I notice that one of the first articles you have edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been reverted for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of deletion, you might like to draft your article before submission, then get me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that if more than one person is using this account to edit, then unfortunately it will be blocked from editing.
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
No FA films articles have tables for casts. As the end goal of all articles is to reach FA status then putting them in now would stop that happening. The formats are to have a list like here, omit a cast list like this (and have the actors in the plot summary) to talk about casting, or to have a detailed explanation of the characters like here. Tables contain difficult code, that restricts who can edit the page, and it stops proper expansion of the section. The Film MOS may not go into details but in GA and FA reviews tables are discouraged. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If you look here, it states to list "ACTOR as CHARACTER". --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What articles is the table even used on? Also, is it "discouraged" to use the "Filmography/Television" tables on the actors pages? If so, I just lost 3 hours of my life. :| --Mike Allentalk·contribs 19:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it is fine on filmographies, look at Will Smith for two very good tables. Also all the Saw films would need to be drastically re-written to meet GA or FA. But the original Halloween is an FA, so that may be the template to use. The writing will be improved through a GA then FA review, as uninvolved users look at pages, and the main sticking point is rarely layout (as that is easy to do) but sources, which is more difficult. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I did the Tobin Bell table (which I copied the table format from Shawnee's page). That one on Will Smith looks a lot better. I'll fix the ones I did to match that. Thanks! --Mike Allentalk·contribs 20:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. But if you are patrolling biographies then check that their date of birth is not linked, and in tables years should not be linked. Not that you have done these things, but just keep an eye out. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
After looking closer: it looks like that one used for Will Smith puts all his TV AND Movie roles together. I like the way Tobin (and most all that I've seen) are done. Also, it's hard to find most actors salaries for a particular movie. When is it enough to make an actor's own Filmography page? Yeah, Tobin and some more I did had the dates linked, and I de-linked them. ---Mike Allentalk·contribs 21:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be the same as "Rules and regulations, not Rules and Regulations"? The words "director's" and "cut" don't seem to need to be capitalized. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You're very right. If you want to change it, that's fine. But, if you undo my edit, watch that extra space. Lol. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there I noticed you were getting a running start at Wikipedia and I wanted to say welcome. I noticed you have a very active interest in the Saw series, to which I am a primary contributor to many pages. You may want to check out and join the Saw task force since you maintain such dedication to Saw. I was wondering if we could somehow collaborate on making the Saw (video game) article into a GA-class article. Good first move on getting it semi-protected, now we can proceed with a thorough revise. Here's my checklist if you were interested on helping:
Trim intro section 3rd paragraph to add a reception excerpt into it.
Get better images. As I am terrible at uploading images, I was wondering if you could do that? I have every single image findable on the game since I've been following them so maybe I could email them to you to upload? Just a thought.
Re-read every single paragraph for tiny typos or non-flowing sentences/information. I was going to do this tonight but having multiple doing it could help catch more things and come up with better writing solutions for problem areas.
Trim and revise plot section. Right now its a little uneven.
I'm not sure what, but something should be done about the characters section. Any ideas? I'm clueless because it seems like to much to add every major character, but it looks a bit funny with only the two main characters bulleted and a paragraph on the rest.
Expand reception section with more cites and varied opinions/info.
Check all wikilinks to make sure they are valid, good, and useful
I'm thinking of making the gameplay into something like this:
Puzzle info, minigame info, types, Bioshock-like picture of a minigame
Finally, I wanted to find a way to add the info about the special features in the game. The Saw VI trailer, E3 demo footage, trap concept art, environment concept art, character concept art, prop concept art, credits, etc.
Anyways just let me know if your interested and we can get cracking on this. Welcome to Wiki :) GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
To your question: Either Steam or Direct2Drive. The game itself I believe is 1.87GB. Do you have either of those? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure how to find the same info that are in those videos but I'll look for text sources for these. For the pictures, try HERE for images from the publisher, this is most of the images I have. I don't know if these qualify as free or not.
No, but I have GameTap (I've been/was a beta tester). I'm satellite internet and have limited bandwidth (cap). So it may be a while before I download such a big file. I don't know why we can't purchase the license and download it from a torrent. lol Uhhhh about the images. I'll have to re-read the fair use article and see. --Mike Allentalk·contribs
lol yeah. I have dial-up so I know how tough downloading anything can be. You may want to avoid the finale section of the article but the plot really doesn't spoil much except the victim characters and their fates. And for your copyedit, that looks good except the Jigsaw notes don't give hints, they just fill in the backstory, so maybe we could change it to: Hidden items, such as "Jigsaw Notes" and cassette tapes are found laying around the asylum to provide information on the asylum and the victims origins. Or something similar? I wouldn't bother bringing it to the talk page only because it is a fairly minor sentence flow change and I'm really the only user who bothers checking the talk page other than the people who assess it for quality. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe a Meta-game is a more emphasized minigame, yeah. Check out Halo 3, it uses the term frequently. I believe this could be an inaccurate description though, minigame may be a better word for the context. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
WAIT heres the article Metagaming. Yeah, our articles use of this word seems inaccurate. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Good edits, you seem to have a good grasp on proper editing techniques for this article. I am going to start reconfiguring the gameplay section on this usersubpage. I'm not sure how this will turn out but we'll see when I finish. Check it out if you want to edit it. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stephanie-march-2007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Peripitus(Talk) 12:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:Stephanie-march-2007.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey again. I've been observing your recent edits to our collaborative-effort article Saw (video game). First, I wanted to congratulate you on getting a good hold on editing and making some effective changes to the article. However, some of the edits seem to make it a bit less new reader-friendly, potentially lowering the quality level. This is mainly in the synopsis where a bit of the series backstory should be included in the setting followed by its segue into this game, like it was before. Also, it should go before the characters section for people who read the article in order. The characters section itself should have a paragraph on Tapp and Jigsaw themselves so it doesnt start with "in addition to Tapp and Jigsaw", who, at that point, have no info other than a Tapp tidbit in the gameplay section.
