User talk:Alientraveller/Archive 4

Indy 4

• "Paramount Pictures balked at Ford, Lucas and Spielbergs pay demands." What does this mean? Could be cleared up.

Other than that, definitely nicely streamlined and an improvement from yesterday's revision. Seems like all film articles need this kind of clean-up once in a while, when the information starts piling up in the least structured way. You do good work, dude! I look forward to the end result of this and Transformers. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User name

Ya know, I've seen you around long enough to think that your user name isn't quite accurate anymore  ;) The discrepancy between the meaning of your name and what it has come to mean to me (edits from a seasoned pro who knows what s/he is doing) strikes me every time you show up on my watchlist. I just had to say it. CovenantD 12:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not suggesting that you change it at all - just pointing out with humor the irony of it while expressing appreciation for your edits. CovenantD 13:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there is system in place for changing your username, if you ever desired to. ~CS 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blog link

hi - i added a link to a blog with info about the dark knight and you removed it. i think it is good to keep there because it contains information about the making of the film, and someone who is interested in it enough to look it up on wikipedia might want to check it out, and it doesn't hurt to have it there, it just adds to the info on the page. 24.69.67.173 12:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Prestige (film)

Thanks, Wikinew, for all the work on TP. I like the electric head shot the best, since it's clearly part of the Transported Man act, whereas the other one could be anything (although I think it's a better pic of Jackman). Here's to going GA soon!

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  00:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiNew! No criticism intended. Your edits have been great, especially the cite related ones. Some of the ones adding more detail to plot have been trying (not yours, but from others, particularly those from people who have never contributed before and are IP addresses only). I am worried about the volume, though, and how it might be perceived. What do you think vis-a-vis the stability issue?

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiNew, congratulations for all your hard work — you did a great job! Check this out.

(Don't forget to update your entry on your User page with a GA button for TP)

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

JP

I think JP is ready for nomination process especially since the changes section is great now. Its definately a GA now (without a doubt!) and most likely an FA. If you dont want to nominate it, im happy to do it, but youve hundreds of edits, so it should be your privilege! Its ready! LordHarris 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

88 References!!!! LordHarris 11:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA status. Good job on all your hard work on JP LordHarris 00:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bond images

But why do we need two images that do nothing for the plot besides eye candy? Bond and Vesper in the elevator? I don't see how we can prove the fair use that. The images may have the right license tag, but they don't explain a rationale for fair use nor give copyright credit to anyone. I think it only needs 1 image and we need to find a better image that best sums up the movie. I mean, Revenge of the Sith has 2 pictures, with a longer plot, but both kind of illustrate some of the biggest parts of the film.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, gambling table was what immediately came to mind for me. I mean, the movie spends like 1/3 of it's time, at least, at Casino Royale, I think we can safely say that's a major plot point. Either the gunbarrel, or some action sequence with Craig.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the first one, because it kind of shows Bond and Mikkelsen squaring off against each other.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  12:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Negative Depiction of Persians

Hi there! I do clearly understand "NPOV". It has nothing to do with that. As far as I have seen all reviewers (both those who support the film and those who did not like it) agree on this issue. Well! Persians are depicted as violent monsters not humans! Is there any one who consider monster as a positive depiction of a human? Sina Kardar 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to have reviews from different countries. Greek reviewers and Iranian reviewers must be included as well as others. If you think it is not balanced please add more positive comments. The article is not long yet. And a review from New York Times or Washington Post is notable too.Sina Kardar 21:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

Don't a lot of FA-class articles refer to the actor in parentheses the first time they are mentioned? A cast section is often frowned upon, even for a production this large. I think it would be better to have the actors paired to the characters the first time they are referred to.Arcayne 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are the reviews in list form? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What the helli s this newcomer doing, reviewing the article? He seems well-intentioned, but he's intrepreting that criteria incorrectly. Perhaps we should have asked from someone we knoew to be a practiced hand at this to weigh in. Is it too late to do so? Arcayne 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Sorry, I don't have the Jurassic Park DVD. The Filmaker 19:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• I use PowerDVD which has the feature of taking photos. The Filmaker 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA award. I know you worked hard for it. I'll have to read through JP later, don't have the time to go through it thoroughly right now. I did check out the plot for LOTR. It looks good, but it's been awhile since I've seen it. Did the explaination of Bilbo getting the ring come so soon? I thought it happened later. Other than that it looks good, it's a long movie and so will have a little longer plot, plus there is a lot going on. I tweaked a couple things.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

300

No, I think that the headache of dealing with the POV pushers is part of the price we pay for a public encyclopedia. With a few notable exceptions, I think the vast majority of the people posting POV are doing so out of a genuine concern that the movie is going to damage how Persians (Iranians) are perceived.

Whether this comes from a lack of the entertainment saturation (that allows most folk in the western hemisphere to develop a more disciminating taste as to truth or falsehood) or from a cultural fear of being undervalued by a world in which they feel they are constantly playing catch-up - the end result is that they are going to argue long and hard to make sure their point of view is voiced. We just have to consistently reassure them that we aren't editing in any bias - pro-west or pro-east - and remain consistent in that. Most of them will come around. The rest will either go away for get themselves bounced out for failing to abide by the rules. I find it to be a learning experience, wherein I am learning how to be a better editor and spot the nuances of policies I have come to know almost by heart (sick, ain't it?). I heard about the Casino Royale thing.It sounded like a right stupid argument.

As for the film, I kinda liked it, but groaned at some of the overdone clichés in speeches. The visuals were stunning - and this was all the more fantastic when I went out and borrowed my brother's comics of the GN. I and my date noticed that the Persians all seemed to be people of color (she is Asian and I am hypersensitive about the lack of positive portrayals of people of color, having worked in advertising). Then my date (the smarter of the two of us) pointed out that the Persian Empire - much like the Egyptian Empire that preceded it and the Roman Empire that came after - employed folk from all around the Empire. that some of them would be dark folk is reasonable. If there had been black folk in the 300, I would have found that to be pandering, as Sparta has been described as a very closed, homogenous society.

