User talk:Bignole/Archive 14

Transformers commentary

On User talk:Alientraveller/Transformers (film). Alientraveller 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Bay must be a motormouth. Still, thanks, just post it whenever you can. Alientraveller 19:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much. I guess I can wait for more information from the rest of the DVD, but you deserve a well-earned break. So wow, the Griffith Observatory scene was added in post? That was one of the best scenes in the film: hopefully we'll have some more pure robot moments in the sequels. Alientraveller 08:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So that little exchange between Optimus and Ratchet? I see. Well, here's hoping for FAC in the new year. Did you hear Jack Sparrow has been promoted? Alientraveller 13:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, getting Bay's commentary down is something I'm thankful for. What did Bay mean when he said he wanted to focus more on the character's faces in the sequel? Does that mean the robots are getting the lion's share of screentime or more animated expressions (fear, laughter, puzzlement etc). Alientraveller 13:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I want more Optimus, Starscream and Ratchet. I definitely want to see Grimlock munch metal and be defiant to Optimus. Anyone you want to see? Alientraveller 13:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks

You're welcome. Lord Crayak 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

F13 franchise

I take it you're going to include Alice Cooper in the music section? Are you going to mention how everyone mistakes the theme tune for cha cha cha? I'm sure Manfredini was moaning about that on the DVD.

Getting back to the Civil War debate, I think you're giving secret identities a bit too much credit. The Fantastic Four's children are alive and well, so that kind of proves that they can protect them. Iron Man once said, "the whole SID thing is so archaic once you come clean with everyone." And Spider-Man was like "That's easy to say when you're a billionaire with body guards." Similarly, in Civil War, Invisible Woman says "The SID thing isn't such a big deal. The FF have been public since the start and it's never been a concern." Again Spidey replies "Well, it will be when I come home and my wife and aunt are dead." The SID is only important to a few heroes, not all of them. Apart from Spidey and DD, I can't think of many other Marvel heroes who bother about it. I can understand your point, I don't think it's reason enough to oppose the SRA, because the Iniative aren't releasing the SIDs willy-nilly. There's a scene where She-Hulk is getting Hellcat to sign up and she says "No, this info is classified, only available to the highest ranking members of SHIELD." "So I won't have to 'pull a Parker'?" "A public unmasking? Ohmigosh, no!" Besides, if a villain really wants to know their enemies SID, they could probably find out whether they were registered or not. Registered heroes also get paid, BTW. Oh, and the Bugle hate pretty much all superheroes, not just Spidey. It's just because J Jonah Jameson is a Spider-Man character that it's more apparent in his book. There's a hilarious story where She-Hulk is marrying Jonah's son (that astronaut guy from Spidey 2) and Jonah tries to kill her with a Spider-Slayer robot, lol. He was like "my ****ing daughter-in-law is a big ****ing green superhero?" :D Paul730 22:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest, you've actually defended the pro-reg side better than the characters in the book did, and I think Civil War as a story would have been better if there had been a bit more discussion like the one we're having. Your argument that "Turning it into a "paid" service changes the whole idea behind being a superhero. The whole point of a superhero is not solely on the premise of ones ability to fight supervillains, but on the idea that it is their destiny to do that. It's in their heart. You might as well remove the whole idea behind superheroes, give them a badge and make them walk the beat--because by paying them you've basically turned them into cops." That's what Cap and Falcon said, only they used less words because the writer prefers action over dialogue. That argument is all very well, but in the aftermath of all the national disasters that the Marvel Universe has suffered, it comes off a bit childish and naive. In the real world, would you really give a crap about some suphero's destiny, or would you be more concerned about whether or not the government is doing something to keep you safe? The more I debate with you about this, the more I actually like the Civil War story, because it's more thought-provoking than good guys vs bad guys. Can you see the pro-regers side of the argument? I do agree with many of the points you're making, I'm just wondering if you agree with any of mine. I'm not saying the SRA is perfect, in fact, the way Tony Stark has carried it out is deplorable; locking up heroes in the Negative Zone, hiring villains, and making an evil Thor clone to fight on his side. Oh, and Hulk, Cap, and Wonder Man's identities are all publicly known. Antman (Scott Lang) is dead, perhaps you mean Hank Pym (his identity is publicly known). I'm sure there are a few SIDs out there (Squirrel Girl), but like I said, it's a bit old-fashioned nowadays...

You never replied to my F13 questions. Paul730 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I never saw your reply to the F13 thing. Must have just skimmed over it. :/ Okay okay, you <3 secret identities, I get it. :P Lol. You've given me a new perspective to think about, since neither side is represented all that well in the main story. It kind of comes off as Cap and Iron Man fighting each other for 7 issues (which is still fun). The argument itself is better handled in the other books; Dan Slott's She-Hulk defends the pro-reg side very well (although I agree that the citizens arrest form thing is a weak defense for the SID debate) and Peter David's X-Factor defends the anti-reg side very well. Also, just to confuse things even more, it's recently been revealed that some of the worlds heroes are actually Skrulls in disguise. Reed Richards and Luke Cage, some of the most influential characters in Civil War, are prime suspects. So are they actually trying to make the world a better place, or weaken it so it will be easier to invade? Interesting.... BTW, want to me to get that source for the F13 theme tune, about how it's often mistaken? Paul730 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the music comment in. Lol, I was only asking in case you had another source sitting in front of you saying the same thing only better. Why do you not read comics again? Didn't you say you didn't have time or access or something? Or are you just not a fan of the medium? I do love Marvel comics, but they're not very accessible. It took me a long time to get up to date with the continuity and understand enough of it to enjoy the stories. Paul730 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I mean. I had to read The Ultimate Guide to X-Men and The X-Men Encyclopedia in order to get caught up on their histories. The Ultimate Marvel line is supposed to draw in new readers, but they've become almost as complicated as their predecessors now. I think they'll get cancelled soon, TBH, the sales have gone to shit. Paul730 00:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the comics. Superhero films are more accessible, but once you get the hang of the comics, they're better because there's a sense of history and experience. These character are the real deal. Also, in films, certain characters don't get their due because of limited screen time (like Cyclops getting shoved out of the way for Wolverine). Something like Smallville is a good compromise, because it's not as rushed and simplistic as films, but it's less complicated than the comics. One of the downsides of comics is the vast differences in quality between writers; a book can be great one year and shit the next. That's one of the reasons why I love Buffy; there's a sense of history after 7+ years, but there's also consistant quality and focus in the writing because it's all overseen by one person. Paul730 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that sounds... cheesy. ;) So much for their "no tights, no flights" rule. Fonzie had better get his water skis on, looks like there's a shark that's ready to be jumped. Lol, I kid. How does he look in it? Has he started wearing his underpants on the outside yet? The dirty exhibitionist. :P Paul730 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Tom Welling is undeniably handsome, but I don't really find him all that attractive. I think it's the hair, it's a bit too long for my taste. (My friend says Peter Petrelli gets really hot in season 2, after he gets rid of that awful barnet) It's good that Welling's getting bigger though, that's something that rarely translates over from the comics, their physical precence. Ironically, Wolverine, one of the biggest, toughest supeheroes in the films, is a midget in the comics. Lol, why were you bigging Welling up to your g/f? Trying to convince her to watch it with you or something? I actually watched the opening of the Bizarro episode on youtube a few weeks ago, can't remember if I told you or not. Bizarro seemed really cool. Paul730 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw the bit where he bitch-slapped Clark across the forest, and then Clark had to stop the river with his eyebeams. It was pretty cool, I didn't know Smallville could feel that epic. It was certainly more exciting than anything that happened in Superman Returns. I mean, the plane crash was okay, but nothing X2 hadn't done better. Hugh Jackman is a giant, comic book Wolverine is only 5'3. He's taller than Cyclops, which would be blasphemy if it weren't for Jackman's great performance. There's a slight height difference between them. Paul730 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, it was the seventies, you have to make allowances for bad dialogue. At least it's not as disturbing as this classic line from Golden Age Batman. Kinky shit. Paul730 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I've seen those before. And people have a cheek to complain about the gay content in modern comics! Wasn't Golden Age Robin a little boy? That's bit creepy. It seems like Batman wasn't the only one partial to a bit of spanking either. Clark's not looking so wholesome now, is he? :P Paul730 01:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be enjoying it, must be a coping mechanism from all those years of abuse at the hands of his dad. ;) The Batman ones are scarier though. There's a lot of weird stuff in old comics. How about this story, in which Clark gets turned into a baby, and Lois and Lana compete to see who can brainwash him into falling in love. How about that ending? Paul730 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, the explanation was crazy, as opposed to the literary masterpiece that was the rest of the story. ;) Bet it makes you look at Smallville in a whole new light. Hard to imagine that a good TV show spawned from that rubbish. Paul730 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh there's plenty of shit in Marvel. Did you know Professor X was originally hinted to be in love with Jean? Thank God they brushed that under the carpet. They're exploring it again in Ultimate X-Men, unfortunately. BTW, what's your opinion on overlinking? Should something be linked once on a page, or only when it's in the vicinity of another link? For example, the F13 TV series is linked in the lead, and also in TV section. F13 1 and 3 are linked in the lead, but not the film section. Just want to make it more consistant. Paul730 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I read somewhere that linking more than once is fine, so long as you can't see the same link twice on your screen. Paul730 02:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried but it didn't work. :( I also tried listening to the Doctor Who theme tune on that page, and that didn't work either which makes me think it's not the file you uploaded that's broken? ...Strange, I opened up a new window and it randomly started working??? Probably just my wacky laptop; I spilt a glass of water on a few months back and it's never been the same since. Good work on getting that music though! It really improves the article. :) Paul730 04:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really understand computer stuff, but it is working... kind of. It went on longer the first time, but not it cuts out earlier??? Oh well, I got the ki ki ki ma ma ma bit. Did you have the same problem getting it to work? I saw you asking Raul for help. Paul730 04:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Duh, just got your message. :) Paul730 04:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a very cool addition to the article. BTW, your Jason article got a little mention on youtube the other week. It was some Jason fan video and people were arguing over who was better out of the horror trinity. Anyway, somebody quoted that California State University study to prove that Jason was the best, they were like "I read that on Wikipedia". Just thought you'd want to know that your work is appreciated by the public. :) Paul730 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That guy who keeps changing the season number on the Smallville page is a total sock puppet. Why is it only for completed seasons anyway? A quick glance at Desperate Housewives and Ugly Betty shows they don't follow the same rule. Aren't seasons completely made before they start airing? Firefly was cancelled before season one finsihed airing, but the full season still exists on DVD. Paul730 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with you about the episodes, since we can't know if they've been made or not. Not sure about the seasons. Even if it's not a "complete" season, saying that there are only six doesn't seem very accurate. I'll still revert that guy if he changes it again though, he's being disruptive and I haven't seen him argue his case. Paul730 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To me, a "season" just means a number of episodes. The Aquaman show can't be a season, because there was only one episode, it wasn't a season, it was a pilot. There have been a few episodes of Smallville season 7 (and the fact that it's referred to as "season 7", I'm guessing the Aquaman show wasn't described as "season 1"). Paul730 21:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would simply put "7", the fact is that the season exists, if not in it's entirety. Episodes have either been shown or they haven't, they're not spaced out like seasons. If you're still not sure, you could ask at the television project for some more opinions. Paul730 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol, never let it be said that Bignole isn't sure of his own opinion. ;) Paul730 22:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that article is looking amazing. It really makes X-Men film series and Spider-Man film series feel puny. Alientraveller 13:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cool. Man, I wish I could write like you do. I'm obsessed with writing in chronological order, as you can see at Transformers (fiction). Alientraveller 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Halloween

Happy Halloween. :) (It's like 10 past 12 here in Scotland) What's your opinion of today's featured article? I'm not loving those images in the plot section. Paul730 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that section looks extremely cluttered and the pictures are pointless. I'm going to remove them, the only thing which was putting me off was because it's featured and you'd think the pictures would have been removed already if they didn't belong. Paul730 00:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Like what? Do you think that reception and criticism should be merged? The title "Criticism" seems pretty POV to me. Paul730 00:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there an article for the producers cut (I think there was for 6, don't know about 2). If that was the case, somebody might have merged the unsourced stuff after the page became featured. Either way, it shouldn't be there if it's unsourced. How should we fix the reception section? Maybe have subsections with "Box office reception" "Critical reception" and maybe "Controversy" or something? Paul730 00:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. I only hope that the regular editors of that page don't revert me for being "too bold". That happened to me over at the Harry Potter (character) article, your pal Arcayne reverted my edits because they were too "dramatic". He wasn't rude about it or anything, but it was frustrating. Lol, I don't even like Harry Potter. Paul730 01:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. :) Oh, and thanks for catching my little "vandalism". Lol, I obviously wasn't paying attention. Paul730 01:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My name is Earl episodes