I'm not sure about the development as it is a bit uneven now and before, I'll think on it. My main concern is the into paragraphs, they were a bit overlong before and a bit too short now. I was looking at modeling them after article like Halo 3 and Gears of War 2. I'll see if I can mix up our edits to make a good blend.
Anyways, I'm not criticizing I just wanted to let you know how to make things reader-friendly and what the assessment team looks for in articles. Great work though I'm going to keep as much of your writing style and editing in the article as I can. Good work, truly, lets get crunching on making this a GA-class article. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
My reversion was based on the overall tone of the section. While the reviews called the film one of the better entries in the series, that to me doesn't make up for the overall negative reviews being handed out. It'd be like saying an artist's new CD is their best, but it's still bad. To me that is a negative review. I am open for discussion on how to phrase it, but "mixed/varied" seems dishonest in terms of the information currently in the section. -- TRTXT / C 18:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, regarding the colours in filmography tables, the Actors and Filmmakers Wikiproject, which works towards creating and improving articles about actors, has reached a consensus that filmography tables, if coloured at all, should only use the #B0C4DE code, which produces a light blue in the heading. This is because some Wikipedia readers might find a multitude of colours difficult to read (see WP:ACCESS). Apologies if you took my remark about it being "vile" personally; I did not realise that this was a pet project of yours. I see you've done a lot of good work on actor articles since you joined Wikipedia, and I recommend you join the Actors wikiproject, as we're always looking for new and conscientious members! Bradley0110 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
If an actor has a balance between their film and television roles (such as Sarah Chalke or Tobin Bell) then there ought to be two separate tables. If the actor has mostly film roles with a limited number of television roles, or vice versa, then the information can be combined in just one table (e.g. Brad Pitt#Filmography, which has just a couple of television parts among mainly films). Bradley0110 (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
[[2009 in television]] or [[2009 in film]] generally isn't used in filmography tables, but sometimes is in articles about films or television shows. Bradley0110 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Bradley0110 has given you some good rule of thumb advice about filmography tables, but one other thing is that unless there is a compelling reason to change something that has been formatted in a given way (tables, reference styling, etc.), it should be left the way that it evolved. There are a lot of factors that lead up to how something is presented. Besides it already having evolved as one table, McMahon's work output is somewhat sporadic without a proliferation of roles, and it isn't so easy to distinguish where he is most active - TV or film. DiCaprio is primarily a film actor now, but his first work was in television, for which he won several Young Artist awards. I'd say that because there was so little of it, but it was acclaimed, the editors who developed the tables thought leaving them separate allowed the acclaim received to be recognized. Since that time, I've worked on the tables, updating them, adding awards, etc., and all that work on the article seem quite content not to monkey with it. There are few hard and fast rules for some aspects of Wikipedia and that is primarily why a lot of drastic changes are done by consensus and discussion. It's not a perfect system, but without writing such involved guidelines and policies that no one could get through them, it is the one that works. My real advice would be not to institute drastic stylistic changes to articles until you have a feel for how they are edited and maintained, but do go ahead and do work. WP:ACTOR has some style guidelines that are evolving and anyone there, which includes Bradley0110 and myself, can always try to answer questions and provide feedback. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
You're right, sometimes it is hard to know. That's why WP:ACTOR is there, to ask questions when you aren't sure. I don't know if you've joined, but if not, please consider doing so. As for a list of most needed filmographies, there is a listing of high priority ones at the top of WT:ACTOR if you want to work on any of them. (Warning, they are for Academy Award winning actors and some are quite old and lengthy.) If it helps, I have a couple pages that I keep for "templates". User:Wildhartlivie/Projects Filmography has the currently recommended filmography format at the top, and then an alternate for connected-but-separate tv/film listings. User:Wildhartlivie/Award and nominations templates has handy little copy & paste templates to add awards to filmographies. Like I said, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask! Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I gotta say, really good job. I hate doing those things. Just thought I'd stop by and say that. I do have a question though, are you aware of the "preview button"? I swear that isn't supposed to come out rude, I just thought I'd tell you in case you didn't know. Lol. Please keep up the good work. --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain why you reported me for vandalism? The problem with my edits is i dont know how to add sources within the articles. It would've been much more approproite to tell me how to do that instead of reporting me. Cheddarjack (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Micwa, how come you reverted the List of Saw Characters back to the version by Anomiebot? The unnamed IP fixed the page, someone came along and deleted a bunch of characters including Addison, Cecil and Detective Sing and added in at least 2 Ive never heard of.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah not sure why it attracts so many anonymous edits and efforts of vandalism. Thought you just knew sometrhing I didnt about the big edit that it was something that had been agreed upon so I left it alone.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Is a bit silly considering how easy it is to make an account that they don't enforce people having one but oh well.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (File:173x26 get green.png)edit
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:173x26 get green.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Peripitus(Talk) 03:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Micwa, thanks for the response. The issue is that Mozilla puts restrictions on the use of the image that means, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that it is not free. We are then restricted by policies, convention etc.. on how we use them. Two specific restrictions are that they can only be used in articles and that each one must be in at least one article....hence my message above. Happy editing - Peripitus(Talk) 05:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's partly my fault. I get into quick fire edits, and I often forget to actually leave a response in the edit summary (e.g., per WP:OVERLINK, we shouldn't link every instance), which would have answered any question you had early on. I apologize for the confusion. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah it said new messages a few days ago but I couldnt find it for the life of me lol i looked at every entry to find it lol
Anyways, yeah I think the VG infoboxes used to have these but they got rid of them long ago, before I was a heavy editor (bout 6-8 months ago). I know the film inofboxes and series infoboxes still have them but idk. I think some people manipulated it to use series infoboxes rather than VG infoboxes to have more slots but I'm just guessing. On a side note, I have been looking rabidly for some info on Saw game sales and I can't seem to find any other than VG Chartz here, and somebody said this wasn't a reliable source. So, do you think you could find a good source for that or find a rationale that VG chartz is reliable in this instance? Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
2nd: I found it there was a ref that didn't have a closing / so it blocked the rest of my talk page from view lol GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
3rd:He didn't give a reason it was just in the revision history that "VG Chartz is not a reliable source" so idk. It was User:Teancum, I never bothered to ask why because I was busy with other improvements. And I think its because users can edit the release info, publisher and stuff on that site, which makes it "usually unreliable". But, seeing how this is the only site reporting sales (not even NPD group has a bit on Saw), and that sales info can only be change by moderators of the domain, I think this counts as reliable, what do you think? Should we get in Teancum on this conversation for consensus? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
4th:Okay cool I left him a message on his talk page. I am going to re-add the section and if it is disputed after our discussion then it can be reverted. P.S. Don't forget to sign with four tildes (~) other wise the hardcore admins will keep harassing you for it, trust me I know lol GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey. I undid your last few edits to the talk page. The AfD banner needs to stay there, so people can see a history of the page. And the Wikiproject banners header should stay, as it makes the page much cleaner. I did, however, change the banner so it shows a summary of each of the ones under it. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 02:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Law & Order: SVU - Users, subject for deletion.edit
"Looks like this page is copied straight from IMDb and has no verifiable secondary sources (and probably aren't any notable enough for this episode)."