In short, it is a guy movie - blood and guts, some sex and hot gals getting all nipply, and some righteous dudes beating the snot out of anyone who crosses 'em. Not very highbrow, but a fun romp.Arcayne 22:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, the 300 article is going to Hell, and I am not sure how to revert it to a state before it became all cluttered up.Arcayne 14:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Already reverted it to a prior, relatively un-vandalized state. I am currently going through and re-adding edits that were not POV-trash or vandalism. As soon as things calm down, we'll deal with the srest of it.Arcayne 15:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

gave playqoy a 'vandalism warning 1', Guy was sabotaging an external site link.Arcayne 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi Wiki-newbie. You reverted an edit of mine without explanation on the 300 (film) article. Using a revert tool is acceptable only in cases of clear vandalism, which my edit clearly was not. Rollback of another user's good-faith editing is considered extremely poor form. Looking through your contribution, I'm concerned that you may be over-using your revert-tool to undo things that are not obvious vandalism. As a courtesy to other editors you ought to provide an edit summary explaining your changes (why, for example, a perfectly legitimate link to a reputable academic source discussing the movie's historical accuracy ought to be excised). I understand that this movie attracts a great deal of criticism (and thus tendentious edits to the article), but the link was a reputable published source--exactly the type of source that Wikipedia aims to include in order to counter random people from inserting their personal opinion instead. So, in the future, if you want to remove sourced content from a fellow Wikipedian, at the very least you should do a manual edit and provide an explanatory edit summary. All the best.—Perceval 08:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:300 (film). Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Specifically, I'm talking about this removal of an entire section [1]. Don't remove talk page sections without a good & obvious reason. Thanks The Behnam 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I should probably have chosen a different user warning template, since you didn't 'add' information. Anyway, even if you don't think the user is editing in good faith, there is no need to remove the talk section. Also, if you keep it, others will see what you are talking upon and contribute to the discussion. So, basically, you aren't solving anything by destroying the section since it isn't blatant trolling. The Behnam 18:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the box for Temp Page, but, as I have never created on or used one, could I impose uponm you to tell me how to do it? I was thinking of calling it "Major Controversies, Politics and Critical Reception II"Arcayne 20:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC) As well, I was thinking of putting it in a centered text box with big-fonted letters so folks see it right away. And a nice shrubbery, as well.Arcayne 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, though. I know from your example what to put into the temp page, but I haven't the html skills to create a temp page like I described. Could I be a pain and ask you to do it? Top of the page, below the yellow textboxes would be just fine. Purty pleeze?Arcayne 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing other ppl's comments... not a good way

Please refrain from this in the future —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.165.146.90 (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

You helped choose Vladimir Lenin as this week's WP:ACID winner

AzaBot 01:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky

I just figured out that they keep sneaking in that .info link amidst some good edits. What a pain. Good catch however. :) Arcayne 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, what was the Fair Use argument for removing the image from marketing? Arcayne 16:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. The screener shown as part of the mktg promotional at the convention showed that image, with the Persian ambassador's and Stelios' quipps about fighting in the shade. That's why it was placed in the Marketing section. If you think it's appropriate to mention it thusly, I will go to the image section and add to the Fair Use rationale. Arcayne 16:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I had just run out of reverts, and Khokoi seems intent on reverting them without discussion. I already posted a vandalism warning and request to bring his arguments to the discussion page. Arcayne 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Iron Man

For some strange reason, it wouldn't let me save that page (while reverting some actual spam) without nowiking that link. Must have been a glitch with the blacklist. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

300- thanks!

Wow... thanks! --Javits2000 18:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Yeah, me too. I thought I had posted something similar, but I cannot seem to find it. Arcayne 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Thank you for making a report about 24.88.60.218 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! —dgies^t_c 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Fountain

I think that the film article needs an expanded Reception section. I'm not so good at trying to balance opinion about the film, though the reaction has been split down the middle, which makes things easier. Also, I'm not crazy about the writing style of the last paragraph in Themes. Someone else wrote it, and I never got around to copy-editing it. (Phrases like "A subset of reviewers (Anderson, Brussat)" just bother me, as it feels incomplete.) I've always wanted to nominate it for FA status, but I never got around to taking care of these two things before nominating it. I'm still sort of on my wikibreak (last day of spring break for me today), and not sure if I'll be returning soon -- got a busy week ahead of me when I resume classes. Basically, other than what I've mentioned, I think that the film article is in excellent shape. I gotta admit, though, I wonder how scathing the candidacy review will be, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing a link from the Batman page

Hello there. I'm wondering why you've removed the link from the Batman page to my website The Dark Knight. Just because I haven't been able to update my site's content doesn't invalidate much of it, or make it non-useful to people. Judging from the traffic I get to the site and the feedback I receive, a lot of people still get a lot out of it. So, why do you remove the link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbfurlong (talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers

Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Shiver me timbers

Eh, I'll probably miss it, because I'm not going to watch Dancing with the Stars in anticipation for it. If I remember, then I'll watch it either at midnight (er, whatever time it becomes available here) or the next morning.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What all happened to the article? I saw the trailer, could have been a little better, but I think that fell more on poor musical choice than scenes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Alright, so I skimmed over the marketing section; nevertheless, there were additions not already noted. Why the wholesale reversion rather than integration of the data? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I felt that the most important plot points deserved a quick once-over but, upon reread, I suppose most of it was a rehash... ;) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You could probably just use a Cite web template and have the core link, but detail under title where in the system it is. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Satisfied Customer

