User talk:Bignole/Archive 9

Re

Yeah I saw your discussion with Maitch, anyway I tend not to use the ratings in my episode articles. For example my FA doesn't include them, and the same goes for some of my GAs. I don;t know what anyone else plans to do, but I won't be using them much, if at all again, but certainly not in an FA. Gran² 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Help

Know that the TV episode debate is over I would like to ask to know the what to type to specify that lack of nobility of a TV episode, because right now I am finding a lack of nobility with the episode pages of the current Ninja Turtles series due to both lack of plot summary on a lot of the pages and the creation of a very similar style of characters that are in the episode from the official TMNT website. If you go to those episode and look for an external link in that episode then you should know what I am talking about. -Adv193 19:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Charley Davidson

User:Mare-Silverus keeps moving this page to Charley Davidson (Biker Mice from Mars) when it's redundant, as there is only one character/person with this name. Could you please try to stop him? The Prince of Darkness 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Future film

There's a film called 'Repossession Mambo' that has all the criteria in place, but there doesn't seem to be any development history. Do you think it's appropriate to create a film article with one citation? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bah, answer faster, will ya? :) I was waiting a while for your response and decided to go ahead and create it. Meh, Nottingham redux, huh? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Satisfied customers

Check this out. Congratulations. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Careful 'bout 3RR. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

According to their website IMDB does in fact go "through a large number of consistency checks to ensure it's as accurate and reliable as possible." I also believe that they are "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." So, I believe you are wrong in removing content referencing IMDB.com as a source. I will also continue to add my content to the entry as long as you continue to remove it. BoPo 00:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you policing everything that gets added to the Transformer Film entry? Or just specific things? Why would you not only remove Digital Domain from the article, but also remove the mention of ILM? Do you have something against the specific mention of visual effects houses?BoPo 23:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect in stating that I am deleting information from this article. I am simply restroring the correct information to the article.

There is basis for the claim that Keith David is no longer voicing barricade. The only source for this claim is message board which is not reliable. IMDB and all the other outlets still list David as Barricade.

Had you bothered to actually investigate this instead of just automatically reverting me you would have found this out for yourself. annoynmous 01:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So wait I'm confused, IMDB isn't reliable but a message board is. Wikipedia is also user contributed. I assumed that to make a claim one had to have hard evidence. IMDB is a much more reliable source than a Message board and if you ask me until it is confirmed, the more credible source should be shown. annoynmous 01:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The source that is listed is not a website, it's a message board. If erik has a link to an official cast list than let him post it, but I don't we should just take his word for it that the cast list is right.

Yes IMDB makes errors, but as the release date for a film gets nearer those errors pretty much dissapear. Usually when the film gets out of the post-production phase you can pretty much assume that casting has been locked down.

I reiterate my point that IMDB is much more reliable than a message board which has no independent confirmation. Until some hard evidence comes along to contradict David being in the movie the article should list him as the voice of Barricade. User:annoynmous:annoynmous 01:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Where are the sources for this. You have not provided one bit of evidence to support your claims. As far as I know David has always been Barricade and was only until Alientraveller decided to change it based on some posting on a message board.

If your not going to head my concerns than I suggest that as a compromise the voice of Barricade be left blank until it is officially confirmed annoynmous 02:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bumblebee does not talk.Stop being a fucking retard.HE DOES NOT TALK.EVERYBODY KNOWS BUT U.BAY EVEN SAID HIMSELF.

Will then dont say Mark is voiceing bb.Next time say that the songs in his radio r Mark

sorry i was lieing.But i know he does not talk cause in interviews,prequels and everything.He cant talk so put mark ryan as radio voice and not voice.besides its confusing cause u put he cant talk but mark is voice him.

u list your evedence that he does talk.Cause everywhere u look,not 1 source says he talks.everybody knows.also,it says on the toy specs

so u dont have a source?

1.where is your source.2.more than 4 people have sources on this link http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070622131739AALXpCG u r the only one who thinks otherwise

http://www.angelfire.com/wizard2/markryan/films.html that is mark ryans site.do u see transformers,NO U BEEPING DONT

u sourc is not releable either cause it a forum site

I swear, it's like he's drunk while wiki-editing. Anyway, this is an update about his actual involvement. So now it's basically needed to ensure that this is his official site. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry,I was wrong.I AM SOOOOOOOOO SORRY.

