "Thanks for your comments. I won't argue the point further, as I respect your position and know I won't change your mind. I'll only add for subsequent reviewers that precedent and current site consensus deems these types of identification images acceptable. Thanks again [etc]" Or words to that effect. :-) Others will weigh in if it's still an issue by the time of the FAC's close. All the best, Steve T • C 21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, thanks; I've added a response to that effect. Three other editors have also weighed in on the issue thus far (two of them also U2 editors), and to them it does not seem to be a major sticking point. Thanks for the calming words. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USS President - Thanks

Article passed FAC today. Thank you for your assistance; most especially with the copy editing. --Brad (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure. I've copyedited a couple of ship articles before and found each to be interesting reading. This was no different. All the best, Steve T • C 20:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

van der Weyden

Steve, thanks for you final copyedit on this, and for reminding me why I sought out your help specifally. Best. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome; I'm developing quite a liking for these art articles. When copyediting Disasters I learned more about Spanish history than I did during my entire schooling. Feel free to call on me again. Best, Steve T • C 21:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iravan/archive1

Thanks for the Support. I have made some changes as per your comments. Please check. --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed a little again. Please check. I will request you to edit and change it, if you don't like it. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your edits to Iravan. They tighten the text, making it better. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I think it should be almost there now; looks like you've resolved most of Hurricanehink's issues. Steve T • C 12:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, are all your comments resolved including sic issue? --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK. I made a final tweak to "[youths]", but I think we can live with the who/whom thing. Steve T • C 13:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to want to make it youths then the current format is not proper as youth is part of the original source. Here are some of the options, you decide

I already changed it to the second before you left this message; I think that's the least worst of all the options, in terms of impact on the reader. Best, Steve T • C 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about "the symbol of the price war exacts, a representative of countless innocent [youths] who their mothers reluctantly send to the battlefield to be consumed by the insatiable Goddess of War." [youths] is inaccurate here as it means that "a representative of countless innocent who" is the original text and an additional youths is added in it, but the original has "youth" in it. So I gave the options. Another option is to write it without quotes, but I can't think of a better wording without plagiarizing. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, I see what you mean now; you're saying my edit implies that "youths" or "youth" wasn't in the original quote, even though it was. I don't think that's right; the bracketed word can equally indicate a word substitution, whereas the presence of ellipses might mislead readers into thinking that words have been omitted. Regardless, give me a little while; I'll see if I can paraphrase it without hewing too close to the source text. Steve T • C 14:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for rewording and going to the lengths of discussing it with Tony. I changed it to: Aravan is considered to be a representation of the cost of war; he evokes the "countless innocent" reluctantly sent by their mothers to "be consumed by the insatiable Goddess of War." as Goddess of War may be a reference by the author to Iravan's sacrifice to Kali - the goddess of war. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense; it looks good now. Best, Steve T • C 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Thanks for suggesting a peer review. I went ahead, and added it. I really want to bring the quality of the Days of our Lives article up to standards. I managed to accomplish getting it up to a good article, but I would like to do more work on it.

Thanks, User:Sami50421 Sami50421 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I won't be participating in the PR myself, but I will say that I think your first priority should be to find citations for everything in the article that doesn't currently have one. Good luck, Steve T • C 22:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your efforts improving Sherman Minton and fixing up my rough prose, the article is much better because of your work! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome; as I say, I'll keep an eye out for its renomination. I'm sure there won't be a whole lot to tackle the next time around. Best, Steve T • C 13:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution (2)

Congrats on the FA promotion. I just meant to come back to the FAC and support, but I see I am too late. :) It's a fine article. --JN466 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks for your input too. Just to let you know, I haven't forgotten about your last unresolved comment about the conclusion to the BBC investigation. I'm currently in e-mail correspondence with Stoneman; he says he'll dig into his archives to see if there's anything I can use. Failing that, I'll contact the BBC direct. Cheers, Steve T • C 15:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yarrgh - video clips and still shots from DVDs