Apparently, we've managed to irritate the nap-time escapee who blanked both of our pages. I placed a vandalism warning on his page. Popularity is fun! Arcayne 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but it was easy enough to revert. It's nice to know I have arrived, man!. Btw, a vandalism report was filed in the matter, referring to both blankings of our pages. Arcayne 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

Sorry about accidently reverting your edit at X2: X-Men United. I realized what had happened, but you'd already fixed it. Oh well... EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

X-Men

Yeah, I put it in my general sandbox and started trimming. It may take me a bit, because I have a big exam on Monday that I have to study for.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

Where is there an image of Le CHiffre on the main article? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I guess the main image is on the character page. I bet this page is pretty hot property on the editing page the last few days!!!! I don't throw in images for the sake of it - if I can find some freeimages of locations used in the film in will help. THis is what I have done on the 20 other Bond films. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 17:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

CineVoter

File:Film Reel Series by Bubbels.jpg

You voted for the Cinema Collaboration of the week, and it has been chosen as Casino Royale (2006 film).Please help improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia film article.

This is an automated notice by BrownBot 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well so do I find it offensive when I try to improve an article and you just discredit it like that by reverting. If this article is going to be a feature article eventually you are going to have to let people try to improve it sir. You must we unaware of my work on wikipedia. I haven't been given many awards particularly James Bond awards if I haven't significantly contributed to articles and imporved Bond films on wikipedia. I have written articles like Abbas Kiarostami and The Maltese Falcon (1941 film) so please give me a chance. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I didn't mean to be offensive but look if this article is going to be a featured article eventually you are going to have to let people try to improve it. I too am a seasoned editor and have written countless GA's and been given awards for my work also on Bond films -so my work has clearly been of some value. I wouldn't have had three articles on the front page in three days if I didn't know how to improve or write an article. And that cultural form is important maybe not the character but that scene took an enormous amount of time to develop and is discussed very much in the behind the scenes look at the dvd. YOur suggestion seems good - how about I add it in the talk page until we can decide what to do with it? Sorry about my tone but i don't appreciate you reverting as if I am some young kid messing it up . Also my family are Christian and I know editing wikipedia is not against any belief I'm just curious why ypu guard the page so strongly ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I owe you an apology for barking at you but I also find it offensive when any of my efforts or attempts at trying to improve it or at least guide it are thrown out within seconds. All the best and I hope we can come to some agreement in the talk page-there are some important elements missing about the filming which is discussed strongly in the behnd the scenes analysis of the film ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thats right. I agree that the character is not important but the behind the scenes look and the filming and techniques is very notable and is discussed strongly on the dvd. I feel a top article should address such important processes in how the film was made ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I really do think we need a section on the behind the scenes look at the film. Many of the important details are missing. This should be developed in the talk page What do you think? To revert everything is like saying the article is perfect when it is not. It's very good but I guaratee you if it is eventually going to be a feature it needs such details -that little bit extra ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 15:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see now why you have been guarding the page!!! It is not only a GA nominee but I beleive you have done substantial work on this and wouldn't want anyone to add something which might affect its promotion from a B to GA. Ahh!!! I did exactly the same thing with Abbas Kiarostami!! Give me a slap on my bald evil spectred head for my aggression!!! I don't know what got into me I guess I am not used to anybody reverting any work I do!) Seriously though I respect that this means a lot to you to have another GA and I won't touch the article itself until it is a GA. THen I really think we need to think about that new section which will hopefully take it to the top level. When I have time I will try to write it in the talk page until it can be added-but note I don't want to do this if I think after my efforts to try to improve are rmeoved as soon as they are added. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 16:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is not only missing such details on the production though but has anyone ever thought about the missing sections on the script writing and cinematography? Why doesn't the article even mention the script and Comparisons with the original novel? THis isn't even covered. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 12:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Prestige (film)

Hi there.

Please discuss your changes to the article (if they are contested) on the talk page, and not just in edit summaries. The goal is to work out consensus, and then make the change discussion is warranted. Happy editing to you! Cross posted to Dominictimms Teke 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of cultural references to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial

An editor has nominated List of cultural references to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your revert of my Prestige Edit

You reverted this edit I made, accusing me of vandalsim: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Prestige_%28film%29&diff=118291527&oldid=118290704 Why did you revert the edit and why do you believe that it was vanadlism? The edit was truthful to the plot of the movie and included information that was never brought up in the plot summary but necessary for understanding later paragraphs. -Captain Crawdad 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you lumped my edit in with the edit that immediately preceded mine, which was the one that deleted the last two paragraphs. As you can see by the article's edit history, I've been restoring those paragraphs when they've been deleted by some other apparent vandals.

I'm not sure what you're referring to about the mystery. Did you not want the summary description to include a description of what the machine does? I can't see why, because later paragraphs of the plot description seem to assume that knowledge. Also, in general, wikipedia is a place for information, not mystery. -Captain Crawdad 19:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing what machine does with the trick that Angier performs with it. The machine's functionality is shown during the Colorado Springs scene. The climax of the film only explains how Angier used the machine to perform a trick. The machine's functionality should be described when it is shown in the movie. To withold that information distorts the plot of the movie and confuses the summary. -Captain Crawdad 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The film is revealed to be science fiction at Colorado Springs, when it is revealed that Tesla's machine creates exact duplicates of objects. This moment is vital to the structure of the film and it needs to be carried over into the summary. -Captain Crawdad 20:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