IMDb got it from AllThingsLawandOrder (ATL&O website). Before it was posted there IMDb had it BLANK. (First paragraph) second paragraph, I rewatched that episode on my DVR while I had the rest of the summary typed. It's all true.
I wanted to add something. The Mgfan222 and a few others editing L&O:SVU are using not only blogs but admittedly Twitter postings as their ONLY sources. At one point Mg wrote something like "I'm right, wait and see" when challenged I removed one of their edits sourced by a Twitter post. I think Wikipedia is going to a warmer climate in a poorly woven carrying device because of this. Perhaps you can help here? If Wikipedia will not enforce their own rules on citations and let this continue, many editors, including myself, are going to leave. And why would we want to contribute money to "Wikipedia Forever" and "Our Shared Knowledge" when it's becoming such garbage due to editors like these. Sorry I'm so touchy on this particular subject (don't even get me started on other stuff...like Wikipedia not requiring registration, then taking forever and a day to take action on vandals, and if not reported absolutely perfectly then it's ignored or the person reporting gets Troutslapped <more like bitchslapped> OK, :) Shutting up now!) Any advice here, Mike? I will be happy to back you on a movement of some sort on "No blogs or Twitter as citations and they will be removed immediately" if you wish. I used to really love editing Wikipedia - but people like Mg are running me off with the crystal ball postings. Done ranting now. PS, I think you are a great editor. Are you an admin? If not, I think you should go for it. (x-tra ps, you can reply here or my talk page - no probs) Cheers, Trista TristaBella (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The explanation about how they are connected to Saw II needs to go in the character pages, not in the middle of a plot. Feel free to add it to the development section or in the character pages, but the plot is for what is on screen, not what is later explained in a podcast by the writers a year later. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there Mike. I hope you don't mind, but I saw your work on your Saw VII user subpage and made a few tiny edits. Great work by the way, it looks very well formatted and pro, it will definitely be ready for the Wiki mainspace when it qualifies for WP:NFF. Anyways, I won't mess with your page anymore I just felt like making a few tiny changes. Feel free to revert them if you wish. Happy edits, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, on a Saw related note, I thought i'd inform you that the template for Saw fictional chronology is up for deletion HERE if you wanted to voice your opinions on the matter. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I reworded it a bit so it could be condensed and easier to read. Since its only a bit, its good for the intro section and if there is a lot of news and developments going on in the topic of Saw VIII and such then it could be explained in detail in the development section in addition to the bit in the intro. Does that answer your question? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Im a little confused, what do you mean by them being played by someone in a comic?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, other thing, is it really the Gas house that was torched in Saw V? The interview is too long for me to sit through the whole thing so Im assuming you have. As for Fisk, I went and skipped through the movie and as far as I can tell he appears only once, gives them a report and has like two lines. Not sure if hes worth mentioning anymore than Lamanna or Brent.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I wanted to remove it because I don't believe they'll ever get Cary back and the original people said they intended to leave it an open ended situation but like I said, Im not willing to sit through an hour of dialogue to find out if its real or not. People just seem to be adding to it like its the credit listings for filmss, they're adding people who wouldn't even fit into a minor-characters category, they're just living props designed to do something tiny and be forgotten. Unless they appear and do something they're not worth mentioning. Good job on the tidying up btw. As for the fire alarm...I dont recall any fire alarm but likewise its been a while since I saw it but I believe more mention would be made of it in the movie if that was true, especially since Saw II takes place long after Saw I and the house is still standing, its in bad shape sure but if people had come to investigate a fire they'd have found the corpses, blood, etc.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I looked on IMDB trivia, apparently the detectives track a fire alarm to a warehouse but I assume thats the one where they find Jeff and ther ewas no fire there. I call bull on it tbh but I guess they're retconning it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you know where I can find some clear pictures of Saw characters? I think one picture per movie for the article would be a good idea, one that highlights a major series character or someone important to the film. So Lawrence is good for Saw, a CLEAR pic of Rigg for Saw II (as he becomes important later and Eric has his own page), Jeff has one already for Saw 3, Strahm for 4 or Perez, Erickson, Pamela or Brit for 5 and William for 6. What do you think? Too many? Just to clarify, one ONE pic per section, at the moment we have 2 so we'd be adding 4 more.