Hi. I participated in the talk about merging the episode articles of My name is Earl. If you make an article for season 1, I can make for season 2. Friendly, Magioladitis 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. What about the synopsis of each article? Should is leave out much of them or just put them all together? -- Magioladitis 14:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Batman

I see what he did. From what I can tell, it's an attempt to stuff each unsuccessful project with as much indiscriminate information as possible, such as the most minor roles in the script for Batman: Year One. Considering none of these projects entered production, there's not truly much coverage that can be provided about them besides projects and writing details (that are never fleshed out or publicized). As for my absence, I've been swamped with school and trying to take some time off from Wikipedia to focus better. (I tend to check my watchlist a little too often when I could be hunched over these wonderful textbooks, ya know.) I imagine I'll surface this weekend if I can find the time. Hope all is well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's your take on the jack-o'-lantern image? I wish the source was better (ComicBookMovie.com, meh), but I guess I felt that the article's Marketing section needed a visual aid. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3

Just watched it for the first time, it really wasn't as bad as I expected. There were some moments I didn't like, "Emo-Spidey" was extremely cringeworthy during his dance routines, and MJ was a bit of a moany bitch. Sandman was cool, I wasn't expecting much more than a cool special effect, but the character impressed me. Venom was alright, I wasn't a huge fan of the character beforehand, he's a bit... nineties. I liked Eddies "ooh, my spider sense is tingling" joke, that was a bit raunchy, lol. JJJ was great as usual, I like him. It was nice to see Ursula again, she's a sweet character even though she's not from the comics (that I know of). Gwen Stacy was a bit pointless. I liked Harry's redemption, it was cool to see Spidey fighting alongside someone. Overall, it was a fun movie, but it was a bit long and it suffered from "oh, I'd forgotten about him" syndrome. It felt more organised than X3, though. I'd give it three stars, it was good. Paul730 23:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean about Gwen Stacy, they should have used Debra Whitman instead. That way, she's not completely made up for the film (don't really like it when they do that) and Gwen would have been done no disservice. Gwen is unnecessary in the films; they admitted during the making of the first one that they basically merged her personality into MJ's to form one character. I can't help but wonder if they only introduced her as a plan B in case Dunst didn't return for later sequels. JJJ... I remember wondering if Man-Wolf was going to reappear as a villain, but I doubt it, he's too C-list. Perhaps if they introduce Scorpion in a sequel, JJJ can play a bigger part, but I'm not really pushing for more sequels. I thought Venom was okay visually, I'm surprised they were as loyal to the comics as they were. I see what you mean about him looking like Carnage, but ah well. Emo-Spidey wasn't funny, he was just embarassing. The whole jazz bar sequence seemed very indulgent on Raimi's part, I do think he goes too far sometimes. The only time Peter really came across as "bad" was when he was taunting Harry, but even then, who wouldn't be sick of his constant "Spider-Man killed my father!" crap. I'm not too familar with the animated series, I've seen a few episodes, mostly about Morbius. A moment I liked in 3 despite being incredibly cheesy was when Spidey was playing the audience while getting the key to the city. It was a total groan moment, but very in-character for Spidey, lol. Paul730 00:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I love how you're comparing Tobey Maguire's performance as "Bad Spider-Man" to someone falling on their arse. :) Paul730 00:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I do wish the "darkness" could have been elevated, it would have made the film more believable. Who cares about making it child-friendly, I think kids would be more traumatised by Maquire's dancing than if he did something evil. I hate how he thought he was so sexy as well, him and his big greasy fringe. Lol, Spider-Man and Mr Fantastic, I wonder if we'll see Wolverine and Iron Man shaking their asses on the dance floor next. Paul730 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't mind Mr Fantastic's dance nearly as much as Peter's. As least there was a reason for Reed to be dancing, he wasn't doing it in the street and he didn't randomly hijack a piano. In the commentary for FF, they said that the negative response to Peter's dancing almost made them cut that scene, but they decided to risk it. Lol, dancing Wolverine would be funny because it would be so out of character, kind of like this. :D We could very well see Stark dancing, he is an alcoholic playboy. They should do a Marvel musical. ;) (I was kidding, but I probably would enjoy it. They're doing a Desperate Housewives musical BTW, inspired by Buffy) Paul730 02:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Angel's dance was much funnier than Reed's. So, did you do anything for Halloween? Isn't Halloween a really big holiday in the States? Paul730 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I can't really be bothered with Halloween, it's too much effort finding a costume. My friends celebrate it though, last year my (male) friend dressed up as a geisha, lol. Paul730 02:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to go to a party last year but I didn't have a costume because it was kind of last minute. I figured I could just stick on a hockey mask and pass as Jason. Anyway, when I looked at myself in the mirror with my ordinary clothes and a cheap little plastic mask on (which looked nothing like Jason's) I just thought "This is pathetic, there's no way I'm going out like this" and ended up staying in. I think I would really enjoy Halloween if I put the effort in. I saw pictures of someone who had went as a Buffyverse vampire with the lumpy forehead, that would be really cool. Paul730 02:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw a guy on youtube (I spend way too much time on youtube) showing off his collection of Jason masks. He even had a latex replica of Jason's face in Part 7. I was totally jealous. All those collectibles are so appealing, but you feel like such a geek for wanting them. I've got a few Marvel figurines, they're such dust collecters. Paul730 03:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds cool. :) I always wanted a Michael Myers doll, my friend used to have one that played the music. They're so expensive though. I don't deny my geekiness either, I just don't have the money to buy stuff that's just gonna sit on my shelf. Like I said, my Marvel figures (which are the cheapest series) just collect dust and I hardly ever look at them. I'm always fascinated by the merchandise in my local comic book shop. They used to have a life sized Freddy statue that always made me jump when I turned the corner, lol. I've got a Vamp Willow toy, and a couple of Spike toys. I wanted to get a Puppet Spike, but it looked shit in real life and was a bit too expensive. Paul730 03:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, a museum of geekiness. My friend is a total goth, and her bedroom is full of Chucky dolls. It's kind of scary. My mum always slags me off for buying figures and stuff, she says she can't believe I still buy "toys" at my age. And when my grandpa found out that I read comic books, he said "Shouldn't you be reading proper books by now?" Lol, I get so much abuse for my geekiness. My friend won't stop making fun of me for editing Wikipedia, he's like "that's too geeky even for me!" Paul730 04:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Aren't you a total jock as well? I figured coz of your username that you were a school athlete or something. Paul730 04:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of your username, I just totally ripped off your signature. Hope you don't mind. :)  Paul  730 07:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You? Gave up in an argument? What have you done with Bignole?! ;) Did you watch all the Spidey films together? Wouldn't that take like six hours or something? The memory loss thing... I remember thinking "huh?" during the film but I didn't really question it too much. I guess he lost some memories and not others... Did you see the spoof I linked to on Alien's page? It points out a lot of silly moments. I saw you nominated the franchise for GA. Are you going to do the cultural impact section later, or did you just decide it wasn't necessary?  Paul  730 17:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't "give up" exactly, I was kidding. One of favourite part in that "HISHE" spoof was when Sandman was like "I have a daughter. That makes it OK for me to break the law." Aw, I love Sandman. For everyone else, it was all about bloody Venom but for me, Sandman was the best thing about that movie. Lack-of-subtitles are so annoying. That Halloween doc didn't have any, so there was a lot of rewinding going on. How does the GA process go, I'm not familar with it... can I vote or something?  Paul  730 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't IMDb reliable again? There's guy over at Talk:Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) asking. I think I know, but could you please clarify?  Paul  730 02:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, have you seen this? It's a five minute long making of for the series Ultimate Spider-Man. Utltimate Spidey is definintely by favourite interpretation of the character - like Smallville, it's free from the continuity of the old series, but has enough time to flesh out the characters/stories. Some of the redesigns of the villains are rather extreme, but I like them.  Paul  730 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The game was okay, I always feel like those Spider-Man games have wasted potential. I wish the city felt more alive in them. The Buffy page... I wouldn't object to the removal of the title comparison image. It used to be three separate images until someone pasted them together. What about the other images? TBH, that whole page isn't a great FA article. It seems to have degenerated quite a bit since becoming featured - that cultural references section is crap.  Paul  730 03:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The sad thing is, that's the only FA us Buffyfans have to our name. :( The article doesn't seem to be very well-maintained, or possibly more likely, it's being maintained by people who aren't strict about policy. When the S8 comics came out, it turned into a plot summary of them, I removed it a while back. There's OR throughout - Adam is based on Frankenstein, Buffy vs Caleb is an example of feminism. Blindingly obvious stuff, but still unsourced from what I can tell. Be bold and remove those images, we'll see how people react. Speaking of which, one of those images has been returned to Halloween II. Does the murder of a random nurse really deserve an image, do you think?  Paul  730 04:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it your're correct ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for your contribution. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes a bit of a nightmare this Croc. He is altering the FA Casino Royale article also. Is he delibrately targeting my FA contributions or something? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 13:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

X-Men cast list

Thoughts? User:Alientraveller/X-Men cast. Alientraveller 15:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, Yahoo is a reliable source. Alientraveller 16:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

TF movie

Please don't take offense. Mathewignash 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Joy of Sect

Hi, the page is an FAC, and I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at it. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² —Preceding comment was added at 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

That's too bad you can't accept Spoilerfix. I've never gone wrong with them. Btw, what's wrong with Kryptonsite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 05:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Check this out, there's an episode listed for his guest appearnce that matches what I put. YOu'll see I'm right once you find "other sources" for episode titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_McClure —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Writers' strike will affect the next episode after "Blue" since it airs in a month's time. "Gemini" is dated for December 10, any writers' strike obviously came after this episode was filmed, since most episodes are filmed a couple of months in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's are the links to my sources for titles and airdates, one by one only one does NOT give airdates but at least it lists titles.

http://www.episodelist.com/site/index.php?go=seasons.view&season_id=981

http://www.scifistream.com/smallville/s7/index.shtml

http://www.spoilerfix.com/smallville.php

The episode titled "Siren" does have an airdate of Jan. 10 as stated by TVGuide in this article

http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-News-Blog/Tv-Guide-News/Exclusive-Black-Canary/800026218 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

TV Guide mentions 15 episodes will be produced for Season 7, as the scripts have been written. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't responding to Robin above. I just came across the headline based on the Smallville update at 2007 Writers Guild of America strike and was passing on the headline to you just in case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Erik just proved another point for me. Thanks. Don't tell me I haven't given you any sources. Spoilerfix is reliable I don't know how else to get you to realize that. I hate to tell you but a lot of people also same the same thing about Wikipedia, so what does that tell you?

I'll give you an example of how good Spoilerfix is. Las Vegas episode tiles, have been there since mid October and haven't changed and I've even added them here. You still haven't said why Spoilefix is not any good. Btw, "Siren" is scheduled for Jan. 10 not some other episode, so please don't say you don't know which episode will air that day. Robinepowell 20:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep on saying (like a broken record) Spoilerfix is crap, WHY? I have NOT had any problems with them - ever. So I'm going to keep on relying on them for future episodes until the day they stop being reliable. Same goes for Kryptonsite. Robinepowell 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how I hear from everyone but you, and yet I still don't have an answer. WHY? Why do you refuse to use Spoilerfix? Why are they not reliable? Why can't you let me add these episodes and if anything changes (which it hasn't so far) I'll change it on Wikipedia. Robinepowell 03:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'm still lost, even more so. What does Kryptonsite have to do with Spoilerfix and your obvious distrust of them? What the heck are WP:RS and WP:V? YOu wonder why I ask you to say it in plain english. Robinepowell 21:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't read them, you'll have go to them yourself and put on my messages. My userpage is not setup like most don't know how, especially since this site is not easy to use. Robinepowell 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of giving very long answers to my questions about this keep me some that are short and sweet to my questions.

Have either Spoilerfix or Kryptonsite had wrong information? If so when and in what way? I have to more episodes to add to the list and that will take it to a total of 15 for Season 7, if the writers strike continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the writers strike and "episodes written." That doesn't mean they are filmed and may never be. Writers are necessary during filming in case rewrites need to be done during filming. Robin, now many people have told you spoilerfix is not reliable, can you believe it now? Bignole I have had the same issues with Robin not accepting four reliable sources over spoilerfix. It is frustrating. Any help we can give each other is welcome and offered. Good day. Irish Lass 13:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

When I tried to submit the episode "Gemini" with and without an airdate you refused it saying both Spoilefix and Kryptonsite weren't reliable, yet here it is listed and at the same time both of those sites still have on their Smallville page. THough in the case of Spoilefix I e-mailed them and told them that The Futon Critic doesn't have a new episode listed for Dec. 10th.