You don't want any trivia to the article? Your not going to let anybody in are you. Congrats on the GA but I really do wonder why you spend all your life guarding the page!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If that could be intergrated into the article that would be fine. I had written it in the talk page before but as you didn't say anything I figured you agreed ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I am having second thoughts about that as 1. The article is already as GA and many other articles clearly need improving 2. It is very time consuming to immediately come up with a fully written sunmmary of both DVDS. 3. I have zilch confidence in you that you'll like it anyway. I don't have time to waste if you are only going to revert 2 seconds later so am very dubious at adding even another word. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey I know you aren't picking on me. YOu are right that FA class articles don't have trivia sections. Trivia section is a sign of a lack of comprehension to incorporate it into paragraphed writing. I also respect that you are trying to keep it at the highest possible standard. Soon enough I will watch it again and make some notes on paper. Then I can relay it on the talk page and we can have a go at writing the missing section together agreed? I genuinely beleive that this will improve the article further and put it in contnetion for the top if it is well written and sourced. We are both capable people and writers so it shouldn't be a problem. Also I much prefer your new name ALien traveller!! Wiki-newbie made you sound like someone who started last week and doesn't have a clue what they are doing when actually you are a seasoned editor. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The user name doesn't really matter to you? Just wondered why your signature changed to Alien traveller.!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats a very good idea. You'd me amazed what a difference your user name makes in how I picture you!!! I'm a fine one to talk aren't I!!! And just between you and me -no I don't have a bald head or a cat either!!! See ya ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see you have done a good job on Special effects of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy which is even a seperate article. ANother terrific film!!! THis is exactly what I have in mind for Casino Royale which incorporates a summary of the special dvd with the "behind the scnees" look. At least now I have seen that you are interested in such details it gives me a little more faith!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek XI

You have just reverted my move of Star Trek (film) to Star Trek XI, although you did not take part in the move request that preceded it. Although the request wasn't perfectly formatted, there was no opposition presented there. Do you want to file a new request, or are you prepared to let that result stand? --Stemonitis 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the discussion, but the film has been called Star Trek by the writers, per the fact it is a reboot of the story. I'm thinking of keeping quiet on the article, but note per Wikipedia's naming conventions, the film's title is not Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Alientraveller 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[copied from User talk:Stemonitis by Stemonitis 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)]

I don't much care either way, but I'd like it to stay somewhere agreeable to as many people as possible. Normally, a move request would be the way to find that out, but that method seems to have been flawed in this instance. What I'm really asking is: would you mind if I undid your last move? --Stemonitis 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The imdb has no naming of Star Trek XI. It is just called Star Trek so (film) would be highly appropriate and correct. ALthough on certain sites the wroking title appears to be XI -I'd suggest mentioning it in the first sentence

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you are happy with developments on Casino Royale? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree its come on nicely today. I did first try the awards in what was going to be a tidier table but it was too bloated. I really think the details should be kept on it though as it provides encylcopedic information on acclaim of the film. I might think of some way to improve the aesthetics of that section. What about technical specifications? There is a short parapgrah written in the talk page ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have kitted out the henchman and allies pages with images as per other Janes Bond list page which helps and also started Chris Corbould. Check out that amazing filmo! Every film is like one of the highest grossing of all time!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 15:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be great if I could take a screenshot of the rig used during the Venice house filming and add it to the special effects section. THis would really make the article look like it knows what it is talking about. I have seen the doucmentary again now fully and I can confirm that the section is indeed very good and I took some notes. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are still quite negative about everything. Why? What do you mean two cast sections. I think the article needs one more final image that of Mr. White. He is not featured in any of the pictures yet is a major enough of a character to have his own article. If we added one more image of Mr White at the end of the cast section I beleive it would really help it for completion. With some copy editing I think this is nearly ready for a FA ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 21:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK thats cool. I have watched the documentaries again in full and I can confirm that the summary is very good filling in info on those key scenes. There is now no detail missing at all from this. I evne jotted down the names and dates!! One last image of Mr White would really be appropriate I think. How are you? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 21:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have no objection eventually I would like the write the awards section fully into a concise section taking away the list that I know you also don't really like. However I'd like to see the awards section strucutred a bit better to make reading the info easier. I think the article is at its full length now the screenplay might need a tiny bit more covering in one of the already existing sections but not cinematography as I said before. Have you any ideas for further improvement? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Spidey 3

You had this bit in the article: "...and that it grips onto Brock." I'm not sure for what context this is meant, or if it's related to the webbing motif mentioned beforehand. If it's important, feel free to re-add and clarify. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was about to leave a comment a while ago, but my Internet crashed all of a sudden. (I'm at the school library now.) Just wanted to thank you for all the good work you've done with the article; you definitely have a barnstar coming your way. But first, let's see how the article weathers the storm of post-release wiki-traffic. Also, I was checking out the trivia page for Spider-Man 3 at IMDb, and there are some tidbits that I do believe were taken for us!

• Raimi eventually came to appreciate the character, based on writer Alvin Sargent's script and actor Topher Grace's performance.
• Thomas Haden Church worked out for 16 months to build up his physique to portray Sandman.
• In a fight scene where Spider-Man punches through Sandman's chest, congenital amputee boxer Baxter Humby took Tobey Maguire’s place in filming the scene. Humby, who was born without his right hand, helped deliver the intended effect of punching through Sandman's chest.
• The film's visual effects designer, Scott Stokdyk, created a miniature of a skyscraper section at 1/16th scale, instead of using CGI, to save time and costs, and so that damage done to the building could be portrayed realistically.
• Real sand was used in the scenes with Sandman, except where there were characters being buried/covered in sand. Real sand being possibly hazardous for such scenes, ground up corncobs were used as a substitute. It provided marvelous snacks for the cast and crew afterwards... (LMAO at the last bit)

The rest is pretty much tripe. But it's nice to have some influence! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Alientraveller, why did you remove the image of Dunst and Maguire on the spiderweb from the Spiderman 3 article? It's a perfect accessory to illustrate the contents of the film and it pertains to the subject addressed by the article. Please put it back on. Thank you. Usfirstgov 20:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Early bird gets the worm...but the cat gets the bird