I have a Mac. It's a nice one, but I'm completely stupid at how to do this. I can't grab because the DVD is copy protected. What do I need to download to rip it to my hard disk so I can grab still shots and video clips? All fair use, of course... Anyone else reading this, feel free to chime in. Please be patient and explain things very slowly...I apologize.--Moni3 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, right. Let's see. My clips were created mainly in Vista, with a bit of tweaking in Ubuntu, but the process should be largely similar for you. What you need is, as you say, something to bypass the DRM encryption. I used DVD Decrypter, which a quick Google tells me isn't available for OS/X; however, there do seem to be plenty of alternatives. If I remember rightly, Mr Fuchs uses a MAC, so he might be able to recommend a good one. Don't worry overmuch about the legalities; in the US, making a backup copy of a DVD-Video or an audio CD by a consumer is legal under fair use protection. Although this seems to conflict with the "circumvention measures" prohibition of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, there is a "nonprofit library, archive and educational institution" exemption (section 1201(d)).
Anyway, the next step is to rip the chapter the clip is from (at best possible quality) using HandBrake into a M4V file. (When I tried it, "best possible" didn't work, so I altered HandBrake's slider to 70% to no noticeable reduction in quality.) Use Quicktime Pro to edit the clip down to the 30-second portion you want to use, at the same time reducing the quality to 240p and exporting as a MOV file. For the final conversion to Ogg video, I used something in Ubuntu, so I'll hand over to David: "For the final conversion to OGG I used a command-line app, FFmpeg2theora. From there I just jiggered settings until I got something that worked I believe the final outputs were a video quality of 7 or 8 and an audio quality of 8 or 9 (the video quality ends up at around 1000KBps ...) Really just keep the quality as high as you can until you get to the theora conversion, and then you can mess around until you get the right settings."
FFmpeg2theora isn't the most user-friendly of applications, so if you can access a machine that runs Firefox, this last part can be made a lot easier by running the MOV through Firefogg (adjusting the quality and resolution settings at this stage).
So yeah, it's a pain in the arse, and a lot of trial and error will be involved. If the WMF wants us to use free, open standard container formats, the idea might get a bit more traction if it were easy to convert files to said format. But that's a rant for another day. Give me a shout if I haven't explained it very well (or if you throw up your hands in despair and want me to have a crack at it—I have all the DVDs). All the best, Steve T • C 08:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'm going to give it a try just to see if I can do it. I tried to translate audio from mp3 to ogg several months ago and that was a bust, but that was my old laptop. I'm hoping the new one fixes everything magically. I'll let you know my success...or lack of. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you just need screenshots, instead of ripping it you can use a terminal command on OS X: www.ehow.com/how_4531377_take-screenshots-dvds-mac-os.html (stupid blacklist) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No dice on that, David. It comes up as a grey and white checkerboard. --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... must be new OS issue or something. You can still use VLC to take a screencap; if you're going to rip a DVD with Handbrake, you'll need it anyhow (they shunted all the copycircumventing stuff over to the VLC libraries.) I've only had issues ripping certain DVDs with more troublesome DRM, but never met one I couldn't grab after some wrangling. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okiedoke. I downloaded Handbrake and it seems ok, but it's one of those things that no doubt I have to do to get. The DVD has helpful titles like VTS_01_08_BUP, like 20 of those things that I can't tell what they are. I think they're trying to be sneaky, to make it harder on me to keep me from ripping it. Any tips? --Moni3 (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just navigate to the DVD, don't select Video_TS or whatever, and Handbrake will automatically scan. It gives times for the various titles--on most DVDs, you're looking for the longest one (the hour or whathaveyou duration). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! Well, I think I ripped the opening of the video, like the main menu. It was pretty messed up, nothing I would even consider putting on Wikipedia. I don't understand what I'm doing. I mean, that 70% thing was for Handbrake, but the VLC player is the one that looked like it ripped. So, ah. You know. Freakin'. Carry on if you wish or just roll your eyes, take pity on me and I'll tell you the still shots and 30-second clips I think would work. --Moni3 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the movie you're trying to grab? Some videos I've had issues with bad title rips as part of their DRM (Wall-E took some bizarre workarounds to grab properly), so it may not be you :P There shouldn't be that many titles if it doesn't have that issue—worst case scenario you could just grab bits of each title and quickly rip a section to see if its what you actually want (or you might be able to use picture settings to get a preview.) Can you upload a screenshot somewhere of what the title list for your film is? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you already ripped it to your hard drive, pre-HandBrake? Or are you coming straight off the DVD? In the version of HandBrake I have, you simply select the "Source" button (top left) and then either your DVD drive or "Video_TS"; whichever you go for, then navigate not to the individual VTS_xx_xx_BUP file, but the host folder, click OK and it should load the film. Then over in the middle somewhere, you'll probably see where you can set the title number and range of chapters to rip. Finding which chapter you need is a bit of trial and error, to be honest. Alternatively, let me know which clip you want and I'll be happy to give it a shot. All the best, Steve T • C 08:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ripped the DVD to my hard drive. I...thought that's what Handbrake would do. I'm seriously ignorant of what I'm doing. I'll give it another shot tonight. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Handbrake wants me to load VLC. VLC is already loaded, so it gets caught in a loop. When I used VLC to...do something, it ripped a very poor copy of the DVD menu. --Moni3 (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It was a few months ago I did it, so maybe I'm confusing the steps, or missing something out. When I get home tonight I'll throw a DVD in and double-check what needs to be done. (Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been on a bit of a break, so not logging in too often, and then someone came to me off-Wiki with a request to rewrite this, which took most of the morning.) Best, Steve T • C 09:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let's imagine that I'm too hopelessly stupid, or even that my laptop hates me with a white hot passion and simply refuses to do my bidding and no amount of explanation will ever allow me to rip DVDs and take still shots. I'm starting to believe a little of both, actually. In my fantasy world, I would very much like to have the following: "Once More, With Feeling": a still shot of Sweet at the Bronze dancing, or looking stylish, esp. with the set somehow; still shot of the opening title card reading "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" in red lettering; a video of the "literal choreography" in "Where Do We Go From Here?" with the Scoobies coming together in a line from different directions, holding hands, flinging them away, and forming into another stance for the next verse. For "Hush", a still shot of Buffy and Willow in their dorm room when they discover they are unable to talk to replace the image at the top of the article; a better image of the Gentlemen, esp. showing hand movements (I'd like to contrast the free image of Doug Jones alongside it). For "The Body", 30 second video (if it is 30 seconds), of Buffy vomiting, going outside with the light overexposing her and the sounds of life going on. I can give you minutes:seconds references if you wish. At any rate, even if you can't do this and I quite understand if you don't have the time, I appreciate your trying to help. --Moni3 (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! Steve T • C 00:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out "Hush". I think it looks good. What do you think? If you think it's awesome, thanks!!! If not, let me know what to fix. --Moni3 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pong! Steve T • C 20:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that makes it look like I think what you've done at "Hush" stinks or something. It looks good. :-) And you have mail. Steve T • C 20:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I got it. Check it out, including the info about the resolution info on the file page. Let me know if I need to fix anything. --Moni3 (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looks rather spiffing. Nice work on the comprehensive rationale too. I've been looking at the "Once More, with Feeling" scene, but not knowing what the rationale will be, I'm not sure exactly where to begin the clip. Shall I end at the "forming into another stance for the next verse" bit and just work back 30 seconds from there, or will something shorter cut it? Steve T • C 14:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at the scene tonight and give you minutes:seconds for clarity. Thanks again, Señor Awesome. --Moni3 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what do you think about 47:40 to 48:12? --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get on it! Hopefully, I'll get the right clip; running times are different in the UK and US because of frame rate differences between NTSC and PAL. I should be able to compensate; check the location of the other clip at some point tomorrow. Best, Steve T • C 21:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm having a little trouble with this. The timestamp you indicated does indeed put the episode at a different spot for me; I attempted to compensate for the 4% speedup, but that doesn't seem right either. You've indicated a 32 second clip, so if you can tell me the exact moment on which to end, or start, I can work back, or forward, from there. Steve T • C 11:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me so long. I didn't have my DVD with me all day. For shame. At any rate, I was thinking start where Xander and Anya begin singing "Why is the path unclear", and end just at the next verse "When does the end...". Does that make sense? What's your opinion of the title card for the top of the article? The Buffy the Vampire Slayer title or "Once More, With Feeling?" I'm undecided. --Moni3 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, you might be interested in this. --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you knocked that off in, what, a couple of days? I'm seriously impressed. It takes me a week just to put a stub together (I started the American Beauty rewrite last May for chrissakes). SGLP and I are currently running through Buffy again, and "The Body" came up recently. It never fails to impress me, and this article just makes me appreciate it more. I'm delighted you've got your mojo/drive back; your Mulholland Drive article was one of the inspirations when I was putting Beauty together, and I re-read the To Kill a Mockingbird article each time I've finished with the book (a favourite since childhood when it was on the GCSE syllabus). All the best, Steve T • C 08:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A rapidly posted article almost always means that someone will protest that it is very poorly written... I suppose I will see soon enough what kind of reception this one gets. I appreciate your comments about Mulholland Dr. That movie messed with my head. The TKaM article took me a little longer to write...months. I should probably see American Beauty. I'm embarrassed...But then, I kind of missed Buffy until I picked it up for the first time in March. I'm always late to the party. --Moni3 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The Barnstar of Awesomeness
For ripping still shots and video clips for three Buffy episodes even though you were busy in real life. You did it just to make the articles super awesome, which I hope they are now that the images and clips are in them. You did not have to do this, but because you did it makes you a true mad pimp, dude. Fo' sho'. --Moni3 (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a "Gee, It's Cute You Tried to Figure Out How to Post Audio/Visual Material, but You're Kinda Pathetic at It" star? I might deserve one. --Moni3 (talk) 12:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can assuage yourself by the fact that it's the media conglomerates who have made it hell on earth to do anything with what you've purchased, and Wikimedia's rules and interface for uploads similarly, well, suck. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a Barnstar of Perseverance? [checks] Hmm, surprisingly no. When they get around to doing one, Moni should definitely get a Barnstar of Perseverance. And thanks for mine! I am indeed quite awesome. What, you were expecting false humility? :p Steve T • C 14:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades in the Revolution