So my question still remains unanswered. When did Spoilefix and Kryptonsite become unreliable and how?

I've tried to add the remaining Season 7 episodes but you won't accept them even when it turns out they match two supposedly unreliable sites and without airdates I might add. Even stated TVGuide and Wikipedia as two sources for episodes 10 & 11 but you don't like that either.

First I meant Dec. 13th, happy now?

Now, it's no good giving me the Wiki rules on sources because that still didn't answer my questions. For some reason you were avoiding them.

I did go to NBC and provide a link for Las Vegas but everyone kept on telling me Spoilerfix is is unreliable, even though I stopped saying Spoilerfix. So there goes that theroy of yours out the window.

Secondly I did try to give episodes without dates (and Gemini was one of them) but you kept saying Spoilerfix and Kryptonsite were unreliable and when I gave you other sites, you said they were unreliable too. I don't know of any other sites to get future episodes from, so maybe you can tell me this. How do I add future episodes of Smallville? I know they're right, Gemini, proved it. Robinepowell (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman

Yeah, you said your DVD wouldn't allow it. My belief was that two screenshots that would work as critical commentary were the blue flower or the water evaporating machine, to illustrate their use in the plot. Alientraveller 15:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The shot of Bruce opening his closet before going to Arkham might be a worthier illustration of the Batsuit. In fact, you could try a comparison of it with the ninja costume. Alientraveller 19:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but what about something that captures the monorail, the water supply, Wayne Tower and so on. It's up to you really. Alientraveller 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Only this seems best... is it non-free? I'm not crazy about the concept art because I think we should reflect what's seen in the film as best as possible, rather than the product in development beforehand. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean; I think if we had a large abundance of information about the Batsuit (like more than what's already in the article), we could use more than one image. I agree with what you said to Alientraveller that it should be replaced -- it was really just a quicky production still. I need to get my hands on that Cinefantastique' already... I'm doing a programming project, so maybe after I submit it, I'll go to the library and cough up 30 or 45 cents for Xerox copies of the issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we still have our eye on the by-2008 deadline to set up as FA of the Day for TDK's release? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Got a new satisfied customer, I see. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few "related articles" at Box Office Mojo that we could implement. Maybe The-Numbers.com will have articles, too. Also, I think we should look for information about what the studio's expectations were, considering how buried the cinematic franchise has been all this time. I'm looking forward to looking for new information -- research skills have been nicely honed since we got it to Good Article status. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha... that was terrific. Glad we still have a sense of humor around this place. By the way, I did a super-quick search (was actually looking up the general notability of SHH! outside of movie websites) and found this. To be honest, The Dark Knight is a lot better maintained -- I hope we can get Batman Begins up to such a fleshed-out status. We have over 70 references for The Dark Knight, and the film is still over a half year away! I think we're going to top Spider-Man 3 in "Most ridiculously well-referenced upcoming film article on Wikipedia". I wonder how many non-free images we can plant, provided that we have a treasure trove of real-world context to tie them to. I'd like to push the admins a certain way about the justification of the images. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If we don't find anything Batman Begins-related that's free, I think we should use a free image of a clean-shaven Christian Bale. After all, he's the new face of Batman. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you said the main page, so I was assuming you meant Batman Begins as Featured Article of the Day. I don't know if the Tumbler is better than a free image of Christian Bale -- it doesn't really capture the film as much as Bale would, in or out of a Batsuit. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I haven't really wanted to look. At least we have the page history for later, hmm? I do wonder what goes on in most screenwriters' heads. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Grrr, Warner Bros. didn't like my Plastic Man script, huh? Well, I'll show them.... I'll start my own article and write about myself as a brilliant screenwriter, and I'll start an article about my brilliant script, and when all of Wikipedia reads it, the studio will want to hire me back!" I'll pray with you. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my geez... I suppose my parody was pretty close to home. Seriously! Good thing Wikipedia has neutral fellas like us to keep the big articles in line with the five pillars, huh? Like we always bemoan, why couldn't it be a paid gig. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Great victory! I guess it does help to argue right back at 'em. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is severely confusing... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed... I hope it doesn't come across to the mainspace. I was keyword-searching for this so-called list on Google, by the way... didn't come across anything that would constitute that kind of collaboration. Doesn't seem to be a cabal, after all. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a couple of Good Articles, Batman (1989 film) and Batman Forever, which I've put up for review at WP:GAR. Mind taking a look? I think Batman Forever is close to it, but considering the notoriety of the first Batman, there should be more content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have enough interest in pre-Nolan Batman films to lend a direct hand. Wildroot, despite my opposition to his attempted spin-off articles of failed projects, seems like a fairly decent editor to have around. Hopefully he can polish his skills and produce some great content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that editor's attitude -- it did strike me as combative. I didn't notice his comment to Wildroot until I went to tell Wildroot that I saw him as a prospect. It seems that my reassessment was perceived as a personal attack. I'm sure that there are other Good Articles that need reassessment, but since I work on Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, I figured that the two I reviewed should be held at a higher standard. I definitely worry about revisiting some of the older Good Articles and Featured Articles -- we've come such a long way in terms of shaping article content (especially with images) that some articles may strike us as completely unworthy of the status, considering that we've explored a lot of films' aspects. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess people have different levels of standards. I think for editors like you and me, we can definitely produce content, but probably not present it in top-quality writing. I consider myself a decent writer outside Wikipedia, but I think the constraints of citation make it difficult to easily line up information for the best flow. Sometimes we have to kind of squeeze in content, and it probably doesn't read as well as it should. It'd be nice to have specific feedback about writing styles, but I think that we're pretty much on our own when it comes to writing articles. I daresay that we're the best thing that ever happened to film articles on Wikipedia. Hopefully our presence can encourage a more encyclopedic mindset in the long run. I've also somewhat considered adminship considering that I've been approached twice in the past month about it, but I figure that I need to turn over a new leaf in terms of edit warring. I admit I've done my share as persistence can sometimes be key, so maybe a year's worth of the 1RR philosophy would be beneficial to me. I wouldn't take on such a responsibility so lightly, though -- I'd likely limit tool usage to media-related articles, as I probably don't have enough experience in topics related to history and science. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, quite the premise. One of the editors that approached me explained that you only take on as much responsibility as you need to. I probably wouldn't pursue the position while I'm still in school. I've been accepted into graduate school, which will be a one-year program for '08-'09. I don't think I'll be editing much in that time period. I don't think that you're terrible with your conduct, as we've both edited and reverted in similar fashion. I think though, when x argument gets longer, y response by Bignole will be more verbose. :) I think that considering your contributions, if you were ever interested in that position, it'd probably warrant the new leaf for an extended period of time, like the 1RR philosophy. I imagine that over time, that mindset would be absorbed, and hopefully we won't be perceived as verifiabullies, haha. I figure, though, that contributing to Wikipedia will continue to be my preference. I really do need to sit down and crank out some new content... I was looking at my contribs in the mainspace as of late, and there's a lot of removals and reverts. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Joy of Sect

• Thank you, thank you, thank you. Someone needed to say what you said. Thank you for also saying: "Yes, I'm leaving this message with both you, as this is a joint problem." That is appreciated. I will do my best to stop engaging in that thread of discussion, but if other people bring up concerns at the FAC, I will do my best to address them. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC).

An application of BIO

I got involved in Mitch Clem at AfD. Can you look at the references and let me know whether you think I'm right on his notability. He is not an important topic, but this illustrates an important application of the BIO and Notability rules. I think that the Minnesota Public Radio spot is just about enough, then the mention in PC World, while not in-depth clearly is saying this person is noticed. The other comixtalk source is marginal, but I think that it adds to credibilty. It appeares that Comixtalk has a blog section, but where he is covered is more akin to an online magazine in a scheduled and dated issue. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Asking for some advice

You might remember me from my contributions to the Friday the 13th related articles, which I've kind of abandonded in exchange for the Halloween 'verse. Sorry if I left you high and dry on that one. But what brings me here is that I seek your counsel. I fully trust your expertise on both the subject and the protocol of writing these articles. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I have been putting some words down on the latter articles, among them, the Michael Myers article. My proudest is the rewrite I did to the Halloween II section, an example of which can be viewed here. I fancied what I thought was a good job, what with the crunching/simplifying of the plot that stuck to Michael (and not the overall film), wrapped around real world details. Then some anonymous fella came along and wiped it for a flat-faced plot sum-up. The reason they wrote was a simple GFDL. I originally thought it stood for Good Faith Deletion because it first got my attention before with the removal a section that seemed to be composed entirely of original research. Then, after this, I looked it up and came to this. I'm not even sure what that is, much less what it has bugger all to do with editing the article the way it went (and, oh, yes, GFDL also seems to justify this wholly incorrect diddy). I reverted one of these and got back what I can only describe as a robotic reprise revision. I intended to revert again, but then thought it best to rework the rest of the other film entries with the same balance of short summaries and real world backstories. But I don't want to put all that effort into it and then get squashed for four cryptic letters. Again, I trust you in what you're doing, so am I in the right on this, or should I just give up and remove it from my watchlist? --Bacteria 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviews

S'fine. :) I didn't actually read through them all, so they might be crap. I noticed you saying you needed more reviews for that page, and I had half an hour before Heroes, so I thought I'd try to be helpful. Lol, I've never even heard of those films before.  Paul  730 22:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your dispute with that editor. Judging from her talk page, you don't seem to have much patience for her, lol. The random insult of this edit summary made me laugh. I'm not familiar with those websites or why they're not reliable (is it because they're like gossip sites and not directly from the horses mouth?) From your talk page, it seems like she's trying to convince you that these sites are good, when you're just following policy and don't doubt the info personally. TBH, the whole debate is kind of pointless, because isn't all this stuff going to be confirmed faily soon anyway? I wouldn't waste my time if I were her.  Paul  730 23:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I was laughing because you mentioned her age. It was just so irrelevant to the matter at hand, lol. :) I believe you about the sources. It's obviously a case of Wiki policy over your personal opinion because you were telling me about Siren last week and I know you trust Kryponsite. I'll stick the page on my watchlist, revert any more badly sourced additions. Maybe she'll get the hint when it's more than one editor disagreeing with her. I saw you asked an admin for help as well.  Paul  730 23:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