True, but we still have to look at Wiki's other guidelines for articles themselves, and these "early" film articles barely have enough reliable, verifiable, and non-speculative information to actually support themselves. I'm not saying "don't allow the information", just keep it where it's appropriate until we can substantiate a reason to actually have it's own page. Most "early" film articles are ones that are based on something (e.g. books, comics, previous films), and so their extistence is really more essential to those respective pages until the film actually starts to get made. Unlike films that are "original" (I use that lightly in today's world), which people really don't know about until they start getting made, or until a trailer comes out for them. How many projects has Jim Carrey attempted to start in the past couple years, and how many got off the ground. They are just now trying to re-establish the Carrey/Tim Burton film Ripley's Believe It or Not! (film). Visit that page. That's something that was canned awhile back, and they recently decided to reopen it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally forgot about those plots. Sorry. My weekend shouldn't be too bad (just a couple of assignments), so I'll take a look at those this weekend. What I'll do is make a little edit on them so that they are fresh when I get home (at work now) and then I'll make them their own tabs (I love IE 7) so that I won't forget about them. I'll see if I can trim some more while I'm here; I have to make a lot of phone calls in a minute though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are wanting these for the production section? I'd say either this one or this one, because it's clear that they are both from the JP film, and because they provide the best clarity, and because I like them. I like the Rex and Explorer the most, because you can get a full understanding of how big that Rex was that they created.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and it would be hard to replace the first image, because you wouldn't be benefiting yourself. You could look for some other production images of the other dinosaurs, maybe an early computer rendition of the Gallimimus flocking?? I think I remember them showing how they inserted Neil and the kids into that scene.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed the X2 plot down to about 800+ words. You can view it on the general sandbox. The other images weren't that relevant. The only one that had any true connection to the plot was the one I left. IMO.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, isn't editing 300 fun? Arcayne 07:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just finished trimming the X-Men plot, it's all yours when you want it. It's something like 722 words.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

New identity

Man! I don't even know you anymore. :) I'm surprised you were able to get your handle changed; I thought there was a cut-off somewhere after x number of edits. Well, I'm going to have to get used to the new you. Any nicknames that you want, or do you want to be fully called Alientraveller? What's the story behind that handle, anyway? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to establish that your previous identity was Wiki-newbie on the user page and maybe in your sig for a short time (the editor formerly known as Wiki-newbie, or some silly thing like that). Unless you're trying to turn over a new leaf in your relationships with other editors, of course. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, that's solid backing of your new identity. Me, I just felt like "Erik" wasn't enough of a user name, haha. So I slapped on the "+ster". Yet I write "Erik" in my sigs anyway. I'm in the midst of exams week, and I won't be done till Thursday night. For that weekend, though, got some wiki-loose ends to tie up -- clean up The Fountain and Fight Club and re-start my work on Spider-Man and so forth. What's the status with Jurassic Park? Let me know if you need a pair of eyes to look it over. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's so many great films whose Wikipedia articles are incredibly underdeveloped. I'm trying to pick and choose what projects I'd like to work on. I want to get more focused on already-released films, since my editing activity is relatively low after I cut down on my watchlist. (Won't be wasting my time on stuff like Ghost Rider or Rise of the Silver Surfer too much anymore.) In addition to the stuff I mentioned, I have my eye on The Shawshank Redemption (one of the best movies ever, really), Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (shouldn't be that long), and Dark City (gotta have some sci-fi on my plate). But first, the aforementioned projects, of course. I might be bold and nominate Fight Club as an FA after a peer review; I'm not sure how many more resources I can milk (besides the DVD commentaries) for more information. The Fountain, of course, just need to find some time to get my head wrapped around the interpretative plot of The Fountain and its connotations. And Spider-Man, of course... sometimes I regret starting on that, 'cause it is a pain to find decent online sources for a title that scores a ridiculous amount of Google hits. I know there's some print sources, but I probably want to finish my semester before I start digging up stuff from the library. I'll try to keep an eye out for books on the films that you've mentioned, too, and pass quality information along to you. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I realized I didn't answer your question about exploring the mythos of Transformers. While I did have some exposure to Tranformers when I was younger, I never actually got into that particular universe. I've actually read the first two issues of the prequel comic book, but I don't think that these issues address the real Transformers (best known in their Earth form) yet. I have to admit, there were issues in the cartoon that bothered me, like the lack of consideration for mass displacement and so forth. I'm glad that Bay took realism into consideration; from what I've seen, it's going to be jaw-dropping to see all the parts move into place. I presume you've seen the TV spot that IGN posted, "The Hidden"? It showed more footage from the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I mean the plot that takes place on Cybertron in the prequel comic books, at least the first two issues that I've read. Plus, I guess comics aren't the best medium for Transformers to, well, transform. I understand the need for the backstory, but I'm looking more forward to vehicles and what-have-you transforming into robots and vice versa. I just hope that for the film, the human response isn't too underwhelming or absurd -- that's bothered me about invaders-come-to-earth films in the past. Anyway, it ought to be a good summer of movies between that and SM3 and POTC 3 and a few others. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Guess I'd rather be awarded based on actual merit. :-P Not a fan of freebies, I guess. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to X-Men

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Alientraveller! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \.photobucket\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 15:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club's reputation

I've been doing some research on whether it meets either criteria. Entertainment Weekly didn't list it as a cult film in its 2003 list. I've also visited the links at the Wikipedia article of the greatest films ever made, but I didn't find Fight Club listed at AFI's Top 100 or any similar list. I'm not sure if the film has really been received either way in the public scope, though I know my peers usually consider it one of their favorite films. I'll continue digging, but I don't think the award from Total Film really speaks for the world of cinema's perspective of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale 2006

I'd like to see these following improvements until it is ready for FA nomination:

• Intergrate award list fully into written text and avoid redundant repetition.
• Copy edit the article fully -most notably in the reaction and release section where some wording is not quite polished enough -too many short sentences and some phrasing is still quite clumsy.
• Try to intergrate a bit of basic summary of the screenplay into an existing section basic differences from original novel -the similarity to Flemings and original charcter and plot also needs at the very least mentioning. No quoting but some mention of the dialogue in places might help -Judi Dench's character is even more hostile this time and she uses stonger language than ever before in fitting with the "darker Bond".
• Mentioning the dates of casting - it was actually done in September 2005 and the final decsion for Craig for made in only a few weeks announced in October although the production team had had their eye on Craig since 2003.
• One final image please. of the actual DVD COVER from than the poster. I'll forget about the award and Mr White.