The one with Amanda and Lynn? Its a good pic.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Have the pics on the page updated for you? Though I uploaded new Gordon, Rigg and Easton pics it continues to show the old one for me even though if you click on the picture you're taken to the new one.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Unless you have a source from a producer or someone behind the films someone would probably just ask you to cite it. Its a valid point but yeah it'd probably just keep getting deleted without a citation.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Found out waht is wrong with the images, if you go to the images page and add '?action=purge' without hte ' to the end of its address it'll remove the thumbnail cache and update the images. Its a huge pain and Im not sure why its like this because its left me with old images for a few days but it does work if you're still seeing the old ones to.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It should force it to reset the thumbnails when you go to the main page. If not, dunno what else to tell you except wipe your browsing history.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I keep deleting the Strahm page and someone keeps undoing it, theres just nothing there and as far as Im aware nothing substantial out of universe to make his page anything other than movie plot from the movie pages. He really doesnt do all that much in the films to warrant his own page. Eric Matthews has a lot of influence on a lot of characters and appears a lot but Strahm really just chases Rigg, then chases Hoffman then dies. I think the pics we have should be ok, its only 6, one per movie limit IMO and they are uyseful for highlighting characters who dont do enough to warrant a page but who do play a decent role in the series or are important to an individual movie.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
IMO yes, unless you can come up with somehing that makes his article worth having.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
No I hadn't thanks for the heads up. Maybe some of these are more useful than the ones one the game article, what do you think? Good link. Also, I thought I'd let you know I'm working on a List of Saw media page HERE. It's just started and I used the outline from the List of Metal Gear Solid media, but it's a start. Anyways, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I like that new Billy pic. I'll see what I can do to make the new image show I've had this issue before. I've actually had both of those images on the page way back when but they were deleted due to the article being a "useless image farm" but yeah I like those. It's not Oswald, this is just some guy who can be found exactly like that in the game. Speaking of which, have you picked up a copy yet? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice. Yeah a retail disc for PC would definitely raise sales. I think I fixed the photo on the billy page, it's still be finicky if you resize it wrong though. But it's good for now. Since you have high speed, would you mind checking out the Danny Glover interview for Saw? The link is here on the David Tapp talk page with details. Talk:David Tapp. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
WikipediA's pages are in XHTML 1.0 format and not in HTML (see XHTML#Relationship_to_HTML, W3C's Markup Home Page and XHTML 1.0 Recommendation)
Of course, every instance of the <br> tag contained in a Wikipedia page is automatically converted to <br /> when it is shown. In this way (by using the correct tag) we can save a bit of work.
For example, look at this message/section by editing it. In the first line-break (after the links) I used the BR tag valid for HTML while in the second line-break (after "...save a bit of work") I used the XHTML version. Then, go back to the page or click the Show preview button below and ask your browser to show you the source code of this page and you will see that both are in XHTML format. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ya, Mike! Yes, but the main reason is that in this way it is conform to the XHTML/XML format. Also, Wikipedia uses the Wikimedia software (MediaWiki) and the PHP programming language. Using the BR tag in the XHTML format will decrease the number of "replaces" that PHP has to do, so the code is optimized and the whole thingY runs a bit faster. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears [1] that you started an AfD for this, but the discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scream 4 (2nd nomination) wasn't created. Did you mean to withdraw this AfD nomination - if not, you'll need to create the discussion page. Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
That should do it - you can go ahead and add the rationale on the AfD page. Skier Dude (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Since this has already gone through AFD, and it didn't look like the previous deleted version (not really G4 deletable), I'd let it run the course at this time. A G-search turned up lots of stuff, so I'd give it a chance there, even if it's likely to get deleted again. Skier Dude (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, the page history actually goes back to 08:20, 8 May 2005!! The page has been deleted 10 times. It was restored 01:19, 16 April 2007 -and you can see the history after that. Given that it's been redirected a couple of different times, I'm going to make a suggestion at the AfD to redirect as you suggested - and then to protect the dang thing to stop this. Skier Dude (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I undid the edits you made to the Cast/Characters section in Scream (series). The cast/characters appearing in Scream 4 only appear there if they have been confirmed with a source. Therefore, WP:CRYSTAL shouldn't be an issue. Also, narrowing it down to the main characters is hardly encyclopedic. If we were to do that, we'd have editing wars over who the main characters are. Not to mention such a narrow selection is a bit useless. All cast/characters listed have at least one of the following:
Appears in two or three films
Has a picture-credit at the end of at least one film
Was a victim in the film.
Any character that doesn't meet that isn't notable since it's obvious they play a very little part in the story arc. Lastly, you're being too WP:BOLD. This section is a resource, therefore encyclopedic; so, if you wish to clean up something you feel is unnessacary/redundant, if its resourceful/encyclopedic you need to discuss it or else it'll just get reverted. Thank you. Geeky Randy (talk) 03:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Please tell me (please I really want to know), why it is necessary to have a character listed as "being mentioned or referenced". The whole concept of cast and character section is to show the main characters, and definitely not a character that played another character in a movie within the movie. I mean really, the whole table (and page) is a big train wreck and I tried to clean it up by removing unnecessary, irrelevant and redundant "chunks". Where you have "character is unconfirmed for Scream 4. REALLY? Then why is it even listed? Not to mention the whole table is hard to read or comprehend. It's just one big mess as far as I'm concerned. But I guess that you know more about Wikipedia than I do. I really don't see that page reaching a GA/FA or even a B with that mess. I think we should get a third opinion. Oh about CRYSTAL.. ugh the article says nothing about Neve or any character returning.. the most I've read about the current status of production in the article is "Writer Kevin Williamson is writing the fourth film and has said that it is part of a new trilogy." Unless I totally just missed it. Maybe you should update that.. contradiction much? Thank YOU. --Mike Allentalk·contribs 03:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Train wreck? You're the one who can't even properly erase the Scream 4 column from the table. If you can do it without screwing it up like you did last time (notice the double outlines on the table) I won't undo your edit. Until then, yeah, learn how to use Wikipedia. Get a third opinion and consider trying to create a mature discussion/debate like I intended instead of editing the article to meet only your personal standards. Geeky Randy (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: I've decided I'm not going to participate in your childish editing war. I think it's more than fair to meet you half way. I took the liberty of (correctly) deleting the Scream 4 column from the table. Until you can find a source that says "Only these people are main characters, but not these characters over here" I will only undo any characters you try to delete. Main characters are a matter of opinion, and if you've ever edited an article with "Lists of characters" (such as television shows, for example, which have numerous characters) the only way to determine main characters is by billing status (actors and the order their names appear in the credits) and contract agreements (actors credited despite not appearing in the episode they're credited for). IMDb is a good source for billing and contract information. So, just so you know, that's what I based the Scream character table off of. I wasn't just pulling random characters out of my Geeky Randy (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
And what edit war would this be that you speak of? After you reverted my changes, that was it. I didn't revert yours! I expressed how I felt about the situation; I'm sorry you took it as an insult. I didn't know I messed the table up, but ok. It's a shame I even had to erase the Scream 4 data to start with, but ok. The characters I'm talking about are the characters that appeared in the fictional movie Stab. And "Reporter". Seriously? Sorority Sister Lois, etc.. :-\ It's quite obvious in this case that the 5 characters that are in every movie are the "main" characters. The killers who portrayed the Ghostface moniker would be "main characters". It should be noted that this pertains to the TABLE. If you noticed I placed the main character article at the top of the table, that's where the rest of the cast/characters should be placed. I guess you missed that detail. Also it's encouraged and quite logical to wikilink the characters to their proper pages within the table. But looks like you run the show, I was just being bold, because I figured no one else felt like going through the process of doing it. I figured someone would appreciate that task. Again, I was shockingly wrong. --Mike Allentalk·contribs 08:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're willing to scroll up, you'll see that you were the one who got short. I was merely confronting a disagreement about a major edit you did. I have no problem with you improving a page and/or section, just do it right and don't rearrange it to meet just your standards.