She's also been blocked twice for violating the three revert rule. Ah well, if she's been warned repeatedly there's no point in arguing with her. She obviously refuses to listen.  Paul  730 23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, they look well cheesy. The SFX in the first clip were cool - I like those visceral eighties-style SFX for horror movies. The vampires look good in it, proper monsters. I'm not a big fan of the pretty boy Anne Rice vampires, I was like "When are you going to vamp out for goodness sake?" :P  Paul  730 10:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. Like mummy Mummy? BTW, you might be interested in this. I don't usually get Jason/Freddy/Ash comics, but I might make an exception for this, it looks cool.  Paul  730 12:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I came back from town just there and I was wavering about buying Freddy vs Jason vs Ash, but the new She-Hulk was out, so... I might buy the TPB rather than the issues. Uh, if there is one, that is. It does look fun, Lori gets killed in it. Bout time she died, I hated her. Might be a dream though, you know what they're like. Lol, I love how Ash is still working at S-Mart, only at Crystal Lake.  Paul  730 17:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I only buy TPBs, Buffy being the exception because that's too good to wait for (I'll probably get the Buffy TPBs one day though, such a completist, lol). Most stories nowadays tend to be written with the TPB format in mind anyway. A common complaint in reviews is that the pacing is screwy because a story has been dragged out for six months. One of my favourite books, New X-Men, is constantly criticised for that. A recent story was about Stryker invading the school and basically slaughtering all the students with machine guns. Kind of like X2 only way more extreme. I thought it was brilliant, but the snobby reviewers were like "there's only so many months of killing off minor characters that we can be bothered with." Not a problem when you're reading it in the space of half an hour. :)  Paul  730 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What, the story jumps from book to book? The X-Men used to do that a lot during the nineties... apparently the stories were great but it was too hard to follow. My X-Men: Dreamsend book collects issues from about 4/5 different titles, some of them obscure solo series like Bishop and Cable. Kind of confusing. The current Messiah Complex storyline is jumping from book to book, but that's kind of justified because it's a massive crossover (or "X-Over", lol) which affects all the X-teams. I'll be waiting for the nice tidy graphic novel collection.  Paul  730 22:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The death of Superman is a pretty massive event to hit the DC Universe, you would expect it to impact those titles. Still, a title should still make sense on it's own. Civil War is a big crossover, but if you read the main series by itself, you can enjoy the story on it's own. But then, if you want the full story, you can also get CW: Amazing Spider-Man, CW: Captain America, CW: Fantastic Four, etc etc. The Dreamsend story was terrible in that respect; somebody would get shot in one book and then die in another... the whole thing was just such an obvious ploy to get people to buy more titles, since the story could have been told in one book.  Paul  730 22:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for getting rid of that Michael Myers character history. That's been driving me crazy for ages, lol.  Paul  730 12:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Going anywhere exciting? I saw that Robin still didn't take the hint about those sources... couldn't help but rant at her a little, lol.  Paul  730 22:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you just can't stay away. You're a Wikiaddict. :P  Paul  730 16:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm always getting up during adverts to check my watchlist/bebo comments. At least Wikipedia is constructive, bebo is a black hole of boredom and pointlessness. But I... just... can't... log... off.  Paul  730 23:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, at least you're articulate with your arguments, you're not just "THIS IS BULLSHIT UR ALL FAGS!!!" like some of the crap you see on the web (especially YouTube, there's so many assholes troll there). Why exactly were you kicked out? :) You seem to have quite a rep online... I was on some website and somebody was saying "I tried adding some stuff to Wikipedia but this guy Bignole wouldn't let me." I can't remember what it was about, but it was funny. Lol, your "little proof reader?" I asked my mum to proof read something, and she asked "Why are some words blue and some aren't?" *Sigh*  Paul  730 23:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I Googled your name and found it. They don't slag you off, they're just whining because you wouldn't let them put that Topher Grace was playing Eddie. Oh well, guess they got the last laugh. :P I remember that stuff with Don... it was kind of scary, that some nutcase across the globe can get it in for you and start stalking you. It was also pretty pathetic, that a grown man has nothing better to do with his life than that.  Paul  730 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, that's what I told your pal Robin - that it was policy, not a personal thing. I remember reading the Don website and laughing becasue he was being a dick to his fans as well. He said "Find Erik and ThuranX for me NOW!" and they all started working, then when somebody said something off-topic he was like "Stop chatting, and do what I say!" He's probably used to being a big fish in a small pond, can't stand it when he doesn't get his own way. Lol, he'll probably read this and me on his list as well.  Paul  730 14:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm attempting to clean up List of characters in the Halloween series and I wish I hadn't started. Like when you're trying to clean a room, and it looks messier than when it begun. *groan*  Paul  730 14:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We can move the title if you want. I kind of want it to be consistant with List of characters in Friday the 13th... even though they're different series, lol. What would be the best titles, and I'll change them? Alientraveller suggested the same as you, but some characters also appear in comics so perhaps "film series" doesn't work? "Franchise"? How do you think I should lay out the page? Alphabetically means there won't a giant contents box, but as I said, I want it to match "F13 characters"... Should I include Halloween III characters? Sorry to bombard you with questions, lol. I also moved my "minor Buffy characters" sandbox over. It's still pretty in-universe and unsourced, but it's in better condition than before. As I told Alientraveller, I'm just waiting for the uproar of "you redirected the character pages! Random Sunnydale High Student deserves his own page!"  Paul  730 15:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I mean the main characters - Tommy, Lindsey, and Sherriff Brackett all appear in the comics. So technically they're not just "film" characters.  Paul  730 18:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Kay, thanks. What about my other questions?  Paul  730 19:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF

No meaningful consensus in support of it ever existed.Geni 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that Argumentum ad Antiquitam is a logical fallacy yes?Geni 00:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC criteria are not equal to guidelines.Geni 00:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah no. You have to show that consensus supports it being a guideline.Geni 00:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pauline Fowler

Hiya, just curious, do you feel that your concerns have been adequately addressed at the Pauline Fowler FA nom? Or do you feel that there are still outstanding issues? Would you be willing to post a "Support" at the nom? I'm concerned that things seem to have kind of stalled there, and I'm trying to figure out what I can do, in order to get things moving. Thanks, --Elonka 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

On the question of tense, are you saying that the first sentence should be "is", but you're okay on the rest of the paragraph saying "was"? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm just honestly baffled by the rules here. --Elonka 13:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard the explanation, but I'm afraid I still don't entirely "get" it. Everytime I think I do, someone else comes along and says, "No, you did it wrong."  ;) So I guess my question for you is, "Is the article right?" If it's not, please adjust it to what you think it should be, and then we'll go from there.  :) --Elonka 13:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. So, if the article is the way you want it, is there some other reason that you're still not supporting the nom? --Elonka 13:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's alright, I understand that real life can intrude. :) I'm just nudging things along, since the FA nom has been running for nearly two months now. Personally, I think that the article is definitely at FA class, though of course there's always room for improvement. If, however, you feel that there are still issues with the article which are reason to reject it for FA status, I'd definitely like to get them out on the table so that we can see about fixing them!  :) --Elonka 02:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Angel eps

I just "pulled a Bignole" and left an epic comment at Talk:List of Angel episodes. I know I gave up earlier, but the ludicrous arguments being presented there made me feel like I had to step in. Also, I reread that Brian guy's comment and you're right, it's a load of crap. It's full of personal attacks too, I don't know why I didn't notice it the first time. Anyway, even though I know they're not going to be merged, I thought I'd make a last ditch effort regardless. God loves a trier.  Paul  730 02:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I spent ages writing it, I wanted to reply to all the points as best I could. It ended up a bit longer than I intended... lol. As I said in my comment, I'm not opposed to the idea of individual Angel episode articles, I just have doubts that they all deserve them. Angel episodes are typically part of the overall storyarc and rarely memorable by themselves. I can see something like "Billy (Angel episode)" or "Smile Time" having the potential to become G/FA, but there's so many filler episodes that are just building towards the season finale. I can see Buffy having more notable episodes, because that show had more "special" episodes like the musical, or "The Body (Buffy episode)". Too many of the "Opposers" seem like they just want every ep to have an article out of principal, because they like the show. I must say I found this response rather amusing. It's like "what are you gonna do?"  Paul  730 02:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting into this conversation, but I wanted to reply to your comment on the Angel talk page ("how long do you think these articles need to be given in order for it to be clear that they won't satisfy the notability criteria for article existence? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? Forever?"). My answer is...I don't know. Is there a precedent for this kind of thing? Since there are 110 episodes, I think one week or even one month would not be enough time. However, 1 year seems too long. I made a list of all 59 episodes I've worked on, even briefly, to try to determine the extent of the problem. I grouped them into 5 sections:

1. Meets WP:EPISODE quality (I think)

2. Meets WP:NOTE and WP:RS but not WP:EPISODE

3. Indeterminate status; is probably notable because it has more than one source, but those sources may or may not be WP:RS-compliant

4. Have one source in production details or reception, but not enough to establish notability - also not every source meets WP:RS

5. Fail the guidelines, but I think they stand a chance to be brought into compliance

There's also a 6th group, comprising the articles I haven't touched. Those are ones that may or may not have a chance of demonstrating notability with adequate out-of-universe coverage - I don't know because I haven't tried to find that information yet.

I guess my question is, given that some (but probably not all) episodes could be made to meet WP:EPISODE, what should be the plan of attack? Establish notability for the ones in group 4 or 5? Remove the excessive plot summaries violating WP:PLOT for articles in group 2? Elevate group 3 to group 2 by finding more sources and ensuring that the sources are reliable? All these need to be done, obviously, but what is the most urgent? Kweeket 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which... I see Robin still fails to grasp simple explanations. I find her so incredibly frustrating that I wonder whether she's just taking the piss to annoy you. Surely noone could be that... dense?  Paul  730 03:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I also wondered if she had a learning disability. If she does, then fair enough, I apologise for criticising her for something that's not her fault, but if she doesn't, then the fact that we're sitting here wondering about it says a lot. Lol, you've really got a thing about her being a 30 year old girl, don't you. So ageist. ;) (I kid, please don't write an essay about why you're not ageist! :P)  Paul  730 03:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, that could be a category... "Potentially crazy Wikipedians". It probably already is. Yeah, I noticed that F13 has been sitting there ignored for ages. Nobody cares probably, because it's an article about a series of crappy slasher films from the 80s (lets face it). It's pretty demoralizing, because that article is the shit. :(  Paul  730 03:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, so your real name begins with Ti...? Intriging. :P Yeah, if you go mention it at the horror wikiproject, someone is sure to notice it. Didn't you have the same problem with your Smallville pages? Just sitting there as the tumbleweed rolls by?  Paul  730 03:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No shit it got passed quickly, that article was brilliant. The only person who was wavering about supporting it was you. At first I thought you were just being fussy about your own work, but I see you're being just as anal about Pauline Fowler (my goodness, I watch that show and she's every bit as bad as the article says).  Paul  730 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I can sympathise with the idea of writing in past tense, even though I disagree with it. EastEnders is on 4 times a week, and I don't believe the BBC airs reruns of old episodes (ie, from years ago). As you said, it airs in real time, so it's hard to think of something that happened 10 years ago in the present tense, because it's not like you can just buy the DVD can relive it. The plot summary doesn't like that big a problem to me - it's written from an OOU perspective with comments from the actress. Also, it's those kind of convoluted soap opera storylines that needs a lot of explanation. It's kind of a plot summary and a "Characterization" section in one. I dunno, lay out-wise the article seems fine to me.  Paul  730 04:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, which is why I disagree with writing in past tense. Due to the mundane day-to-day nature of soaps, Pauline's family and home are quite important to the character. Obviously if I wrote "Buffy lives at 1630 Revello Drive" (and it's sad that I know her address, but what can I say...) that would be in-universe and excessive detail, but in a soap... the whole point of the show is neigbours in that square, and her address is kind of important. :/ Have you mentioned these "IU" problems at the review? It would be nice for it to make FA... I'm no fan of Pauline's, but another fictional character FA is a good thing.  Paul  730 04:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed an edit you made at the Pauline article - don't know if it was a mistake or deliberate. There was a random comma and a sentence which didn't make sense. Anyway, I'm going to bed now, speak to you later.  Paul  730 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Can this review (link doesn't take you to review) be used in the "You're Welcome (Angel episode)" article? City of Angel is a fan site, so I wasn't sure. Their reviews are fair, I usually agree with them (not that that matters, but you know..) That article is pretty decent BTW. I was impressed, Kweeket's done some really good work.  Paul  730 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it's not perfect, but for a Buffyverse article, it's a hunk of gold. So.... the review? Is it useable?  Paul  730 18:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand your point (that's why I asked your opinion, cos I was unsure) but City of Angel do usually give very fair reviews. I'm not loving how fans are treated like total lepers on this site - sure, we have to be NPOV, but does that mean the fans opinions are totally irrelevant? A glance through that site shows that the show creators do acknowledge it - there's quotes and stuff from the writers complimenting the site. Also, the reviews are written by the site's "staff writers", not just random fans busting their chops. If it's against policy then fine, but it does seem like a reliable site (not to sound totally Robin, lol) I saw you getting all pissy with that guy at the Angel episode talk page. Lol, don't insult Smallville or you'll unleash the beast!  Paul  730 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes you would have, and I would have been leading them with a torch in my hand. ;) And I wasn't trying to say that City of Angel is all the fan's opinion, just that websites'. But yes, I see your point about self-published sources. Pity, because I really do agree with that site. The only time I didn't was when they criticised the character Illyria for being too "rushed" because there wasn't enough time to get to know her. I love Illyria... it's true, not seeing more of her was one of the most upsetting things about there being no season 6, but she wasn't a "hollow" character. Amy Acker deserves a frickin oscar for that role. Anyway... so apparently the Jason article is poorly written?  Paul  730 22:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, we were all anon IPs one day. Or, at least I was... Being cancelled means fuck all, lots of crap shows have run longer than Smallville and lots of gems have been cancelled. A good show like Buffy knows when to call it a day - better to go out with style than run out of steam. Angel was cancelled to make way for idiot reality shows - a fact that the studio admitted they later regretted. Both were resurrected in comic book form due to popular demand (Buffy season 8 is one of the most popular comics out right now) not many shows can say that. So there! :P  Paul  730 23:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I would dispute the idea that Superman is the most popular superhero. The most famous certainly, but I'd say Marvel's more popular. I'm not a DC expert, but I've heard it's been pretty shitty quality the past few years. Marvel on the other hand has been thriving this decade - X3 outsold Superman Returns (and despite it's flaws, at least it wasn't just a nostalgic remake). Most sci fi shows have tie-in comics (and I've read reviews saying the Smallville ones are crap) but not all are actually resurected in comic book form by the creators of the show. The Buffy franchise has moved from film to television to comic book with each media breathing fresh life into it - it doesn't die. How many spin-offs are as successful as Angel? Not many. Besides, Superman may be big and famous, but it's full of crap as well. Buffy is just a small cult franchise with consistantly good quality, Beer Bad notwithstanding.  Paul  730 23:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

if she isn't comic company swapped between then. ?? I was comparing Marvel and DC, but the X-Men did beat Superman at the box office. He's old hat, lol. People want genetic freaks, not alien boy scouts. Superman may be more recognisable, but I'd honestly say that the X-Men franchise is more popular and better quality that Supes. The X-Men have had a dip in popularity lately due to lack of direction (which is Marvel getting greedy, diluting the team over multiple titles to sell more books) but that's all set to change with Messiah Complex. As for Buffy... hopefully she won't still be active at the age of 70. Joss'll call it a day eventually, and noone will continue Buffy without him (and if they did, it would be written off as fan fic like the novels). Like I said, Buffy may be a small cult favourite perhaps but you can't diss the quality. Spin-offs frustrate me... Aquaman should have happened. Not saying I would have watched it (although that Green Arrow guy is much better looking than Smallville's Aquaman) but it should have happened. Faith should have happened too... stupid Eliza Dushku and her stupid Tru Calling. Lol, how many megabytes or whatever you call them do you think we've used arguing over who's better, Buffy or Superman?  Paul  730 00:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I was kidding about the kb. And I meant overall, not just tonight. The fact that the X-Men are a team might be what makes them work so well... there's more story about a group of people than one man. I honestly think that the X-Men are the most popular comic book, not just because I'm a fan, but they're just so respected in the world of comics. I think it goes... 1) X-Men, 2) Spider-Man, 3) Superman/Batman (don't know who's more popular between them). Superman is more famous because he's the blueprint on which the other characters were created - the original. That doesn't necessarily make him better. Besides, all fiction is inspired and influenced by each other. As we're said before, Buffy is influenced by Superman, Smallville is influenced by Buffy.

