User talk:Erik

Erik's Archives

WT:ACTOR

What did I say that was incivil? I pointed out that he claims a greater number against than exists and that he declared that color would not be used, his opinion alone against 5 who were speaking for it and said he can't declare that anything will not persist. He doesn't have the final word on anything. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You do not have the authority to declare that anything will not persist." Whether or not that may be true, it could be better worded to be inclusive and not sound adversarial. Erik (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You should see what he's posting on talk pages. He doesn't have that authority and he's being challenged on it variously. Not to mention jumping in on an AN thread claiming he's being mentioned when it had nothing whatsoever to do with him and posting about the WT:ACTOR thread there, bringing up my history despite his own and saying I'm posting aspersions on him when he was not even mentioned. This is quite frustrating and downright maddening. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it is becoming about you and him instead of your debating points compared to his own. Other editors need to get involved in the RfC because if it is mainly you two debating, there is not going to be an workable outcome. Erik (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And his going to Talk:Miley Cyrus and announcing that color table headings will not persist discourages 5 editors from coming to WT:ACTOR to render an opinion, because his pronouncement was presented like the law. And for the rest, see how someone wants to insert himself into things that are none of his concern and certainly are in no way civil bottom post and pushing things best let lie. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It's been three weeks of circular talk and I've suggested that the discussion be wrapped up. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with it. I've said what I had to say and do not have anything further to add. Erik (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Avengers (film series)

Fandraltastic has created a great sandbox for this article. In your opinion at what point will this article meet notablilty requirements? Not that it is ready now but just wondering. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the article needs to verify that Marvel Studios intends to bring these multiple films together. No one is really calling all these films part of a "film series"; it is more of a business plan to ensure that films in the Marvel Universe are linked together so these links are advantageous later. Erik (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Would say that they are a part of the same "film universe"? -TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's tough to say what the best way to group them is. If Marvel Studios ever gets to make The Avengers, which is never a guarantee, then an article like this could identify and discuss all the films that got to the big one. I think it would be better to provide this kind of information at Marvel Studios for now. It would be better to talk about a "film series" article later. I'm not sure if "film universe" is any more helpful. Erik (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What if the focus of the article was shifted away from The Avengers and spread more evenly across the involved films? Maybe something like "Marvel Studios film universe"? Again I'm in no rush here just wondering. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I was reading Marvel Studios; is "Marvel Cinematic Universe" an actual term that's used? It may be okay, but I would start discussion if you want to make that kind of move. Like I said before, it would help if the page talked about how Marvel Studios is trying to bring all the films together, such as having Samuel L. Jackson cameo as Nick Fury in the films. Erik (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Its not but there are a lot sources explaining (well reporting anyway) how the films cross-over. It seems that "Marvel Cinematic Universe" is what they are trying to establish similar to the Marvel Universe in comics. Upon more thinking "Marvel Cinematic Universe" might be a better fit than The Avengers (film series) because while the films are related they arent direct sequels as in the Marvel Universe. That would also leave The Avengers (film series) open to direct sequeals, Avengers 2, 3, etc. I'll talk with Fandraltastic about possible change in focus. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

sorry!

• hey, sorry if my words sounded rude. I was just surprised... Cheers! • Ling.Nut 13:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fine... I just thought it was a happy coincidence. I had not seen it on other editors' user pages before. Erik (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I just changed mine ;-) Cheers! • Ling.Nut 13:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this the other day, I thought that there was some sort of secret club being developed here... --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, had to disappear for an hour or so; thanks for picking up the slack. :-) I should be around most of the evening after tea. (That's tea, not tea. :p ) Steve ^T • C 16:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem; got to love the occasional dispute about the plot being uncited. Do you think we should consider just slapping on simple <ref>''American Beauty'' (1999) directed by Sam Mendes under DreamWorks</ref> references? It's a little tiresome to see this come up again and again. Erik (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It shouldn't really be necessary. However, a hidden comment might do the trick; I'll stick one in shortly. Steve ^T • C 17:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am just thinking that even with a hidden comment, we have to keep explaining the precedent. I'm not looking to require them everywhere now, but if someone complains that there's no inline citations, we can write up very simple hello!-it's-the-film-we're-describing references. It would extinguish the stink that keeps being raised every so often. Erik (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex Tse