"The characters I'm talking about are the characters that appeared in the fictional movie Stab."
What characters? All characters have a picture credit and are victims in the film. Stab has no bearing in this table. Perhaps watch the film and you'll realize this, as well as the Sorority Sisters' picture credits. If a character appears in more than one film, they're notable no matter how minor their character is.
"If you noticed I placed the main character article at the top of the table, that's where the rest of the cast/characters should be place. I guess you missed that detail."
No I didn't. I just didn't find it helpful or better.
"Also it's encouraged and quite logical to wikilink the characters to their proper pages within the table. But looks like you run the show, I was just being bold, because I figured no one else felt like going through the process of doing it. I figured someone would appreciate that task."
Talk about a train wreck. Maybe you should spend your time expanding that instead.
"Again, I was shockingly wrong."
I met you half way! What else do you want! There are certain standards for characters to be on the table, and you want to rearrange it without a discussion. Don't bother. If you sincerely think I'm wrong, start a discussion and we'll have a vote. I'll show you how grown ups do this. Geeky Randy (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm glad my review was useful! Sophus Bie(talk) 00:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that vandal on my talk page! I swear, I step away from the screen for one second... Sophus Bie(talk) 03:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Sophus Bie has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
Yes I suspect it would. :) In other news, I just noticed (from your userbox) that there's a Wikiproject devoted solely to Saw. That's rather awesome, really! Sophus Bie(talk) 03:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In everything I found, I don't see a way to turn the text white in that infobox. Sorry. I think that would be a good look. Perhaps you could take it to the talk page of the infobox template? --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, now the only way I can think of is if we create an infobox much like is done on the Jigsaw Killer, etc. page. We can then make certain text different colors, but I don't think it could be done. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I know you didn't add it. I actually thought that I had removed it before. It's not "valid" because the number of reviews is not a representative sample of critics. A part from the last two films that came out in the 2000s, the other films don't have a significant number of critical responses. Forty-one reviews is not a lot considering the film is almost 40 years old. To say that it has an X% reception on RT based on 41 reviews is to put a significance on those reviews with they aren't that many and most of them are from more recent critics--as most reviews from the 70s have not made it online. It does not give you an accurate picture of the critical response, which is why none of those horror franchises have that type of table in them. As far as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes goes, they aren't going to provide accurate critical response percentages for films older than about 10 years...maybe 15 years. There might be a couple of exceptions to the rule, but for the most part that's beyond their capabilities. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
For all of them, I'd say "no". The Exorcist has the best chance, but when you look at the reviews for all of the older films you'll see that they're not reviews from critics that reviewed the film when it came out...they're critics from the past couple of years that reviewed it (probably for some anniversary). The number of critics isn't representative of all critics, because it's so low (i.e. in statistics we have to be able to say that this number of critics can be generalized back to most critics), and it's not the critical response it originally received. There are a lot of horror films that were panned completely when they came out (e.g., Friday the 13th) that have an unusually high RT score because the people that reviewed it in the past couple of years liked it better. Unless you're dealing with something like Saw, which has only been out since the 2000s and would have a good critical reception representation, if you do a reception section it would probably have to be something purely prose that discusses the original reception of the films. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 10:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Its my understanding that if they're promotional images relesed to promote the film then they are free use so hes probably bitching about excessive use but the length of the article and the restriction of one per movie is pretty decent IMO and it highlights important characters without having to give them a full page which wouldn't last.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I was just wondering where you got the information for the Box Office rankings for the Twilight and Harry Potter Movies, I don't think you have those linked or referenced.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Oh, okay. Um, do you like the boxes under the Film section? Personally, I think its perfect, but I just wanted your opinion since you were the one who made them. ChaosMaster16 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Yes, that.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Hi there Mike - I've been a little busy, so I have not been able to reply. To start, you're doing well in my opinion for a newer editor. Try not to let the perfectionists get you down, nor the twits. Speaking of twits, I agree there should be a limit on IP edits, and have even offered to give up all my IP editing (can't log in at work) if Wiki would require registration for everyone like almost every other website on earth requires... *sigh* I better jump off that soapbox before I go too far. For now, an IP that makes too many edits is supposedly flagged, but as I can see, little is being done. And the higher ups do not want to deal with the subject. I have actually been editing for more than 3 years under another name I dropped and my work IP, and it is very frustrating to have your work destroyed by an IP vandal. I also get annoyed when some editors repeatedly get away with no or poor citations, but it's not enforced evenly - it depends on what pages the particular admin is watching. (I think you know what/whom I'm referring to there with the citation thing!) Anyway, hang in if you can. I'm getting pretty frustrated by I'm trying to stick it out. All the best! TristaBella (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I think I'm probably going to tick somebody off since I proposed Law & Order: Criminal Intent - Season 9 for deletion since 95% of was source by blogs and Twitter. We'll see. TristaBella (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone removed the deletion tag without putting in any better citations. I've warned them, but I doubt it will do much good. TristaBella (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mike. I have reported this person (a sock I think of Mgfan222) to WP:RSN. Feel free to comment there if you like. I also asked Redfarmer for help. But I've just about had it with Wikipedia. It's turning into a bloody great fan fiction page for some people, and I'm tired of admin ignoring it. Hopefully there will be more people like you who can stick it out long enough to see it become the resource it was intended to be instead of a toy for any wanker online (sorry, my Irish tempre comes out when I'm pissed off). PS YOU are great! Cheers, T. TristaBella (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem is excessive use of fair use images. List articles should not contain other than the absolute bare minimum required to convey the meaning of the topic. Please see WP:NFLISTS. The use of an image for each character is not supported. This article was previously trimmed of excessive use, and for a long time contained only three images. Now, it's growing again. This is the wrong direction to go. I've re-added the {{non-free}} tag. Please do not remove it without resolving the excessive use problem. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello MikeAllen, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Tanisha Thomas - a page you tagged - because: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 11:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You can use TVGuide.com. I tend to use MSN's TV section, because they will post things before TV Guide does. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I left these comments at Editor review, I cross post them here in case you miss them, they don't really form a review, more a bunch of random points and thoughts.