I know what you mean about being torn. I think "I wish Angel season 6 had happened as a TV season" but then I think "but events of the comic are too epic for the small screen, maybe it's better as a comic". Ultimately, I think the series of events was appropiate for the show - Angel always struggled to exist, the odds were always against it. The series was plagued with censorship, actor's wacky schedules, network changes, Carpenter's pregnancy... it's a wonder it was as good as it was. For it to be cancelled but still survive to tell the tale is just so... Angel. :) Lol at your slagging that actor. Is the Flash meant to be as young as he looks?

And thank you for the happy birthday. :)  Paul  730 00:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen any Aquaman episodes of Smallvile, and I haven't seen the pilot. Do you smille when you fart, yeah? ;) I just figured since Flash was shorter and thinner than the other JLAers that he was meant to be a little kid or something. They need more A-list members... I mean, Cyborg? Who's he when he's at home?

Believe it or not, Wolverine's not that popular anymore. He used to be, but Marvel has overexposed him to the point where noone can stand him anymore. They worked out that Wolverine + book = good sales, so they had him in everything - at one point he was in all four X-Men books, two solo series, and the New Avengers! They've even started making fun of themselves - in the X-Factor promotions they said "Features a key player from House of M - no, not Wolverine (sigh)!" and when Wolvie showed up in Runaways, Iron Man said "Oh great, another Wolverine appearance!" And in Exiles, the Exiles visit an alternate reality full of Wolverines, lol. I really think they need to get rid of him and then bring him back in a few years time when everyone misses him. Surprisingly, Cyclops is now the most popular X-Man. Ever since Jean was killed off in 2003(?) and Cyke has been with Emma Frost (who's basically a bitchy bondage queen ex-villain), the character has been brilliant because he's not trapped in a stale relationship anymore. Same with Rogue, once they got rid of Gambit, Rogue became good again. Cyke and Emma are the best X-Men by far - they're so fucked up but they really love each other. Also, Cyclops has kicked Prof X out of the mansion so now he can be the true leader and not teachers pet. He's so cool. :)  Paul  730 01:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Break

I know Superman is visibly more reconisable than any X-Man, but he's also more recognisable than any other comic book character or possibly any fictional character. I'm not denying that. Cyke kicked the Prof out because it was recently revealed that, before he recruited Storm, Wolvie, Nightcrawler, and Colossus, the Professor trained another team of teenage X-Men (including Cyclops' brother Vulcan) who were killed in battle. The Professor didn't tell anyone, and erased any memories of those X-Men, including Cyke's memories of Vulcan. Vulcan survived and is now a villain. The storyline was called X-Men: Deadly Genesis. Anyway, so the X-Men all hate Proffessor X now. Cyke and Emma are headmaster/mistress of the mansion. Apparently, Cyke and Prof are going to throw down in Messiah Complex and then afterwards, the Prof is going to take the New X-Men away from the mansion to try and start again while Cyke continues to lead the "real" X-Men. You can't trust Professor X - he's a ruthless man, as showcased in X3. I didn't know Cyborg was an original member, my knowledge of DC is limited. They need a stretchy guy, stretchy powers are always cool.  Paul  730 01:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoy, was that a dig at Reed?! ;) Stretchy people are cool, and what's wrong with a bit of comedy? You can do the wacky without lowering the tone - look at (ooh, guess what I'm about to say) Buffy and Angel. They had talking puppets. As for Professor X - making a mistake by getting your team killed is one thing, raping the mind of and lying for ten (in-universe) years to someone who thinks of you as a father is another. Not only that, but it was also revealed around about the same time that the Danger Room (which is built from alien tech) is actually sentient. Prof X knew this all along, but continued to keep it prisoner to run violent simulations for years in order to train the X-Men. As Cyke put it, "The oppression of another life form - you figure we've taken enough of it from the sapiens, why not dish it out to the AI?" Some fans are raging about the way Prof is being written, but I like it because it lets Cyclops be team leader. He's not constantly undermined by his teacher. Professor X is a lot like Magneto - only Magneto's more honest.  Paul  730 02:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Prof X's actions were bad? Or the writing? I noticed Robin was back... you blatantly told her not to comment you again, either there's something wrong with her or she's just trying to wind you up. Lol, I can't believe that edit summary you wrote. You're such a bitch. :)  Paul  730 03:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I just told her to stop harrassing you on her talk page. Lol, she "got off light?" I remember reading her talk page a few weeks ago, and thinking "Wow, Bignole's really hard on her" but after seeing what's she's like... she tries the patience.  Paul  730 16:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

We're not the only ones who want more spin-offs. And look which sultry Slayer made her way to #1. :P  Paul  730 04:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad it proved useful. I'll probably use it on Faith's page too, possibly Giles'. I only found it because I was searching for "You're Welcome" reviews. Didn't find any, so I thought I'd have a look at what other Buff stuff they had. Speaking of entertaining and possibly useful links. It's probably of more use to the FvJvA article than anywhere else, but no harm in showing you it. They talk about how F13/NoES survivors always get offed in the next movie. Lol, that annoys me when that happens. It's like, "well thanks for making the last movie pointless."  Paul  730 04:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification of Request for Arbitration "TTN, part Deux"

I've requested Arbitration regarding TTN's numerous edits to TV and other fiction articles, and included you as an "involved party" in the request. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#TTN.2C_part_Deux, and you should add a statement to the section somewhere under mine. Thanks. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Angel

My opinion has always been, merge all that clearly fail, leave ones that do not. If there are "on the fence" articles, then leave them long enough for editors to focus on those articles. If/when they are pushed over the fence to satisfy all relevant guidelines, then research some more and determine which episode that previous failed is more likely to pass with the new sources. Then start working on that episode till it is up to snuff, unredirect it from the LOE, and then repeat the process until you can safely say that no more episodes can meet the guidelines/policies at this time--which you'll never do because notability can happen at any moment, and for all we know all 110 could become notable in 5 years time. To answer you final question in a more clear manner, I think the ones on the fence are the ones that need the most attention. The ones that clearly fail have too many problems to focus you attention on, when you have ones that may just need a few weeks of work in order to get them over the hill. If you meet NOTE, RS, and V, then you're good. EPISODE is just a combination of those, plus a bit of MOS. You don't need to satisfy EPISODE to have an article, EPISODE is a content guideline and helps direct the article to more of a GA/FA structure. You can satisfy NOTE, RS, and V and just need general cleanup, which is where EPISODE comes in.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will focus on group 3 first (those that have at least 2 sources, but need more reliable sources to establish notability and provide an out-of-universe perspective), as those articles tend to be tantalizingly close to meeting the necessary guidelines. I also corrected some of the problems you identified in "You're Welcome". Kweeket 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, you're so edgy

Wow, Mis-ter big-nole! Cho-pping up the bad-guys. Mis-ter Big-arino, the Nole-meister
Okay, i cannot adequately do a Richmeister SNL bit in text. And no, I cannot believe I am resorting to using Schneider as a punchline - he's worn that out doing it himself. Anyway, keeping your cool? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I have you beat, big-time. You are just dealing with someone who doesn't know the rules, and is expecting you to do their thinking for them. I on the other hand have been dealing with one puppetmaster with a hard-on for the John Lennon article (indef blocked for adding fake licensing to copywritten images and then vandalizing the page of the admin who called him on it). I have also had to spend an obscene amount of time on an ArbCom vertean witha penchant for anon accounts and over the top aggro-issues, and who is apparently protected from on high by the Prince of Darkness. It's been an education, but the learning curve is frightfully, frustratingly steep.

On the other hand, I am learning how to hold my temper better. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh shit, I just left a drunken hate message on Robin's talk page. I'm so gonna regret this in the morning... but then again, they do say the truth comes out when your drunk. Maybe a little inhibition isn't such a bad thing. >:)  Paul  730 03:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Road Trip?? I haven't seen that film in years. Oh, I just don't care anymore, I'm so sick of her!!! And "Binghole"?? What the fuck was that all about?  Paul  730 04:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I bought that film cos I like Seann William Scott but I didn't like it much. Lol, not to sound arrogant, but I love how I'm out of my face but I'm still a more competant editor than she is. :D  Paul  730 04:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to sober up now (my spelling is way worse when I'm really out of it). I can see the Robin comment coming back to bite me, but whatever. Honestly, we've tolerated her for long enough, how patient are we supposed to be? I've also replied to that silly comment below... as I said, you've been the most helpful editor I've come across. Some anon who can't handle criticism has no right to start lecturing you on conduct. I wonder who it was, I'm sure it was a registered editor you've pissed off who didn't have the stones to sign in.  Paul  730 04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. :) Anyway, good night.  Paul  730 05:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior

I'm gonna go ahead and give you some advice. You need it. You are one of the least liked editors on Wikipedia. There is a subpage on a well known admin's userpage that various admins use to discuss bully editors. Your name keeps being mentioned. Your behavior has not gone unnoticed.

Some of the things that have been said: "You have a tendency to belittle other editors and their work. You think your edits are brilliant and that everyone is impressed with your contributions, they aren't. You force other editors into doing what you want and you act as if you own articles. You always have to have the last word and pretend to be infallible, even when you are proven wrong. Your autocratic style of editing is driving other editors away."

Please try to change your behavior. Try being polite and stop bossing people around. Wikipedia is a project for everyone to get involved with and enjoy, it is not just for you.--62.255.76.24 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I like you just fine, Bignole. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work; if it hadn't been for running into you and Erik and AT and the rest when I first joined the 'pedia, I might have turned out like that idiot. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank guys. I was just going to remove the comment altogether, but seeing that I am actually liked here, I guess I'll leave it for anyone interested. Though, I'd love to get a gander at this Admin list I'm supposedly on. Funny how I've never been pulled into any kind of noticeboard, or arbitration before to curb my "bullying" manner. For any outsiders reading, yes, I can concur with some of what the IP says. I can by a little condisending at times, but it's usually have petty annoyances of ignorance that could have been easily avoided. As for bullying, I have to disagree. I may be passionate about any and all work on Wikipedia, but to me, that's a sign of a good editor, not a bully. I don't force people to do anything they do not wish to do. I lay out the facts, and my understanding of how they are applied. As for thinking my stuff is so great, and others' stuff is crap, or that I'm infallable, again, that's incorrect. First, I can point you to plenty of early edits of my own that were serious crap. And since, after I work on an article, other still come behind me and make corrections, I know that I'm not perfect. As for other people's work, I can say that Erik, Alientravller, Liquidfinale, Arcayne, Paul, ThuranX, Kweeket, and probably many more than I either cannot think of immediately, or don't have time to list, who do EXCELLENT work on Wikipedia. I think I covered the infallable argument, unless you mean in a debate. To cover debates, well, I've been wrong about things in debates plenty of times. Not afraid to admit it, and I've even apologized for either assuming incorrectly, or being incivil at a time when it was uncalled for completely. For anyone that I've offended, if there wasn't a good reason, then I apologize here. For everyone else, grow thicker skin. ;) Have a nice holiday.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you are liked. Somewhere in the world, at this very moment, there is a naked man having sex with someone dressed as your favorite cartoon character and imagining that its you, instead. (It should be noted that I am at work and am not the person described, nor am associated with aforementioned person in any way. shape or form). <:-O