What do you think amigo? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 12:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope you see I am a decent editor intent on and with the ability to help making this an FA and see me in a different light. I have cleaned copy edited through to reaction, rewritten awards, added brief details to the soundtrack which must be in the article, found an image of the actual dvd cover rather than poster etc. The release section needed the most work - it was in disorder and many of the details such as UK were repeated twice and most of UK was in US section for some reason. The only section now to clean up will be Reaction which still whilst well sourced still has some unprofessional stubby sentencing. Other than this the article is very well written and wel done to all who wrote it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 15:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is now almost FA level. It covers all the aspects of the film very well -well referenced - a thorough encyclopedic article in learning about the film. Length is now at the max I think - a few more minor rewording in places, particularly the reaction section which needs to assert professional film critics view and remove stubby sentencing but I am going to propose it for an FA if we come to a consensus after I have added the polish at the end of this coming week. If you have any further ideas for anything please let me know ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about the soundtrack image at all this fine I was about to take it out anyway. I have also reworded the casting section now with a higher standard of wording and making the sentencing flow. Mentioning Colin Salmon and Sean Bean who were in contention is also important as they featured in previous film but I don't want to add anything elese now. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK but it is true there should be references online to confirm it. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WHONOTES

Oh, yes. I'll lend a hand later today. (I've been swamped with work in real life lately, which has cut into my wiki-time, but I should be able to put in a few hours this evening.) By the way, good on you for changing your name — I had thought for a while that you were far from a wiki-newbie! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi - just a comment on the Who citations, which I also mentioned on the Project talk page. The airdate should be written in YYYY-MM-DD format, without brackets - so: 2005-12-25, not [[25 December]], [[2005]]. It wikilinks it automatically, and it will format the date correctly. The second way, you actually see the brackets in the citation. I made those changes to some of the citations already, and I also added the "began" and "ended" fields for the serials, which I believe was an addition Josiah had requested specifically for our use. Thanks for all the work, though, I've been hoping for something like this for a while. --Brian Olsen 18:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

JP FAC

I'll have to make a comment later. I have an exam tonight, and I've been kind of slacking off most of the day. Need to get my head into the material. Looks great at first glance, but I want to go over it with a thorough and objective eye. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What you could do is write out all the page numbers used on a piece of paper and in chronological order. That way, you could see how some could batched up. And crap, I really can't study, can I? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm done with strategic management and marketing exams. I have a finance exam tonight and an operations exam Thursday night. And the first two are the easy ones. :( I'll try to make time tomorrow to review Jurassic Park once more and then make my recommendation for FA status. Just want to make sure the article's the best of the best, you know? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been more outspoken on the FAC. I have some big projects in school right now. I have a test tomorrow, but hopefully I'll be able to set some time down (again, I tried once) and read through the whole article, especially since you've implimented a lot of changes since I got through half of it the first time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale FAC

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 09:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New section:Title sequence

Another section summarizing details of how the credits were designed and the reasons behind it would be even greater

• http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=4511

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot my friend for the award I just noticed it -I don't check my User page very often. It means a lot to me that you appreciate and are impressed with my work after our initial confrontation. I apologise profoundly if at any time I appeared unpleasant or offensive -I'm not like this at all its just it did kind of get to me that at first as I couldn't get in to edit it when I knew I could improve it. Anyway I have now added a new section on the final missing bit on the credit design with those floating hearts drenched in blood how it was done etc -we now have a pretty sound article I think. All the best and thanks for putting up with me!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 16:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Braveheart

Excellent edits on the article Wikin--er, AlienTraveller! I've just finished adding the Peer Review template, so we can get some re-evaluation onthe B rating and get specific input on how to get it to GA status. Arcayne 17:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"non notable" ?

Hello,

I notice that you've removed a recently added "external link" on The Prestige film page. I must admit I've only just created an account, and maybe it should seem somewhat self-explanatory, but, what does "non notable" mean or imply in this instance?

I might be a tad biased as I happen to be the author of the review/link -- yet, I'd hoped, given my considerable efforts, that the review had reached Wikipedia standards for quality, relevance and otherwise. Indeed, I very much looked forward to sharing my work with other Wikipedians (by the way, I didn't add the link myself, yet I've obviously become aware that it was added and subsequently deleted).

I appreciate you've been acknowledged for contributing a good deal to Wikipedia so far, and perhaps there is a "non notable" clause in place -- but should there be? At least, are there no exceptions?

I do wonder what Jimmy Wales would think of my little review, that is, if he ever had an opportunity to read it. Perhaps he wouldn't be too concerned by the "non-notability" of the writers name, as he'd rather be concentrating on the writers content.

Thank you for your time, I look forward to your reply.

(please note: my first twenty-odd choices for more conventional usernames were already taken).Thepipesarecalling 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy reply. Yet, with all due respect, it's not necessarily reasonable that your personal "preferences" be the final word on the matter. Is there someone else we could ask regarding this? In fact, if I may ask you, have you had a moment to read the review, perhaps you would reconsider?