I just glanced at a few edits, it is good to see the accurate figures on box office - I'm not sure about removing apparently redundant refs, do these sources ever disagree? the sources disagree. There is no reason multiple sources can't be tied into one foot-note User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp59. The other little query is the adding of two figures, one accurate to the $, one to the nearest (we assume, maybe rounded down or up) thousand. The answer gives a false impression of accuracy - I realise that it is the sources doing this. Looking at the sources I found The Numbers and [2] - the breakdown of the international market might be of interest - maybe more on the film's own page, and the rentals figure is also interesting, being 2/3 of the box office figure. Add DVD/video sales (where from ?) and you start to get a picture of the franchise as a whole... Another thing that may be worth watching out for is the use of the word "Foreign" om the tables, it should probably be "Rest of the world". There are exceptions to the CC only policy - but rarely for living people. RichFarmbrough, 14:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC).
Ok I thought about the numbers a bit more: it seems that mojo take the box office figure and multiply by an estimated ticket price, which is fine for getting a rough feel for the numbers, but means we should not be quoting them to the nearest $. Note also that the budgets for the films are multiples of $25 million - what they actually spent is unlikely to be within a million of those figures (unless they went under budget and spent/"spent" the rest at the last minute before closing the books). So we need to look at why we are providing these figures: none of the reasons I can think support using that level of precision, unless it was straight from Warner Brothers of someone who actually had access to the takings figures of every cinema in the world.
The arguments for using one source on the talk page are a bit of a shame, it's not WP's place to choose sources, unless mojo is demonstrably more reliable than the Numbers we should use both - Time Warner use Mojo's figures themselves which does give them an edge.
The word "foreign" is US-centric, "International" is a bit weasely, and could be equated with "world-wide", the reason I suggest "Rest of the world" is that it is unambiguous. The possible WP:Systemic bias of splitting out just the US figures does not really bother me. If you use a non breaking space ( ) you can prevent the table mangling stuff.
I am inclined to agree that the separate column for references is a little unusual, and very wide for such a small amount of information. I would tend to put the ref links with the film titles since they support the entire row.
Yes Project:Film is your friend, and apart from comparing like with like, the box-office figures are not that interesting from a business perspective, Warner's revenue and profit from the theatrical release, sales, rentals, network showing and franchised goods would be more interesting - incidentally they are spinning off AOL.
Thanks for uploading File:Logo wildblue.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I see you commented on my talk page. When I first made that article, it was a redirect. Many other people altered it and made it an article. I just changed it back to a redirect.
XxTimberlakexx (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
yes, thanks. I was in a bit of a rush, so i just edited it and (normally) would have looked for the reference (becuase I did notice it was still in the references list).ChaosMaster16 (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
I agree that the introduction for Up in the Air (film) needs to be expanded. Do you have any specific suggestions for expanding the introduction? Also, I am holding off on expanding the plot section until after I see the film. I know the general details, but I do not know the specifics sufficiently well to write a coherent plot. --Dan Dassow (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I've expanded the lead section for Up in the Air (film). I would appreciate it if you would review the updated lead section and remove the "too short" template if it the lead is adequate. If it is not adequate, I would appreciate your thoughts on how to improve the lead. --Dan Dassow (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Blush! I helped to get two other articles Poliomyelitis and Changeling (film) to FA status, although user: DO11.10 and user:Steve were the principal authors respectively. It was a pleasure to collaborate with both DO11.10 and Steve. Both are great writers, fantastic editors and administrators, and very helpful. I modeled Up in the Air (film) after Changeling (film). There is still a lot of work yet to be done on the article before it reaches the quality of a GA article. I would appreciate any suggestions you may offer regarding making the article better. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)--
In revision 333012628 by 92.156.50.80 (talk), the user added the {{rewrite}} template to Up in the Air (film) without providing a reason. If you see a reason that this article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, please state it in Talk:Up in the Air (film)#Justification for rewrite tag. I would appreciate it if you or someone from the American cinema task force would determine whether the {{rewrite}} is justified and to remove the tag if it is not. --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Mike, thanks for reverting the IP edit. I thought it over the top, but wanted to check with someone first to avoid undue parenthood towards the article. Thank you also for good cleanup on the article. Merry Christmas and Happy New Years. --Dan Dassow (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey man, what guideline says to delete the directors, producers, writers of the Saw template? --HELLØ ŦHERE 20:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Peter in saw 5.jpgedit
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Peter in saw 5.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. FredTalk 23:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Ahaha thats a good one I was like "wat???!" at first then i read the rest lol thanks its an FLC right now and i think it passed its review but the reviewer hasnt got back to me yet. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Jeez idk the list of characters is such an edit war page with that much info i doubt it would ever qualify just for that alone. its too bad too cuz i like that page its really good. oh well maybe eventually. nice yeah i think you could do some real work with that franchise page i added the saw VI synopsis and it hasnt been changed yet lol yay yeah the first five seem really thin, especially since the first film has absolutely no development or production section. man that blows i would be so pissed saw 3 is so epic too. i would find the dickwad that scratched it lol and i havent seen the grudge 3 yet. i love shawnee smith but pale japanese ghosts are way too weird lol not for me. you wont be disappointed by the game, even though the controls kinda let down but oh well. let me know if theres any hard puzzles i got lost in a few places lol GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