What admin list ar eyou on? Do you mean, someone put on the list as an admin, or you are on a shit-list? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently I am on some shitlist. Oh well. It's kind of odd that I make some taboo list, yet I've never had an ArbCom against me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Got a link for this page? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

They didn't provide one. I'm simply going on the word of the IP that one exists.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Am i the only one who notes how this IP seems to know their way around WP a little too well for someone who has a total of two edits? granted, I've been dealing with a lot of sockpuppets (I keep typo'ing 'cockpuppets') lately, so maybe I'm jumping at shadows, and the person is just misguided and gifted. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this earlier or I would have replied. The anon talks about "a subpage on a well known admin's userpage that various admins use to discuss bully editors" and apparently quotes it. Eh, a link would be nice, mate. At least back up your claims. I don't believe Bignole is a bully. He's totally anal and has extremely high standards when it comes to the quality of articles, yes, but that's not a bad thing. We are trying to improve this website, yes? Maybe if you listened to what he had to say and took his advice instead of getting all huffy about it, Wikipedia would be better quality. Personally, I have found Bignole to be an extremely patient and friendly guy who has no problem articulating why an article needs improvement and how to fix it. I have encountered other editors who simply point out problems in articles and then make no effort to fix them, but Bignole has been extremely helpful, even when it comes to topics that he has no personal interest in. Bignole can lose his temper sometimes and be rude (who doesn't once in a while?), but at least he has the balls to do it signed in instead of leaving some anonymous comment on an editors talk page. As Arcayne has already pointed out, how does an anonymous editor with only two edits know so much about Bignole and what other editors think of him? Please don't confuse a respect for Wikipedia policies and intolerence for those who refuse to follow them as "bullying". Pulling people up for their rubbish edits and explaining how they can improve them is not bullying, it's constructive criticism. If you can't handle that... well sorry, but it's not Bignole's responsibility to nurse your bruised ego. Get over it.  Paul  730 04:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, userpages (even those of admins, IIRC) still show up in Google searches. Yet the results returned when searching for the terms "site:en.wikipedia.org", "Bignole" and "Bully" only show the chap in a good light. Mr Anonymous appears to be talking bollocks. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 08:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Smallville poster

Yeah, seems like a good image to show the episode's significance. -- Alientraveller (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So how many episodes you planning to write? Or are you going to work on each season first? -- Alientraveller (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You could mine mentions from reviews of the DVD set. That worked for "Blind Ambition". -- Alientraveller (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fray

What's your opinion on this? I'm trying to link to the Buffyverse wiki in the body of an article, and am being reverted because of WP:EL. I remember you saying that these sort of things would be controversial, but that you supported them.  Paul  730 01:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

To quote a friend... "Just cos it's guideline doesn't mean you should dismiss it." :P Lol, I'm kidding, it's just kinda strange to hear you recommeding ignore all rules. The whole wiki snobbery thing annoys me... Wikipedia doesn't want fancruft, Buffy fans do want fancruft, and Buffyverse Wiki encourages fancruft but has hardly eny editors because noone knows it exists. Frustrating.  Paul  730 02:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, apparently Nalvage picked up on the same thing I did - that's it's unusual for us to ignore policy. Spying on your conversation with that guy below - I've noticed how "have a nice evening" or something similar has become Wikicode for "Eff off and don't comment me again." ;)  Paul  730 03:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I do it too. :) Adding "thank you" to the bottom of comments when you have nothing to thank them for is the same. It's just the faux politeness of it after you called him an asshole which made me laugh.  Paul  730 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't see he corrected your spelling. Cheeky tosser. I don't get the argument? Aren't we supposed to use words relative to the topic's country of origin? Aquaman debuted in America, so "fall" is a perfectly appropiate word to use IMO. Just as we use British English for the Doctor Who pages. Which, looking at his talk page, is just what you said.  Paul  730 04:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't find "fall" confusing. Maybe I watch too much American TV, lol. I saw he blanked the page. Oh well, that's his perogative.  Paul  730 04:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That Michael sandbox is looking great BTW. Obviously it all needs to be prose-ified, but there's lots of great sources. Looking through it, a lot of the info is really interesting, since none of my sequel DVDs have special features. Who knew all these films had video games? I'd laugh if Michael was in Smash Bros. ;)  Paul  730 04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Halloween website used to better as I recall. Before I had home acess to the internet, I used to go on the school computers and print stuff out from it like the geek I am. ;) They had full chapters from the novels, an interactive map of Haddonfield... it was pretty cool. I also heard they had full character bios which included info not from the films. I wonder what happened to it all. It kinda sucks now.  Paul  730 05:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe just work with what you've got for the time being? You were so lucky with the Jason articles, having two reference books and a good website to work with. A lot of the Halloween stuff I mentioned used to be mentioned on Wikipedia, but when it went from the website, it had to go from here too. I'm wary of online sources, they have tendency to disappear into thin air and leave half your article uncited.  Paul  730 05:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed but I didn't read them in depth at the time. Highest grossing franchise, huh? Take that, Freddy. ;)  Paul  730 06:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, so long as it's reliably sourced. I'm really liking that article, it's a nice big meaty article and it's not even finished yet. And nobody cares apparently... :(  Paul  730 07:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just go straight to someone's talk page and be like "gonna review this article?" Not even someone you know, just some randomer? Or is that frowned upon for being "cavassing" or something like that?  Paul  730 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah well. It has to get reviewed at some point... hasn't it? Anyway, going to bed now, night.  Paul  730 07:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, a comparison? Obviously the Nightmare page needs improvement to be as good as the F13 one. Oh, and I would just go ahead and move the page. Noone has replied, and you proposed the move ages ago. Can't say you didn't warn them.  Paul  730 21:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nalvage is back at the Fray page. Is it just me, or does it sound like's he's got it in for us personally? Lots of passive aggressive little personal comments. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.  Paul  730 03:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of him (I'm being sexist, presuming it's a him). He was the first editor I encountered when I started editing, and he seemed helpful and friendly enough. Shot me down for trying to have a casual chat, though, since personal talk pages must only be used for discussion on articles. :P Then when I started being more mindful of policy and asked him for help a few times, he totally ignored me. His sudden repsect for policy seems to be an excuse to argue with us, since I remember him once telling me it didn't matter how long plot summaries were. I wonder what he has against me/us.  Paul  730 03:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty odd flirting. I dunno, I was chatting about Buffy, and he was all "you'd better stop that before you incur the wrath of Wiki." Being new, I took that literally and thought that admins monitored your talk page or something. Lol, I was talking to Zythe later and I was like "we'd better wrap this up before we get told off." He must have thought... WTF? :) Hmm, Nalvage just seems kind of antisocial. I'm relutant to slag him off because he has been nice to me before, but it was hard to read that comment of his without thinking "What crawled up your arse and died?" It probably has something to do with the Angel episode discussion, since we were going on about policy over there.  Paul  730 03:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, he says he didn't mean any offense. Hopefully the conversation is over now.  Paul  730 04:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He's not replied yet, I see. I don't understand why, if he was interested in fixing up the article, he didn't just say to you "I'd like to help you with your Michael sandbox, here's some literature info." He obviously knew you had a sandbox too, since he was bold enough to go nicking from it. It would have saved you both some work. Lol, maybe he's part of that non-existant cabal that doesn't like you, and doesn't want you to get another FA. :P  Paul  730 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't "crap", it just wasn't suitable for here. I actually went through the page history and retrieved it, then pasted it into the Horror Movie wiki. I just don't like seeing all that info going to waste, especially since there's an appropiate wiki with nothing on it. There's always gonna be someone who will enjoy reading that character history... I was on some horror website and they were talking about Michael, and they said "Anyone who wants an uber-complete character history of Michael go to Wikipedia" and I thought "Tough shit, it's not there any more." I bet you're loving the Robin thing. ;) Uh, except for the part where your show has been postponed. :(  Paul  730 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether it was good crap or bad crap, at least that wiki has something to work with now. (Aw, they only have 32 articles.) I meant to link that wiki on your sandbox, if you don't mind. I saw you gloating on Robin's page. ;) I heard Heroes is getting out of the strike quite well? As much as I love it, I don't pay much attention to Heroes gossip, I just watch it when it's on. Don't have a clue what season 2 is about, although I hear it's not as good as season 1.  Paul  730 23:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One good thing to possibly come out of the strike, is that because Allan Heinberg's show is being delayed, he might get off his ass and get back to writing Young Avengers like he's supposed to. Bloody Hollywood comic writers, keeping everyone waiting around cos of their stupid schedules.  Paul  730 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? The strike doesn't affect comic books I don't think(?). I don't know if he will, it's just something I heard. The Young Avengers are his babies, he should be more loyal or else they'll just fade out of existence. I wouldn't even object to somebody else writing them, but I hate how their series is in limbo because that guy is too busy to write them.  Paul  730 23:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No, he is set to write more stories, he has them all planned out. He just hasn't had time to write them yet, as far as I know. Lol, you saying Young Avengers ain't good enough or something? ;)  Paul  730 00:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't that Avallone novel image be placed on the Friday the 13th Part III page? Presumably, that article should have some mention of adaptations and it seems a waste to orphan it.  Paul  730 21:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Stupid fair use policy making everyone's lives less visually interesting. I like those images, too. :( Ah well... to be honest, that video games image was getting on my nerves as well. I know I kind of stood up for it before, but it's weak little caption was just bringing the article down.  Paul  730 21:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

*Groan* There's like a billion episodes with "episode" in their title... I'll mention it somewhere, perhaps when the merge discussion is closed, and see what the ever-rabid community has to say.  Paul  730 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, maybe later when I'm in the mood for repetitive mundane edits. I'm watching South Park ATM, and then I'll probably have an early night. It seems kind of better with "episode" in the title, more clarity and all that. BTW, are you going to mention She Who Shall Not Be Named in your Satisfied Customers list?  Paul  730 22:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just watching repeats, that show is endlessly watchable. I love how it conceals messages of genuine intelligence and common sense in crude, immature packaging. Whereas Family Guy is just crude and immature (but still funny). Trey Parker and Matt Stone are frickin' geniuses. I'm not a big fan of Rambo... seen the first two movies, they were okay but I wouldn't watch them again. Prefer the Rockys.  Paul  730 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Family Guy is funny! The randomness is what makes it funny, nothing makes any sense. I guess it's an acquired taste; your criticism of it is exactly what South Park makes fun of in "Cartoon Wars". I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Rocky Balboa, it's great that they redeemed the series so well and came full circle. You gotta love Rocky IV though... "If He Dies... He Dies!"  Paul  730 23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair list, I agree. Lol, everyone hates Rocky V. The only thing I liked about it - the attempt to get Rocky back to his roots - was done much much better in Balboa.  Paul  730 23:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look as bad without an image as I thought it would. You could maybe have a quote box for the Freddy vs Jason vs Ash comic... since it was a planned film eventually realised in comic book form, that makes it notable, right? You could probably find a decent quote on one of those Newsarama links I gave you.  Paul  730 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the DVD cover, but the right TOC looks good as well. Good thinking Batman!  Paul  730 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Calm Down

750 million people live in the southern hemisphere. That's the entire population of Europe, or double the population of North America. Using seasons is ambiguous and completely subjective. Wikipedia is about correct information, and there can never be correct information when articles are written from an America centric prespective.

Why don't we just filter Wikipedia by visitors' IP address then, and make it only available the demographics that you want? I mean, the information is written just for them, right? Why should we bother writing the articles in a way that everyone can understand them? It's not an encyclopedia for everyone, after all.