Sorry, I don't want to sound argumentative, but you mention your preference for "official things" when one of the retained external links is explicitly described as being unofficial. i.e the "Unofficial Christopher Nolan Website" (needless to say, I'm not for a second calling for that links removal). But again, please, shouldn't the issue be whether the link genuinely contributes something new and helpful to the subject? I understand we don't want a page cluttered with dozens of external links -- but surely theres room for one or two more, provided they are up to scratch.

Thanks again for your time. Thepipesarecalling 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Prestige film -- external link guidelines

I'm surprised that you've not replied to my continued correspondence from yesterday as the matter is yet to be satisfactorily resolved. I've thoroughly reviewed the Wikipedia external link guidelines; As such, I'm convinced that the link should never have been removed. Frankly, the burden is on you to demonstrate -- with regard to the guidelines, not personal preferences -- as to why the link should not be reinstated.

The link is meritable -- as it is thoughtful, clean, concise, insightful, relevant, original (and, if I may say so, it's grammatically superior to the majority of Wikipedia articles).

The link is accessible -- plainly and readily so.

The link is appropriate -- entirely, and it will remain so, as it cannot be "vandalized". (Note: before link was recently added, a bottom of page non-Prestige specific item was permanently removed to meet requirements. If only all links/sites went to such lengths)

It also passes every other of the many understandable checks and balances that Wikipedia uses.

If I do not receive a prompt reply from you I will get in touch with Jim Dunning.

Thank you for your advice regarding citations, as I think the review can also make a direct contribution to the "themes" section as there is thus far no real hint/mention of the films major premise! -- i.e people don't want to "watch closely" at the world as it is too much for them to bear. They'd rather be distracted, continually (Angiers final exchange with Borden elucidates this overriding point).Thepipesarecalling 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to the above editor's talk page detailing the reason behind the removal. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

To Do

You mean, just a section header with items under it? Why so? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You Only Move Twice

Thank you for your GA review of the article. I have implemented your suggestions and it is ready for another look. -- Scorpion 19:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There, I gave it another shot. -- Scorpion 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'vew fixed it. It's ready for another look. -- Scorpion 13:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ready again. -- Scorpion 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Does every single picture on the Silver Surfer page fail the fair use rationale criteria or are they just a few specific ones? If so, could you select the ones that need updating? Also, how do you verify a comic book character's powers? Zuracech lordum 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Valkyrie (film)

Heads up -- this film article was just created. How do you think it should be handled? Should it be developed or redirected? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the article. There are citations from Variety and some wiki-links to the various aspects of the film's premise. Cruise is attached, and production is set to begin in the summer. Barring any Halo incident, this film article seems fairly acceptable. What do you think? I'll ask Bignole the same. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

Um, okay. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The Springfield Files

I have implemented your change. Gran² 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And you've already seen it, thanks for the review and for passing! Gran² 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me, I'll take a look at that article, although I've never attempted a GA review before. But as I said I'll give it a try, from first inspection it looks fine. Gran² 20:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Smallville

That's cool, I know it's in good hands. I took care of the "see also" problem, but you better explain what you main for the in-text citation. I mean, I know how to cite a video that way, but I'm not sure where you think we need them, because they are very scaled overvviews of the entire season.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, but there are some that I can't just cite an episode for because they are summaries of several episodes. I mean, there are a few that are clear (e.g. I can say the episode that Christopher Reeve first appeared), but some aren't (e.g. I can't cite one specific episode for Lana and Clark's vacillating relationship, because it's a season long thing..heck it's a series long thing). I'll do the ones that are obviously one episode events, and let you look at it and see.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks better. When I get a chance I'll read through it again. I saw some punctuation things before (which I went in and fixed) and that's what I'll look for when I get a chance to read through it completely, again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park FAC

Thank you very much for copyediting the article. Do you think stuff on scientists rejecting Deinonychus as a big Velociraptor as well as the small therapod dinos being feathered can go uncited? Alientraveller 17:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alientraveller,

I saw you cited the Deinonychus fact; I've just cited the Velociraptor feather, with slightly different wording. I didn't like the slightly POV (in my opinion) wording that scientists "decided" dromaeosaurs were feathered, though if you want to alter the sentence further, feel free.

I must say, Alientraveller, that I'm really impressed that you're trying to get this article up to FA status on your own. For me, it's just been too difficult to jump through all of the FAC hoops by myself, and the WP:Dinosaur team works in group collaborations now, after most of us realized how hard it was to get an article up to FA status individually. I admire your chutzpah. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. I'll try to get around to it, but I'm somewhat backlogged at the moment. It's one of my favorite movies. — Deckiller 08:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: COTW

I'm not a huge fan of the COTW process; I guess from what I've seen, film articles that get the COTW treatment are usually re-structured, although I don't notice any substantial growth in cited content. There's a couple of other good nominations, too -- The Godfather and 12 Angry Men are terrific films that deserve as much attention as Schindler's List. If I voted for all of them, it'd be like not voting at all... sort of. I'll think about it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, but it doesn't seem like anything that either of us can't do if we really want to make an effort in building that film article or any film article. I have the "all or nothing" mindset -- probably doesn't go well with the idea that perfection is not required. Part of it is probably because I know that there's a lot of dab-editing that can be done with a ridiculous amount of film articles. As an editor, I'm more interested in specific projects. My overall goal has been controlled growth of future film articles, but if you noticed, I'm starting to lean toward older films. Being a perfectionist by nature, I'd rather research components of the film on my own and present the results, which will usually replace an article in its entirety. Fight Club is a minor example -- there's almost nothing from its revision at the time of its first FA nomination that's carried over to the present revision. Looking at the Production section of Schindler's List, I'm sure the content is valid, but the structure would need a complete rewrite. I guess I want to give the package of references and concise writing instead of being an all-over-the-place dabber. Sort of keeps my wiki-schedule light. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Big's Nolonary