True true, do we have any admins in our pocket that would put a protect it? blah the GA nominations page has such a massive backlog (about 300 pages awaiting review) so it hasnt even started. the flc for the list of saw media hasnt changed in a while either. you can list your support if you feel it deserves fl. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah true its not lol and yeah im not sure if they would allow that or not. i was hit pretty hard with canvas accusations long time ago but i dont think if im just saying to one editor that the conversation exists and that im not encouraging your opinion either way. hmm idk. also, do you think they would give the page a semi? if so we should ask for one, even if a temporary one. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I suppose but i dont know any other way to keep out the endless drones of IP editors which really bring that page down. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read the article on progeria before suggesting that the Benjamin Button movie or story is remotely related. The information you added is not remotely useful to the article.-gadfium 08:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the article. I just had one question about the change you made. The lead to an article should summarize what the person is best known for. Wouldn't that be at least a brief summation of "he was seriously injured in a domestic dispute with his fiancee".. leave it at that point and then go into it down below.. right now, it's the first thing people are looking for, and it's the LAST thing in the article. Just curious. SirFozzie (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I see you edited the Transformers (film) article stating that BB is a Mustang. Anyone knows that is totally wrong, so please do not do it again. --uKER (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I think you're way out of line accusing me of vandalism and judging by your track record, you really have some nerve. It was an honest mistake; I seen a random IP change information of a Featured Article, so I assumed the information was already correct before they changed it. In the future instead of sending someone a rude message, how about you assume good faith and let them know nicely.--Mike Allentalk·contribs 00:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't accuse you of vandalism. If I had, I could well have used a vandalism template, but I clearly did not. Then I don't see how my message was rude. A bit too straight to the point maybe. It wasn't my intention to be rude. I apologize but at the same time encourage you to not take things too personally. See you around. --uKER (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No, but out of five reverting options to use (undo, rollback, twinkle), you chose the 'identified as vandalism' option. Real classy, especially after I spend most of my time on Wikipedia reverting vandalism. As for "anybody" would know it was not a mustang, don't draw that kind of generalization, because obviously I didn't know what kind of car it was. Thank you. --Mike Allentalk·contribs 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I may have inadvertently done so. I give you that. On my defense I can only say that I may have used the vandalism revert because there have been several vandals making that very same change. But how does that affect you? AFAIK it's just an attribute of the revert itself and doesn't affect your user in any way. BTW, you also have to admit that it was your mistake to revert given that you admittedly don't know what car BB was. It wasn't my intention to report you as a vandal and if it does affect your account, I offer to do what is within my reach to revert it. --uKER (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it isn't unusual for there to be a tabled listing of awards won by a given film, but it also isn't unusual for there to be a spin-off article for it, such as I did at List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men (which I took on to Featured list. If I were working on such an article, I'd most probably spin it off and make it a stand-alone list. The only formatting it needs would be an introduction and the awards put in alphabetical order.
As for Anne Hathaway, pooh on the poster to me! Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Sweet you're gonna love it. For 360? Did you rent it? Nice new sig btw. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Code stealing? nice lol yeah thats amanda, you should find that out right after that part from some case files. it has a lot of achievements, i bet you have about 200G by now? nice its not too long of a game, its slightly extended by taking your time and finding every little nook and cranny but no real benefits there except the case files which are good Saw-lore. How do you like it? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
ahaha thats funny they do that alot. yeah it was really a budget title but it has its bright moments and it pretty faithful to saw. that bomb room drove me crazy, do you want me to tell you the solution to that? (i dont want to spoil any puzzles if you dont want me to) Oh and by the way check out Tanedra Howard and your Saw VII page, i added some things to both. Tanedra will be back for 7, yay! lol GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You have to use the left and right triggers (left releases a red, right releases a blue) and make all the reds go to the left and make all the blues go to the right. The tiltys in between shift down to the opposite side so account for that as you choose which color to send down. did that help? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah its a miracle that imdb is actually right once in awhile lol yeah i thought she would be found alive in V or VI but i guess she was deader than dead in III so oh well. but this game is bewteen I and II, so shes alive no matter what. Hmm idk those bars will tilt as they drop each time so you have to take your time and plan for the tilts to eventually make all reds go left and blues go right. sometimes it needs two blues in a row or other odd patterns for all the things to go in the right place. If you still have trouble, i can boot up my copy and type up the patterns. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Well i think its the same but with a two holding compartment on one of the tiltys so there is a pattern, i could be wrong though. be sure to stack the same color twice on the two holders and make sure they unload in the right place. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
CHECK IT OUT! its says your the second best editor of the month on wikirage! sweet! sorry i got off so early last night i had to wrap more presents, tis the season you know. nice new user pic btw. so you figured it out? nice how far are you now? it seems like more cast involvement would have been nice but oh well. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
lol idk then maybe wikirage is broken, but still congrats. yeah its pretty short timed in some areas, are you on normal or insane? when i get some spare time im gonna time myself for beating it in one sitting in under 2 hours, that would be sweet. nice, yeah most ppl dont cuz it can be freely copied around the internet and that would creep me out lol about the scream queens, what do you mean? like an article for each episode? then maybe a list of episodes? then a template to hold it all? also, should we make a season 2 article? that sounds like we may have a new project for us. lets get cracking, do you want to divide them up and do a few eps each on our user subpages? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah that would be good. Im gonna start a user subpage and can editit down pretty quick. so judging by this, there should not be an article per episode? or maybe there is for other shows? nice yeah i heard that was pretty good. are you giving up on saw? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