Ozzah (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Pixelface's Spoiler Debate

While normally I think good discourse is useful for Wikipedia, I suspect we all could talk until we are blue in the face and Pixelface will continue to use the same arguments. He appears to strongly believe that all spoilers should be marked. He argued[1] quite a bit against the deletion of the spoiler templates, and before hand I remember him constantly trying to add spoiler tags to movie articles. He has apparently been using the current fiction tag in place of the spoiler tag since its deletion, but there is talk of sunsetting that template. He started this same argument over at Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler#Rewrite_for_.7B.7Bcurrent_fiction.7D.7D and, just as in the Film Project, just continues throwing out the same arguments. Mostly just letting you know so you don't spend too much time arguing with a brick wall. ;-) Collectonian (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Collectonian! I'm sure Bignole appreciates it! --Pixelface (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

re:smallville

many show page keep thier current and past cast members seperate.Bleek25 (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

it is not showing favoritism at all.its abot keeping the site correct.pete left smallville because he was afraid that he would expose clarks secret.also i never deleted jason eckles. all i have done is move cast members from current to past.even though clarks mom is not shown in the credit any more i have kept her on the current cast. 17:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleek25 (talk • contribs)

i checked back and i did accedently delete jason eckles.i just think that the article is better with a current and former cast.that way if new smallville fans want to find out more they will not be confused.on a side not do you think that this season or next season will be the end for smallvill,and how many new episodes did they film before the the writers strike?Bleek25 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about sourcing

Hi, as I always seem to end up asking the same one or two people for help, and as you've proved more than adept at marshaling articles through to GA then FA status, I hope you don't mind if I ask you for your opinion on the sourcing of said articles. In general, Wikipedia frowns upon using newsgroup postings as sources; they're considered just one step above anonymous blog comments in the great ladder of verifiability. And while I can see the logic behind this, I'm wondering if there are any Good Articles, or Featured Articles, which to your knowledge use them. If, for example, a television show article uses extensive newsgroup postings from the creator of said show, postings which absolutely, verifiably come from that person, do you think that this would in any way be considered inferior to using, say, DVD commentaries for information, and would it count against the article when the time came to submit it for GA status? Hope you can help. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, over the last few months I've been chipping away at the problems with the Babylon 5 article, and while it's not ready for submission as yet, I've added swathes of information relating to the production, information which largely comes from creator J. Michael Straczynski. Unfortunately, he hasn't done many DVD commentaries. Fortunately, he's been active on the internet, posting masses of production information, since about 1991. And this is perhaps what the article's main problem will be when I've finished it up; as you can see by the article's references section, perhaps 50% comes from his keyboard in the form of archived posts (such as this one, which I used almost exclusively to write this section). Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that a bit of a weight off my mind. That's not to say the eventual GA reviewer won't disagree with that, but your opinion is nevertheless greatly appreciated. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I've cited that Smallville page a couple of times when testing the waters for a similar Babylon 5 series of season pages (getting rid of the largely-poor individual episode articles). The Babylon 5 fans are more polite than the Angel ones, but the opposition is just as fierce. That's one fight, I'm ashamed to admit, I'm not even going to bother fighting, at least for the foreseeable future. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 00:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

Since you seem to know how to get characters to FA Status (like Jason's article), I was wondering what you thought about the work I've been putting on the Randall Flagg article. I've nominated it for GA and if that succeeds I might push it for FA. This will be the third time I've nominated now, but I've added a bit of external information like reviews, literary analysis and quotes from the author. I was wondering if you could tell me if anything needs work or if its good enough for submission.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your suggestions. I didn't get to all of them yet, by I trimmed the literary analysis section considerably and I fixed the formatting issues that brought up.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The age of Agnes Nixon

I like articles that I work on to be as accurate as possible. I'm sure that most editors do. The Agnes Nixon article, however, is a little questionable on its accuracy when it comes to her age. What I mean is that...some sources (or maybe just a few) state her age as December 10 1927[2]. Other sources (or rather most), such as IMDb, state it as December 27 1927[3], as witnessed with this source as well...[4].

This issue of her age was also brought up on the talk page of her article when it was questioned that most sources state it as the 27th while Wikipedia listed it as the 10th. So which age do I list, with this type of uncertainty, the most listed? I mean, I'm not so sure that we should list both and say, "Hey, we're unsure. So here." Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm sure that I don't have to tell you that I've replied to you on her talk page. See you there for further discussion on this. Flyer22 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Buffy

Hey, I want to flesh out create a reception section at Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Eight, and I thought I'd run some reviews by you, make sure they're suitable and all that. It's a bit of a motely collection, but something to start with, at least. I'm not asking you to read them or anything, just make sure the site passes WP:RS.

• http://comicbloc.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=924&Itemid=57
• http://comicsnexus.insidepulse.com/articles/71912/2007/11/09/review-buffy-season-8-8.html
• http://www.darkhorse.com/reviews/archive.php?theid=540l
• http://www.ifmagazine.com/review.asp?article=1644
• http://uk.comics.ign.com/articles/772/772482p1.html
• http://www.www.tvsquad.com/2007/05/03/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-the-long-way-home-part-3/

Thanks. Once I get a decent reception section going on that page, I might try to have the individual "episode" pages merged. Should be a kick in the teeth.  Paul  730 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's nothing good I won't use it - the reception section is for the whole season and we're only 8 issues in. A lot of them will probably repeat themselves... "not as good as the show, slow pacing" yadda yadda. I was just wondering whether the sites passed WP:RS. I also thought about using X-Axis but I wasn't sure it qualifies as a published source or whatever cos it's just written by one guy. X-Axis is a horrible site... the guy just rips everything to shreds no matter what it is. If you hate everything so much, then don't bother reading it you dick! Lol, I still go on it all the time though, which makes me kind of guilty of the same crime.  Paul  730 19:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The wanderer returns. ;) I wrote reception sections for Buffy Season 8 and Angel: After the Fall if you want to take a look, make sure they're alright. Angels one is a bit short, but the comic only came out on Thursday.  Paul  730 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, there's no rush. Don't want to get you in trouble with the missus. ;) Like I said, they can probably be improved upon, but it's a good start. Lol, Zythe thanked me for fixing them up, saying (and I quote) "I can now look at it without bleeding from the eyes, yay! :D".  Paul  730 21:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I noticed you and Enter Movie are starting to feud... peeping eyes and quick fingers? Lol. He denies stealing your info. I just finished reading through the info you moved to the mainspace, it's looking pretty darn good. You think we should mention in the conception section how the original concept for the film was "babysitter being stalked by the boogeyman"? That's on the DVD, I'm sure, can't remember why I didn't write it down before. It's more to do with the film than the character, but it might be interesting to note that Michael began simply as "the boogeyman"?  Paul  730 05:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean that the original concept of Michael was that he was "the boogeyman", and then the whole character came out of that idea. Like how Buffy was conceptually just an empowered female who could fight monsters, and the Slayer mythology evolved from that one idea. The citation template is what tipped me off to his sticky fingers, that and the fact that his info was word for word the same (the sentences, not the quotes, obviously the quotes would be the same). Do you think an image of Michael from the comics would be fair use? I know we've had this kind of discussion before, but there's comic images on Jason's page that havn't been challenged.  Paul  730 05:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the lit section looked different, I've not checked the differences yet. It looks quite a bit longer though. The boogeyman stuff will be on one of the first movie DVDs, probably both. I'll look at it sometime today/tommorrow and include it. I saw you telling Erik how stressed you were, don't want you to strain yourself. :P Did you enjoy your thanksgiving BTW? I didn't even know it was thanksgiving until I saw Erik's comment.  Paul  730 06:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I am here to make a plea that you do get involved with the RfAr. Although I may not see eye to eye with you, I think it is critically important that we develop consensus. As I see it, this consensus has two parts. The RfAr is focused on behavior and how we deal (behaviorally) with episode articles. The other part is the content and guideline issue. You seem to have been actively involved in that aspect and I would like to see you involved in this other dimension. I would like to see your input, but I respect your right to abstain from participating. I just thought I would make a final plea. Ursasapien (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

Messaging you belatedly, but hope you had a good Thanksgiving! Did you have to adjust your belt a notch or two after the past week? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Had two T-Days, actually -- one with another family, and another with just mine (with my grandmother joining us, being too shy for the first get-together). Highlights of the week were hanging out with friends home from other schools. Week kind of tapered off, though... I'm not sure what I'm going to do for three weeks of winter break -- edit Wikipedia, perhaps? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw the issue about Enter Movie. Makes me think of the phrase, "What's legal is not always ethical." He has the right per se, but he ought to practice common courtesy. Anyway, I'm not sure about the situation at Million Dollar Baby. Pixelface brought up the issue, and I'm not sure why it's such a localized case. If he had concerns about plot writing being original research, he could have brought it up at the talk page for WikiProject Films or something of the like. I've contacted him for some clarification. He's been in some discussions with the other editor on the talk page of the film article, I think. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, are you going to be watching the ArbCom on TTN? I'm concerned that his more brusque efforts will be taken at face value rather than examine the purpose of his efforts in general. I really hope that the result of this does not lead to the acceptance of extraneous in-universe information. I saw that you excluded yourself from it; I'm guessing you don't want to deal with the debacle that will surely lie ahead? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me get back to you about that. I'm working on the other side of the apartment, trying to crank out a 7-8 page paper due tomorrow (occasionally dropping by to edit and check messages). If I don't respond about it in the next few days, bug me again, and I'll review it once more. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

JLA movie

Hey, have you heard of a live-action JLA movie in the works for '09 with George(s) Miller at the helm? I've just pulled a section from the Martian Manhunter article to discussion, pending citation and clean-up. I hadn't heard of anything like that (though I am aware of the prior attempts to do so, all failing bc of licensing issues). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that Finance major of ours is pretty quick on the draw. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars

Yeah, i think it is, too, but a look at the reference doesn't give either the author or the source of the material. In Harry Potter official websites (Leaky Cauldron, etc.) there is usually a line of provenance that can be followed. There is nothing like that here. I am concerned about the reliability of it, and would feel tons better if there was something a bit more concrete to tie it to. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was on the Sith, which I had to go forth with an editing thresher to remove the uncited garbage that used to roam freely there. Maybe I will post to the StarWars wikiproject and get some feedback from there. Thanks for the input. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Shape

I checked both my Halloween DVDs, and on second thoughts, I don't think the whole boogeyman concept is important enough to include. They mention it in passing, but it's more to do with the origins of the film than Michael. While I was watching the other DVD though, I did find some more info you might want to use. Much of it repeats what's already there, but I left it in your sandbox anyway. (BTW, I left the DVD publisher as Dimension in the cite template, even though it says Anchor Bay on the case. Is Anchor Bay the publisher? Maybe cause I have the Region 2 version, it's not from Dimension? If that's the case, we should change the 25th aniversay template to Anchor Bay as well.) Anyway, I was thinking... there's a picture of Nick Castle holding the mask that might look good on the article (not necessarily uploaded from that source)? I don't know if that would pass fair use or copyright or whatever, but it's an idea. I'm thinking not, since we don't know who took the picture or owns it. At any rate, I think we should try to find some image of the original mask for the article, since most of the section is about it.  Paul  730 11:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I like image 8, the one of Nick and the mask. Maybe it could be used in the casting section? I know the Tyler Mane image is free, but doesn't it kind of border on recentism? What makes him so special out of the 8 or whatever actors who played Michael? Image 11 might be good for the mask section, since we talk about the H5 mask. What do you think?  Paul  730 15:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I get why you put the Mane image there, but looks a bit random ATM. Kind of a square peg in a round hole. :/ As much as the H5 mask is an abomination and hurts my eyes to look at it, it would certainly be a good image to use for the article. 11 is probably a better one to use, since it's the mask itself and closer up (not to mention the fact that it doesn't have Don Shank's godawful body languange). I actually find the section about that mask quite interesting, because I read and think "if you spent so much time worrying about the metaphor, couldn't you have made the effort to tuck in the neck?!" Could you just use the same copyright tag that you used for the Savini pic on Jason's article?  Paul  730 18:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Castle image looks good. Will that "specific ownership unknown" thing be a problem, do you think? The reception sections... yes, they are going to be beefed up as time goes on. Not every individual issue has an article, it's every story. I believe the reasoning behind that was that each story is basically an episode of Buffy, so should be treated with WP:EPISODE. Which is stupid, because they totally fail WP:EPISODE. I'm going to come up with a detailed reception section for the first story, The Long Way Home, then I'm going to summarise that and include it on the overall season page. I think LWH possibly could pass WP:EP if we found more behind-the-scenes info, being the "pilot" so to speak, but I'm not so sure about the one-offs like The Chain...  Paul  730 04:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering since Wikipedia's so fussy about images. That image works well though, it kills two birds with one stone in terms of the casting and mask section. Good work finding that Tony Moran interview, that was interesting. The article's really shaping up. Are you going to find more characterization stuff? The Buffy comic articles are okay, they've improved a lot in the past week since me and Zythe starting cleaning them up. I can see the Buffy one getting a sub article for that table, since it's going to be 50+ issues at the least, but that's okay. Hopefully by the time more issues are out, the article will have a bit more meat to it anyway.  Paul  730 05:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It might not be FA quality just yet but good work for cleaning it up as well as you have so far. When you consider what it looked like a few weeks ago... (Speaking of which, did you see someone tried to add the old character history back in? I couldn't hit the undo button fast enough!) Now that it's on the mainspace, you're probably more likely to edit it than if it was just sitting in your sandbox. I plan to move my Faith sandbox over sometime this week. It's not finished, but I'm less likely to procrastinate if it's on the mainspace. Just need to clarify some of the sources... how would I cite a comic book if I don't own it or know when it came out, who drew it, etc etc? Like, in the appearances section?  Paul  730 05:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ash, man, Ash is way better than some crossdressing hick. :P I kinda like Pinhead more than Leatherface, and I don't even really like Pinhead. I like Ghostface too, but he's more of a costume than a character. His personality is more from Scary Movie than the Scream films. Thanks for the Amazon tip, I'll check that out. I actually have a few of the old comics, but they're in an omnibus rather than the individual issues, so I wasn't sure whether to just cite that as a book.  Paul  730 05:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How come Leatherface is included but Pinhead isn't? :P You're right about Ghostface and Ash, but I'd say Pinhead is just as much of a horror icon as Leatherface. Lol, those two are like the Flash and Green Lantern of the horror genre - never quite breaking into the main three. I'll have to use Amazon for the Faith stories since I don't own them at all, but I was thinking about using the books for Buffy's page. We'll see, I kind of want it to be consistant. If you have the time, mind casting your eye over my Faith sandbox? I plan to move most of it over sometime tonight, but I'm not happy with the section titles. You don't have to read it all right now, but what's your thoughts on the lay-out? (The critical analysis is no where near completed, I'll keep it in my sandbox for now. However, the Concept/Development sections are more or less finished, they just need sprucing up. Uh, unless you hate them and I have to rewrite them).  Paul  730 12:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right, but Pinhead is so much cooler than Leatherface. Not a big Leatherface fan. Thanks for pointing out those refs, I probably just dumped them there earlier without bothering to write up templates. What about that first quote box? I anticipate you complaining about it, but I think it's justifiable, in that it shows how the whole Buffy/Faith foil thing was actually acknowledged in the show. I'll wait for your full opinion tonight. :)  Paul  730 12:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Faith