Good job getting a response back, that's the hardest part. You can tell the author that we just need her permission to release the image under one of the compatible licenses. I usually recommend that they reply back "I agree to release [image name] under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 or the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0." (the author can choose whichever of the two licenses they prefer). OTRS actually prefers that the author just change the license on the Flickr page itself, so if you can convince her to do that, the permission wouldn't have to be forwarded to OTRS, you'd just need to add the {{flickrreview}} template to the image's page. You can also tell her that the image would be used for including on Tse's page, as well as possibly others. Since it would be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, other language Wikipedias would be able to use it also on a variety of pages while crediting her. Let me know if you want further clarification, and I'll get back to you later tonight. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 14:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that you have the proper license, you should upload the image to Wikimedia Commons. You can copy the formatting from this revision and update the dates and information. You can upload the full image or you can crop it, that's up to you. Another user may come along later and add the full image or crop it or alter it in another way. Since it is licensed under a free license, this is acceptable as long as credit is still given to the author. The reason you didn't receive the newsletter is that your name is not featured on the Active participants list (although you are more active than 90% of the people on there...). Feel free to return to WP:FILMS, and you will get 12 issues of the newsletter for just $19.9-no, never mind, it's free. By the way, I stumbled across this BBC article for Psycho if you want to use that. I plan to return to the journal articles of Casablanca this next week, I got a three-day weekend to visit family so not too much time available right now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice, it's great to get images of people who work behind the films. The majority of my images are actor/actresses instead of directors/producers/writers, but that could be because I search more for those in front of the camera due to their abundance in search results. It would be great if Tse was holding a screenplay instead of a drink though! However, it's better than some of my first attempts (such as this, this, this, or this) Good work, and keep at it, there are so many articles still needing new and better images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird reference notation

Hi! I haven't come across the weird stuff in match cut before either, but it seems to be supported by Wikipedia. These two paragraphs still have no citations, so that is why I left the notation in. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I replaced them with {{cn}} tags because I think they are more familiar to all. Gray underlines do not really say anything about the problem. Erik (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

• News and notes: Usability rollout, downtime, admin phishing, Wikimania scholarships and more

• In the news: Overdue correction, Critical Point of View conference, brief headlines

• Sister projects: A handful of happenings

• WikiProject report: The WikiProject Bulletin: news roundup and WikiProject Chicago feature

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

CSD deletion proposal on Transformers 3

You may want to take a look at this. --uKER (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

• News and notes: New board member, rights elections, April 1st activities, videos

• In the news: Wikipedia influences drug terminology, brief headlines

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Baseball and news roundup

• Features and admins: This week in approvals

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vamps(movie)

I am aware of and appreciate your concerns at the AFD. But in further expansion and sourcing, I am finding that what might have been considered simply an "upcoming Heckerling project" a few months ago, is now receiving media attention and coverage because of the "names" now confirmed as starring on the project... Sigourney Weaver [1][2]... Krysten Ritter [3][4]... Alicia Silverstone [5][6]... thus moving coverage away from Heckerling alone. With production asserted to begin a few weeks, and in considering that the current one-sentence mention in the Heckerling article is incorrect in its stating she "directed" rather than the correct "will direct", might you consider incubation rather than a redirect? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There's multiple ways to go about it, really. First, I am not sure about incubation because there is a strong likelihood that production will begin after all, and I didn't want to move details out of the mainspace. It seems better to do a merge and then undo it later when the time comes. Heckerling seems to be the creative "boss" for the project, so in a hypothetical situation where the film does not enter production, the brief coverage seems best placed there. (Kind of like Neil Marshall's planned films.) So I do mean merge and not redirect. Erik (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Merge. My mis-read. Still though... and if you don't feel incubation would serve for something so imminent... maybe we can encourage Pumpkinhead to userefy for a few weeks and then bring it back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Alien Nation FAC