It's not a stupid question, considering how the format of the name. If I altered it to "Big Nole" it might be a little more clear, and if you looked on my user page you'd probably get it even faster. Anyway. Florida State University are the Seminoles. (I see a new message, maybe that's you having figured it out already..just in case) I nickname for them (us) is "Noles". So, it's "Bignole" or "Big Nole" if that's easier. It just happened that I was creating a personalized license plate for my car and just came up with "BIGNOL", and since them I generally use the handle "Bignole" (or some variation of it) whenever I need a psuedonym for a website or something. My cell even has that as the banner. So, that's what a "Bignole" is, er..well that's what a "Nole" is and that's how I came about "Bignole". If any of that makes sense. lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not big on names (that includes remember other people's) so I try and keep everything the same. The worst part if when I actually (and it's hard to believe) have to add a number to the end because somebody actually has mine already.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Transformers: The Game

Can you explain why you removed my link on the disambiguation page for Transformers? The movie it's based on is listed here, as is the other video game. JonMayer 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Miscellaneous

Yeah, I have PowerDVD on my computer, but I haven't explored the option of using it to capture screenshots. I think I'll probably do that when my semester is finished toward the end of the month. I probably only need one or two screenshots for the Production section, especially Cinematography or Visual effects. I don't really think the article needs any more images beyond these possibilities, especially after I moved the narrator/Marla picture to accompany the "relationship" paragraph under Themes.

As for Prince Caspian, I would suggest unbolding the names in the Cast section. I believe that the bolding is recommended by WikiProject Films' style guidelines if the actor/role mention is followed by a description of the role or how the actor landed it. A few other things, too: the re-ordering of the franchise's films is described in the lead, but there's no mention of it in the body of the article. This order determination should be reflected in Production with citation, of course. Also, wiki-link Moving Picture Company and Framestore CFC instead of using embedded external links. I also noticed that NarniaWeb.com is cited a lot; is this site the primary source for information, or does it draw from other sources? Also, for citation #16, was that really the title? It's rather long. Lastly, I guess I'd double column the References section; I like to do that when it goes past 20-25 references. Hope these tips help; the article is in a nice stage of controlled growth otherwise! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Dark Kubrick? It's kind of disappointing to see another editor go; there's not much recruiting for film article editors. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why you reverted poster of Spider-Man 3?

As we all know, the poster you uploaded is not big enough. And I think my poster's size was not that big that you reverted it. So, please tell me, WHY? You are from Columbia Pictures? or you don't like watchable posters? (No offense)

Okay let me explain it to you!

• My Poster's Size: 500×741 (Which is very good, niether too big nor too small)
• Your Poster's Size: 288×400 (Too small I think)

So, please give reason/ or otherwise I'll revert it. (No offense)

Bunty Rocks 11:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hulk smash!

Check out the most recent Variety citation -- there's something about Hulk being "on the run" at the beginning of the film. Not sure how to work that into the Premise section, might involve some shuffling. I'd do it myself, but I'm supposed to be collaborating on teamwork for my business case. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's actually exactly what I had in mind. Nice work! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Slightly off wiki-topic, my jaw dropped when I found this news out. Totally out of left field! Seems like superhero films are being taken seriously now, with Downey as Iron Man and now Norton as the Hulk. Who knows who the Flash could be -- Ryan Gosling?! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't so crazy about the X-Men cast other than Jackman, Janssen, Stewart, and McKellen. Fantastic Four isn't too impressive, either. There was also Daredevil, Elektra, The Punisher, and Ghost Rider -- I guess these are the kind of roles that didn't seem compelling. Wonder who would be cast for Wonder Woman. We still got Thor and Namor and a bunch of others in development hell, too. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, some people have a lot of time on their hands to put these together... and of course, you and I have the time to wiki-edit these articles. :) I saw the UK Transformers release date -- damn, I'm jealous! This really works out for you in terms of keeping an eye on the article, aye? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Man Edumikashun

Say, did you happen to ever get a chance to see either Braveheart or 13th Warrior? I am sorry if my earlier comments bugged you; they certainly weren't meant to do so. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

well, I am imperfect. I might up and hurt someone's feelings on occasion. I'd feel bad if one of those feelings happened to belong to you. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Norton Smash!

Haha, good one.. Noted it when I was attempting to copy the citation onto Edward Norton's page. Keep up the good work. Zuracech lordum 18:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Fishmanjack.jpeg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fishmanjack.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lutheran Calendar of Saints GA Review

So the only reason this article was declined was because it did not have inlince citations? It was under the impression that, per GA criteria, that inline citations were desirable but not necessary, and largely if there was material which had the possibility of being contentious. Nothing in the narrative portion of the article is particularly contentious and the calendar section pretty much is what it is. Further guidence on this subject would be appreciated. jackturner3 14:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is difficulty determining the factual accuracy of an article without inline citations, then should not the critera for GA status be an absolute insistence on inline citations rather than stating that they are desirable? Again, if the only objection is the fact that this article does not have inline citations and inline citations are not required, I still fail to see why 1) it is a "definate quick-fail" or 2) why it is a failure at all since it does not violate any good article criteria.

jackturner3 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the criteria for GAs needs to be changed, would it not be better to submit a proposal to change the criteria rather than rejecting articles not meet your personal standard?

jackturner3 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

PotC 3: Brethren of the Coast

Could you at least explain why you deleted my article? I didn't spend a few hours gathering and synchronizing information for it to be deleted inexplicably. It was a perfectly valid article, and the BotC isn't explained at all on the main At Worlds End page. I'm sure this can all be resolved with positive results. Meanwhile, I'm remaking the article under the proper title, Brethren Court. It will include more detailed summaries of the Lords, so maybe it will be more valid under the eyes of users.Locke 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)