You might want to trim that plot summary, before I see the film in two weeks time and be able to put my print on it, like the entire article. Alientraveller 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that was so horrible just checking the edits for today and learning about what happens to... But I 'm not going to spoil myself further. Alientraveller 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The plot section does seem a bit long. I wonder if it's just the page layout where there are no images for that section. But you could always trim it to its most basic context: a few glances show a human POV, but that's only necessary for the Development section to describe. Alientraveller 19:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale

Even you must be thinking the whole FA nomination has been too long now. Its a disaster ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't you see how the first nomination was a clear majority and even second time there appears to be more support than oppose. The whole thing was manipulated by Mr. featured article master himself who has the power to choose which articles he wants promoted or not. I thought we had "referencing problems" sorted? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a shame though. Anyway all the film articles are gradually getting better!!! Hope you are well ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked the Bond articles for severla weeks as I am very busy with other tasks but they are starting to take shape. For me the weakest film article now is Diamonds Are Forever (film). ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now expanded Diamonds Are Forever (film). Later I'll try to add a full reaction/reception . Then it can all be copy edited and whatever at a later date -the info is there it just needs putting in proper order and re sentencing- I'm sure you'll agree it is looking better than earlier though ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 16:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sopranos AFD

Well, the Afd got closed as "No consensus/keep" you mentioned going for the WP:CV if it wasn't closed as "Delete". Let me know if you need any help on it. The Filmaker 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted scenes from Superman movies.

Yeah i could use some help from you not only recovering info on the deleted scenes from the Superman movies, but also i thought we can add them to the articles as well to make them as accurate as possible. Some of these deleted scenes dont seem to be mentioned such as the scene in Superman 4 where he visits the cemetary to see both parents graves.It's worth mentioning since these scenes are not included in the deleted scnes section of the delux edition.[1]

I dont know how to go aobut this but seeing your a good Superman contributer I think you're the best editor to consult.

Look forward to hearing from you on this.Regards-Vmrgrsergr 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree with most of what you have said.No I am not discouraged as I think what you say is right.And yes adding minor/extra details is indeed unecnyclopediac.The reason i brought up un-mentioned scenes like the cemetary scene in Superman 4 is they were never shown in the DVD or theatrical release (btw i saw Superman 4 in the theatre in 1989 i think in my country as kid and it included some of the deleted scenes as seen in the DVD). However going to the Star Wars articles like you mentioned there is mention of change.maybe we can add in the article of Superman four section of deleted scenes that not all scenes made it to the deleted scenes section of the Delux edition DVD and use the cemetary scene as an example (btw I saw it on mentioned on many forums by fans;gone unfortunately but there was lots of talk on the cemetary scene.).In the meantime I will take a look at the featured articles examples you provided. But I would like to discuss how we can approach this in an encyclopediac way.I brought it up on the talkpage of Superman 4.let's discuss it further there.

Regards.-Vmrgrsergr 06:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

PS-oh yes I own the delux edition of Superman 4 on DVD.I had 3 as well but traded that one at blockbuster.The delux editions were released in the boxed set and also indivudually, which is how I bought it as.I checked the deleted scnes hoping to find the cemetary scene but found nothing on it except on some forums and the link i provided you with.-Vmrgrsergr 06:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Writers and original research

I sent an e-mail to one of the writers of the Chainsaw comic asking a question and he sent me a response. I'd like to include the information in one of the articles but I'm not sure if that counts as original research. Is there any way to cite e-mails like that?--CyberGhostface 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Would making a screenshot of the e-mail be suitable enough?--CyberGhostface 15:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try doing that. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 15:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I was told by another user that it wasn't a reliable source, that it counted as original research and that he "STRONGLY" reccomended I keep it off the article. Its a shame, as it was the answer to whether or not Hoyt was alive in the comics.--CyberGhostface 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I might send another message to the writer later asking him if he can publish it somehow but I don't want to do it now because I've already sent him a couple of messages.--CyberGhostface 02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Paper

How did that paper of yours go? I'm taskless at the moment... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I was busy two days ago. Activity has tapered off since... I'm feeling like a cubicle drone these days. Might need to re-evaluate my life goals, haha. (Though I don't mind this internship too much; it'll boost my credentials so I can do whatever I like with my life down the road -- hopefully.) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, one crippling effect of the gig is that I don't have access to Google services. Thus, I can't access RSS feeds on Google Reader or Google Alerts in Gmail. So I can't be productive or contribute to Wikipedia as much. Any other extracurricular pursuits would be too obvious, like vacation plans strewn across my desk where there should be spreadsheets of data. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be funny if Nolan staged something like this Scarecrow scene to weed out scoopers? I think it would be ridiculously awesome and nicely destroy any credibility that people may think scoopers have. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Atrocity1313 21:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)==Mind helping me?== hey Bignole, if your knowledge of HALO 2 is vast, mind helping me? Contact me on my talk pageAtrocity1313 19:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Join the Dark side, we have cookies!

Im trying to solve 2 mysteries.The mystery of the gate, and the IWHBYD (I Would Have Been Your Daddy) skull. look for both on youtube.Join the Dark side, we have cookies!