Well, it looks like they closed the FAC for Alien Nation. I'm actually surprised. I didn't hear back on your comments relating to my changes. I think I made the necessary and appropriate corrections. Did you view the page recently? I thought after my most recent changes, the article would pass on its merits. I didn't really get any oppose recommendations from any reviewers, but apparently the article was still demoted. I'm disappointed. I'm not sure what to think. Theatrickal (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes reviews just go stale and the delegate has to make a decision on whether it's likely to get through this time. For what it's worth, I found some time these last couple of days to do a few reviews, and was preparing to lodge a reluctant oppose at the article today, based largely on the prose. It really needs a top-to-bottom copyedit, with particular attention paid to redundant wording and lack of compliance with the manual of style. If you haven't already, I strongly recommend you take a look at Tony1's redundancy exercises and perhaps WP:FILMCOPY. Don't be discouraged; it wasn't "demoted"; it just stayed the same. :-) Also, would you mind sticking to the one account? Take a look at WP:SOCK to see why. All the best, Steve ^T • C 13:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What Steve said. It was mainly because of a lack of traction. Were you unable to get coverage from Laserbrain? I saw on his talk page that there was difficulty corresponding. Since Steve recommends copy-editing, it may help to launch a peer review for that article. For example, Meet the Parents has one here. Maybe if you provide some constructive criticism there and ask to have Alien Nation (film) reviewed in return, that would get another pair of eyes on the article. Erik (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I also strongly recommend using edit summaries when you work on the article and elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's hard to know what's been accomplished without summaries; diffs are hard to read, especially when sections are shifted. Erik (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Erik. Well, apparently more negativity was surrounding this article than I was led to believe! I thought everything was going great. First off, with Mr. Laserbrain, there was indeed an issue. He was supposed to email me a copy of those reviews to insert because they are not available for free to the general public. I followed his instructions for email correspondence, but he later decided not to provide me with the content. He said there was something odd about my email. I inquired further, and he failed to describe what the problem was. So that was that. I inserted one reliable review from a film stub though, and I also inserted the aggregate Rotten Tomatoes reference as per your instructions. As far as the Peer Review is concerned, I'm actually discouraged from doing so. I noticed many times reviewers just write a comment here and there, but they don't always necessarily help out. The copy-edit issue is also a significant problem. I looked at the cop-editers page, and there's a list of people waiting for copy-edits as long as a roll of toilet paper. Meaning: if I put in a request now, maybe it'll get done by 2011. I wasn't aware of those manual of style, redundancy, film copy problems. I'll have to take a look at that later. But thanks for the insight. Theatrickal (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Try following up again with Laserbrain. If there is still an issue, I can correspond with him and try to add the coverage. Also, I am not sure if Rotten Tomatoes is the best source to use for aggregate reaction; see WP:RTMC – Limitations for what I mean. It would be better to find a post-1989 source about the film that reviews in retrospect how it was received. Erik (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to contact him again. If it doesn't work out, I will let you know and perhaps you can collaborate with him to help make those additions. I'll let you know what happens. As far as a post-1989 source for reviews, I'll have to look into that one. If a major source cannot be found, then maybe it would be best to just stick with individual reviews. Theatrickal (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

low blow

That was a pretty low shot, Erik. Perhaps next time, you might consider actually reading the block log a LOT closer than you apparently have. I was blocked once for edit-warring in that article (the other two blocks were reversed immediately when it was uncovered that edit-warring wasn't occurring). It's okay, we all miss things - much like you missed that I haven't been blocked in almost two years. Pretty messed up way to try and win an argument. What the hell happened to you, man? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You brushed off five other editors' viewpoints as invalid and even insinuated that we were colluding. You disagreed with Howcheng. A third opinion came in through Andrew c. You disagreed with that. A fourth opinion came in through Hammersoft. You disagreed with that too. A fifth opinion came in through me. You disagreed with that. A sixth opinion came in through Collectonian. You disagreed with that. You thought that the issue needed more viewpoints. You said you would not concede. This resistance, knowing your history of edit warring, made me worry that you would restore the image just because. Erik (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You drastically misread the situation, Erik, and your response was reprehensibly inappropriate not to mention inaccurate. I had asked for Howcheng to widen the citcle on the discussion - an offer he firmly resisted, unless it was to go behind everyone's back and get an answer that served him by reframing the question. So now, Howcheng sacrificed a lot of good faith that way. After that, i simply wanted to know where he went to solicit input, to see if he had re-framed the question there as well. Let me be clear: I wanted more input, and was happy that it came (no matter the end result). All i wanted to know was where the input was requested. And hell yes, I wanted more input. I thought the issue belonged on a noticeboard, as the discussion was barely about the image and more about the exclusionist/inclusionist battle.

::And I said that I did not concede Howcheng's point, not that I "would not concede". Two entirely different things. I did not find the arguments convincing; all i saw was yet another attempt by that merry little band of folk who want to delete all non-free imagery from articles. You know this, and yet you endangered your own film articles by giving this crew yet another level of precedent to take aim. 

I see you redacted your comments, but that's a lot like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. You reverted the image, and even if I was inclined to revert (which I am not - at least not until a citation shows up) you made it seem as if I was some petty edit-warrior. It was a truly fucked up thing to do Erik, and I would not have imagined you being the sort of person to do it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)