I think the info in the section probably does justify the quote box, but I might have to adjust the caption in the quote box. One of my concerns is the headings for the sections; I'm not sure the lay-out is quite right. Should concept info be included as a subsection of "Characterization"? Or should the concept/development sections be entirely separate from Characterization, like Michael's page? I'm also wondering whether all the info is in the right place... the part about her name, in the concept section, should that be there? It's more observing that her name is ironic, rather rather saying it was chosen because it's ironic. If we're separating concept and characterization, maybe it would be better in characterization? I'm also not sure whether that Brian Vaughan quote is in the right place. I have a bit of info which I've yet to add to the development section, just about how Vaughan thought of the Season 8 Faith story, it's not much. The quote still seems like characterization stuff. I can see the image in the appearances section being controversial with you, but I think it's okay. As I've said before, noone's questioned Jason's literature images. So yeah, just general opinions on where to take everything would be great.  Paul  730 15:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand what you're saying, I do, but I think you're being a little too strict. Anything else about the rest of the article? BTW, how would I cite a magazine? Like, an actual paper magazine? I looked through the templates, but everything's asking for a URL? What one are we supposed to use?  Paul  730 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a back-up quote to use in case the one from the show itself wasn't usable. It was kind of just regurgitating what I'd already written in prose though, I think the current quote is more informative, as it shows how their intentions were reflected in the dialogue. But still, I scribbled it down in case I needed a replacement. Anyway, thanks, I'll go cite that magazine. Speaking of, in that magazine (the Buffy/Angel fan mag), Faith has been voted best guest star in both shows. I think it was out of 10 or 20 characters. Anyway, I know that doesn't establish notability or anything, but it's a published source, so maybe it could be used to show she's a fan favourite character? The mag goes into detail about what they they like about her, so could I use that somewhere?  Paul  730 23:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for those issues when I'm writing the characterization section. They might not even have been a poll - it might have been the magazine's opinion, in which case I obviously wouldn't say they represent fan opinion. I cited the magazine - wasn't sure whether to put the author as the person conducting the interview or the person being interviewed? I'm quoting the guy being interviewed, so maybe him?  Paul  730 23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to address most of your concerns. I'll leave the fiddlier things like British spelling and stuff till it's on the mainspace, there'll be more eyes to catch mistakes. How do you think I should deal with the section problems, and do you think it's presentable enough to move over? Thanks again.  Paul  730 02:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just moved it over to the mainspace. I moved the part about her name to Characterization, but it still looks a bit out of place. I was thinking, I could keep the ironic part, but then the part about her last name could just be a footnote? I dunno. I've looked for casting stuff, but all I've found is people gushing about Eliza's unique "energy" which doesn't really mean anything. Oh well, the article's still very much a work in progress, but at least people can access it now.  Paul  730 03:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll give Faith a rest for tonight, approach her again tommorrow with a fresh brain. I've been working on her all day. Like with your Michael page, I'll continue expanding it as necessary. I want to archive the talk page though - is it just the same as archiving your own talk page?  Paul  730 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There, everything's all archived and new. :) BTW, have you seen this AfD? I think it's kind of funny, because it's basically just me having a big anti-cruft rant, and then everyone else is kind of like "okay..." Lol, I really got my claws into poor Kenny.  Paul  730 03:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"Of course I noticed it." Well, I don't know if you monitor AfDs, do I? Sheesh. ;) Yeah, I can see some fan waking up tommorrow and screaming "Where's my character history!?" That's why I left the comment there, responding in advance to any backlash. I don't think they'll object to the characterization stuff, but the mix of canon/non-canon stuff in the literature section probably won't go down well. :/ Oh well, we'll cross that bridge and all that...  Paul  730 04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, be a WikiDragon instead. Dragons are cooler, and trolls are bad things on Wikipedia. ;)  Paul  730 04:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, Bignole the mighty dragon. :P I aspire to WikiDragonness but I don't think I'm quite there yet. One day... :)  Paul  730 04:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Why's that then? Dinosaurs aren't mystical though, they can't breathe fire and fly.  Paul  730 04:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Was looking through your early contribs to see how long you've been around, and I just couldn't let this one slide. "he has found his clothes and as soon as he wiggles his little burned baby butt into them..."?? LOL  Paul  730 04:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Were you an anon first? My first edits were mostly just chatting about irrelevant stuff on talk pages... not much has changed, lol. I remember I went through a bunch of the Buffy character pages and made the character histories much longer than they had any right to be, and then got bitchy when people said they were too long because I thought they were insulting the show. Oh, the irony.  Paul  730 04:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at your humble user page from way back in 2005 or whenever. You've certainly pimped it out since. Cool dog BTW.  Paul  730 05:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

She's cool in the picture, I'd probably be scared of her in real life. Lol, that Faith comment sounded so dirty. Good night.  Paul  730 05:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a little Notes section to cover the detail about Faith's surname. Do you think I should also note that one of her powers, the prophetic dreams, only appeared in a non-canon novel? Prophetic dreams are a typical Slayer power, but Faith never experienced them in show, her character only displayed that power in Go Ask Malice. (Although some obscure metaphory dream sequences in the show make that debatable, but that's OR territory).  Paul  730 13:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I only cited it in the infobox because I thought people didn't like citations in the lead. Why would the powers in the infobox be a problem, because they're not anywhere else in the article? Well, that was sort of a compromise given that I removed the IU powers section. As for the name in the infobox, I think it's repeated in case their full name differs from their common name, so Xander's would be Alexander Lavelle Harris and Lorne's would be Krevlorneswath of the Deathwok Clan etc etc. It's just cos Faith doesn't have a nickname... Should I remove that line from the template, it seems strange for the Buffyverse infoboxes not to match. I'm sure you don't approve of including full names because they're not essestial to understanding the character... no mention of Michael Aubrey Myers or Jason Elias Voorhees? :P  Paul  730 20:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the article used to be called Faith (Buffyverse) but I guess it was moved after the second name was created. She's kind of become known as Faith Lehane now, I've seen the surname in loads of places, it's a generally accepted part of the character. It appears in other EU stuff which came out after the RPG (don't think it was a video game). The only time the name has caused controversy in the article to my knowledge is when canon-pushers get upset that the name wasn't in the show, even though it was Whedon who created it. I'm happy to have it called "Lehane", although I'm less happy about Winifred Burkle, Daniel "Oz" Osbourne, and Glorificus. None of those are the common name, it should be Fred Burkle, Glory (Buffyverse), and possibly Oz (Buffyverse)? And I know you don't like the "Buffyverse" part.  Paul  730 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh... I know you're saying, but I don't want to move it. I'd rather have Faith Lehane than Faith (Buffyverse), Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), or Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel). Although I wouldn't argue against those being made redirects, if they aren't already.  Paul  730 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Oh well, "faith (buffy)" redirects there. I'm sure people will find it. How would you cover characters with multiple names? Like Spike/William the Bloody or Angel/Angelus? Previously, they could go in the "name" line of the infobox, but if we're removing that... And those aliases are plenty notable, they deserve mention somewhere.  Paul  730 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, but Lehane just seems like a better way of differentiating the article from the general Faith article than adding the name of the show in parenthesis. I guess I'm being hypocritical, because I wouldn't reccomend moving Connor (Buffyverse) to Connor Reilly, even though that's his name "in-universe". That said, I would reccomend mentioning "Reilly" (as well as his other three names), possibly in the infobox under "Names". It might be IU, but I think including a character's name is acceptable. Jabba's full name is mentioned, now that I look at it. To clarify, I wasn't saying that Spike should be moved to "Spike aka William the Bloody", just that the alias warranted mention. You said that full names like Alexander Lavelle Harris shouldn't be mentioned because they're not essential... well, obviously the Xander article shouldn't be titled that, but it should be acknowledged IMO. ...the more I think about it, the article probably should be titled Faith (Buffyverse) (wow, I bet your loving that :P). I can't really argue against a title like "Winifred Burkle" and "Daniel "Oz" Osbourne", names which are more commonly used than Lehane, and then justify Faith Lehane. *Sigh*

On a lighter note, when I was Googling William the Bloody to see how well-known it is, I found this. Ha, my Buffy boys totally kicked Tom Welling's arse. Xander Harris is officially hotter than Superman. ;)  Paul  730 00:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It says it's a countdown... oh well, there's loads of Buffy characters there. :) I'm surprised Seth Green isn't there, my friend is obsessed with him. I also can't believe the Tenth Doctor isn't there, but at least they have Captain Jack. Dean Cain is much hotter than Tom Welling, he's the best looking actor to play Superman IMO. Lol, look at you getting all protective. :P  Paul  730 00:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Justin Hartley... lol, I love how you're straight but you're totally getting into this discussion. :P Why not, I'd defend SMG tooth and nail in any poll. I'd put Spike and Angel higher than the X-Man, but he deserves his place. Drastic weight gain aside, he is cute. Goofy is charming, to a certain extent, although I think Jo Chen was being flattering when she drew this.

So are you going to move Faith's page to Faith (Buffyverse)? Do it, leave a comment on the talk page, and I'll support you if there's any backlash.  Paul  730 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, such vulgarity in that trailer. I feel compelled to write a letter of complaint. ;) Start a discussion on Faith's talk page then, we'll see what people have to say. You could mention how other Buffyverse characters like Connor and Lorne don't use their real names as titles, that's what finally convinced me.  Paul  730 01:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Very detailed comment... I'm not certain how that proposal will be recieved, I doubt you'll recieve too much of an argument. As I said, some of the canon pushers might actually be glad to see it go, since it wasn't from the show. I know that's not the right reason to do it, but still. What was it you showed me that trailer for, BTW?  Paul  730 01:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It looked okay, I'd probably enjoy it. The bit where he was reading the letter was funny, Colin Farrell is funny.  Paul  730 02:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you know that Zythe agrees: Superman wouldn't stand a chance against Squirrel Girl! ;) Oh, and somebody finally uploaded this scene on YouTube. Just one of the many reasons I love She-Hulk.  Paul  730 18:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? She-Hulk doesn't need to be angry to transform. Yes, it was kind of gross, but Johnny's reaction was priceless. He's a big girl in that cartoon, it's hilarious. Later in that episode he's being attacked by the Mole Man or something, and Shulkie is like "What's the matter, they mess up your manicure?" and he replies with a distraught "Yeah!" Lol, maybe you have to see it for yourself, but it's funny.

I just had to get an admin to send me a copy of the deleted Kenny article, recreate it over at the SP wiki, and then link to from here. You'd think all the "keeps" would at least have made an effort to transwiki it themselves if since they love it so much. What's your opinion on this? I understand why it's been AfDed, I'm just wondering if deserves to exist in any form.  Paul  730 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I can see it making an alright little article in theory. I don't think I'm going to vote on that AfD, I don't feel strongly enough. I think a Buffyverse vampire article possibly could work, but I can't be bothered searching for sources right now, so I can't prove it. It'll probably get deleted - there's no support for it at all so far - but I might recreate it later if I find the sources. You mentioned transwiking it, but the Buffyverse wiki encourages IU perspective, so their article probably wouldn't look much different from the current Wikipedia one. You're right though, I'm glad somebody's trying to clean up the Buffycruft.  Paul  730 22:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)