nice lol yeah they kept popping up in places i didnt expect and BANG! annoying puppet laugh and slow-mo death scene. I just popped up an article, List of Scream Queens episodes, in like 20 mins so its not perfect but it has cites and relevant info so it shouldnt be deleted. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The edit you have made to Law & Order: CI has be reverted... the characters of CI were taking up too much room so it was moved to it's own page for that reason. The other shows in the franchise are that way and OVERCROWDING is the reason why. Too many characters on the main page. It needs its own. And if CI reaches 20 seasons, it REALLY would probably need it's own page. Please I'm 'asking' that that not get reverted back. --Mgfan222 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Ahaha yeah im sorry i cant stand the doctor gordon conspirists but i figured that seemed good enough that a writer announced it. sounds good, that page is filling out nicely though, eh? if we can get a lot of the filming, cast, writing and other such parts filled in really well we can have this at about C or B by the time the film is released. did you see my new page? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah some closure on him would be amazing if they did it right, i just hope its not the whole "he did it all along" thing, it would make it not as clever. maybe hes back for revenge? or captive? hmm idk. I just cant stand the people who keep adding him with no cites or just because they want to lol Yeah if we get more sources for actors we should add them. We REALLY need a source for tobin bell coming back, thats the biggie. isnt he already signed on? i cant find any sources, have you? thanks it took a long time formatting all that lol and yeah ill move her that sounds good. im also looking for sources to make that a more accurate article, maybe even an FL soon with enough references. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Well yeah but i cant imagine they would dare make a saw film without jigsaw, its just not right. if preproduction starts in feb, then they should announce him coming back real soon. its not like announcing cary elwes or donnie wahlberg, because that spoils the plot a bit, but announcing tobin is like a must. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah unfortunately. but theres still more to add to the page as there is so its no big deal. i just hope that it wont do as bad as 6 did, kinda made me sad how low the box office was compared to the rest. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Majorly, 5 hurt the box office for 6 so bad. and that they already announced 7 before 6 was released, that could have turned them off. and that damn paranormal activity (film) really pwnd saw, sad... i read somewhere that it was because kevin was still working on the dvd for 6 and the 3D needed more preproduction so they needed a director right away, making kevin an impossible choice. so they didnt want another new director so they brought hackl back. oh well i dont think the director matters as much as the writers in this case. 5 was weaker because it was another origin story, so as long as the writers learn from that, 7 will be fine. im just worried about 3D, that could make for some really awkward camera angles just for the "ooh its coming at me" experience. oh well lol check out your Saw 7 page soon, im working on the production sections. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
damn thats including the 3D glasses right? i havent either but it seems like it would be awkward. especially when it comes out on DVD and its 2D trying to be 3D. blah. I'm not sure the producers or writers wont say. i wish more news would come out about it. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Hiya, an official synopsis (like all material released for promotional purposes) is still very much under copyright protection. And while brief quotations are acceptable under fair use, including a whole synopsis verbatim with no clear attribution is not ok. Siawase (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy to help! And yeah, copyright is really confusing. But this is as far as I understand it at least. You may want to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for additional opinions or clarification. There are a lot of knowledgeable users on there. Siawase (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
On the subject of Avatar, why does "the film is considered to have 'universal acclaim'" not make sense to you? I originally added the "to be" part, but then "to be" did not make sense to me. If it were, "the film is considered to be 'universally acclaimed,'" that would make sense. The "to have" part makes sense to me because it is saying the film is considered to have universal acclaim at that site. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey again, Mike. Did you notice this message? I can be okay with your not answering, but I thought you might have missed it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Facebook Konami Code.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Per Template:Infobox Film: "Released: Insert only the most relevant release date(s) of the film (see WP:FilmRelease for a detailed guideline). If multiple entries are required, separate with line breaks ( ). Use () for the earliest." - So, that leaves a contradiction between the MOSFILM page and the Infobox page.
Start date is only supposed to be used for the film's initial release, not for any other releases - you're using it for all of them. The film was re-released in the US, which is why it was originally listed under the bolded "United States" section. Given that there are only 3 major releases for the film, there isn't really any issue of "long lists of release dates provided by the Internet Movie Database". I don't think it is a major problem. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Because it's the only major foreign release for the film. Everywhere else it was released overseas are not considered major venues (e.g., Croatia, Czech Republic, etc.). I don't understand the start date template...that's new to me, and to the film community. I don't get why it is being used, unless there is some category attached to it that I'm not aware of. It technically takes up more space than simply writing it out. Regardless, you have to remember that WP:MOSFILMS is a guideline, not a policy, which means that it is used to point us in a basic, acceptable direction, not dictate our every move. Given that Halloween II has had 3 major releases (only 2 of them in different locations), that's why it is listed. It's also listed so that the infobox isn't US-centric, and provides equal weight to any other major release of the film that's an English-speaking country. If there was a whole list of major releases then we'd have a different story. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
My statement in my edit summary was based on a misreading of that section. When I looked at the edit history more closely, I saw that you had added a new paragraph (and a much better written one, at that), but had neglected to remove the old one. The back-and-forth of reverts and deletions was based on my misreading, which I later realized and for which I apologized. That is what I get for editing before I have had my morning coffee! Keep up the good work and let me know if I can help.
Oh, and as far as the figures are concerned for the box office, you should poses that question to Collectonian, who will be able to help you with that. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The classification section in the Sherlock Holmes article should not be deleted simply because it wasn't included in WP:FILM. If you really look at those guidelines they haven't pinned down all the details and different things can be more important in different articles. I'm particularly skeptical the guidelines as they seem to amount to the consensus of a limited group of people but that's probably because I'd like to see much more detailed film articles than the rules say we should have.
Having said that the Classification section of the Sherlock Holmes article might not actually be notable. There is no great difference between the US and UK ratings, which might be notable. It's always amusing to point out (or when critics point out ... so you have a reference) that the American censors will overlook violence but react hysterically to scenes of sex or nudity.
Oh and the mpaa link given as a reference is total and utter tosh, worthless, less than useless. They provide a dynamic search results which you cannot link against, and cannot backup with webcitation.org or similar archive sites. This makes verifiability awkward but the classification is usually mentioned on the official website if it really is something you want to get into.
So you may well delete the section anyhow but I just want to make sure you are doing it for the right reasons, a good big reason like WP:Notability or WP:Verify
I'd strongly encourage you to mark it as citation needed for a few days (and personally I include a comment such as "notability" in the source beside my citation needed tags) but it does look a lot like someone added it in the mistaken belief it was actually an interesting detail. -- Horkana (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Done -Mike Allen talk · contribs 02:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