The Accolades section is vague in content regarding one detailed piece of information. The graphic table does not display whether the film won or was nominated within each honor. It just displays the Award Organization and the Category. Can you reformat that table to insert another vertical column showing whether the film won or was nominated for each award? Thank You. DeWaine (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The awards table shows all those that it won; those that the film was nominated for, but failed to win, are covered in the prose above the table. However, I've clarified it somewhat by changing "Category" to "Award won". Thanks. Steve T • C 07:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you when you say, "those that the film was nominated for, but failed to win, are covered in the prose above the table." The prose right above the table contains the following two sentences regarding nominations and wins: "The film won several awards in 2003–04. It was also nominated for Best Documentary and Best Irish Film at the Irish Film and Television Awards." I don't believe its possible for a reader to fully ascertain from those sentences exactly which honor the film was either nominated for, or won. Especially from the first sentence, (The film won several awards) is not the same as saying "the film won all the awards displayed below." But thank you for putting in the extra term won in the html graphic. DeWaine (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010
I guess you're right; it could be a little ambiguous. Do you think the change in the table heading from "Category" to "Award won" resolves it, or does something else need to be done? Steve T • C 09:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, I think when the prose of the Accolades section is long and overly detailed, readers sometimes tend to skip the content and quickly make their way straight to the table to get a readout on the film's honor merits. If that were the case with this particular article, then I would suggest reformatting the table for 4 sections. (Award Organization), (Award), (Nominee) and (Result). But clearly, thats not the case. The prose section here is light on content, limited to a few sentences. Therefore, I would probably leave it the way it is. The insertion of the won piece within the table and the sentence in the prose detailing which awards the film was nominated for, appears sufficient for now. DeWaine (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2010

BS

The Special Barnstar
For all of your hard work at FAC, your advice and comments regarding padding and copyediting prose, and in particular for helping me to get both "City of Blinding Lights" and No Line on the Horizon through the FAC process, with a cheery disposition on each and every occassion. Many thanks to you for this. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pleasure; thanks very much for the kudos. I usually respond by saying that through copy-editing I learn a hell of a lot about all kinds of subjects; while I learned more than I ever wanted to about U2 (sorry, not a fan!) this was no different. Each of the articles you've brought to FAC has been better than the last, needing less and less work to get it through, so I look forward to looking over the next one. All the best, Steve T • C 07:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to make a Final Destination 5 Page

Hello, with the recent news of a director on board for the sequel, is it possible for me to create a page for the film? You can read the news here: [1] Tell me what you think. Thanks. Cigammagicwizard (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry for the delay in responding. It's generally accepted that films that have not been confirmed to have commenced principal photography shouldn't have their own articles. This is because budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production (after all Jurassic Park IV has been confirmed about six times now, and The Hobbit has been pushed back several times already). Until then, information on the film is probably better off in the franchise article, where it can sit comfortably among other information that gives what little we know about it so far the appropriate context. Best regards, Steve T • C 15:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two Ven things

Hi, Steve! FYI (between April 19 and July 5, I always forget which is actual independence, and which is declaration of independence-- both are celebrated in Venezuela-- if you have more free time than I do, you might be able to look up the two dates to sort them. The US Embassy in Caracas used to host a joint independence celebration.) Also, since you're now a Ven-knowledgeable editor, you might want to watchlist South of the Border (2009 film), which is getting action lately. I don't have time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found: declared independence on July 5, but gained independence on April 19-- both celebrated in Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo. Sorry for taking so long to reply; I'm still on a bit of an enforced break for the foreseeable future (might e-mail you about it at some point), and I've been away for a few days. But I should have time if you want me to nominate Revolution for the main page on July 5. Although I would have thought you'd have preferred somewhere around next April 11–13? Anyway, any of those dates are fine by me, so just let me know and I'll knock off a quick TFA blurb. As for South of the Border, another editor brought it to my attention off-Wiki a couple of weeks back; I checked in on it, and it didn't seem to have any major weighting problems. It looks pretty much the same now, but I'll add it to my watchlist anyway for the duration of its theatrical run. If I get a chance, I'll also add something from a Variety article I saw a while back that went into its reception, er, south of the border. All the best, Steve T • C 07:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My entry

Hello Steve. I fear that there is no prospect of the entry about me remaining free of malicious vandalism from unsigned SPAs. If they can't be prevented, please remove the entry again. If you wish to confirm my identity you can reach me via the WoS contact page: http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/contactwos.htm Rev. Stuart Campbell (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steve&oldid=370832322"