Highlander stuff

Dear God, i did not know there was that much uncited fancruft inthe Highlander articles. Gah! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hannibal Lecter

Sorry for bothering you again (I know I do it a lot but you seem to be the most knowledgeable about these affairs) but a user is attempting to add a death list of Lecter's victims to Hannibal's article. I removed it per Wikipedia's rules about indiscriminate information and he's accusing me of vandalism now.--CyberGhostface 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

(Removed warning, by Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Oh, I'm so sorry! You are quite right, I clicked the wrong name and didn't take enough care. My most humble apologies. I've removed the above warning. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I must have made a real mess of that particular pair of warnings, then! Thanks for reporting him — I reported a user before but ended up somehow not filling out a full report (so no action was taken against the user, but the page was protected at least). Hopefully there are no bad feelings over this. :-) Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Hannibal

Nope. WP:PPOL states that when protecting a page, administrators should not revert to any prior state. « ANIMUM » 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Spider Man 4

Meh, protecting looks like a bit of an over-reaction and there's no evidence that there are constant problems with people forking the content. I'll keep the page on my watchlist though. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:Hannibal Lector

Sure, go ahead. (I've also been using those templates more frequently now. :) ) « ANIMUM » 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying to unblock him ( a 3rr is a 3rr and he's guilty of that), but user:CyberGhostface did back right off when I warned him. HalfShadow 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think blocking Cyber is best now. He was already given a warning, and upon that ceased to even edit the article in the time that CJK proceded to revert with another editor and it was finally protected. I don'tk now, it just comes off like we slapped his wrists once, and then decided he needed the belt instead.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. At issue here is (from WP:3RR) In the cases where multiple editors violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. However, CJK has been disruptive in other ways (and violated 3RR on another article), so this is not really unbalanced. In fact, since CJK got a twenty-four hour block as well, the unblock here probably makes things more fair. -- tariqabjotu 01:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Bignole. I'll keep in mind the 1RR rule in the future.--CyberGhostface 02:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Batman

Sorry, didn't mean to provoke anyone. Didn't think it would since your original content for the article was focussed on the Burton/Schumacher series which I gave its own article. I'm sure everyone will agree to the change anyway. A gx7 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Doh, when I looked at the article for Return of the Joker, I had only glanced at who voiced Terry McGinnis. Kind of slipped my mind about the older Bruce Wayne that was in the series/film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Indiana Jones

I got the films on DVD a few weeks ago, so I'm pretty familiar with them. I've never seen anything else in the franchise, though. ColdFusion650 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The last plea for help

How much do you know about House of the dead 3? And im speaking to every1 here!  ATROCITY1313 

Can u recommend any1?P|0X  ATROCITY1313 

thanks anywho.  ATROCITY1313 

RE: Batman

Sorry about the add. I was under the impression that this was the official released poster for "The Dark Knight". Hope no one was offended.

Re: Batman

Thats what I had thought at first, but i did see the poster on Heath Ledger's website. I also saw it used on multiple websites as the poster for "The Dark Knight". The website for "The Dark Knight" doesn't give much of anything anyway.

IFD

Whoops, I didn't notice that. However, I'm going to leave his block in effect, as he was being disruptive on the IFD. --Coredesat 19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I blocked Hornet, sorry. I forgot to specify that. --Coredesat 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, it's a somewhat hectic situation. Hopefully it's sorted out now. :P --Coredesat 19:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Photobucket

Just when I decided to revert info on Nick Fury/Scarecrow on other articles, I had a look at the ET info you supplied and problem is, I don't have your password. Ooops.

I saw Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer by the way, fun, I loved Surfer's depiction and the banter between Johnny and Ben. But Galactus dissapointed, even if I swore I saw a face in there. Alientraveller 12:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the photo, so please show me the documents in the same way. Alientraveller 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Smallville

Per the black-letter policy Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, articles that have been discussed at AFD are not eligible to be prodded. This article, as you are aware as you noted the AFD on my talk page, was AFDed here. If you disagree with the outcome, you may discuss it with the closing admin or take it to deletion review. Otto4711 14:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

In response to: "He didn't remove them, he archived them. If you click the archive he created to the right, you'll see the warning you gave him at the bottom."

I'm aware of archiving, but he did soon after I warned him for making legal threats against me. He's been bothering me practically for nothing since this morning. I have yet to report him to WP:AN/I, but I wanted another admin's opinion. Lord Sesshomaru

I didnt make a legal threat against him he keeps trying to get me blocked for no reason.TheManWhoLaughs 15:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm busy doing something else at the moment, in which I don't want to have to go through WP:AN/I. If he continues, I'll have no choice but to do so; he's already been warned. Lord Sesshomaru

Doesn't matter, he's been blocked forever. Now we can go our separate ways. Lord Sesshomaru

Tag

If you don't mind, could you readd the tag to Jurassic Bark‎ when you have a chance? I don't feel like edit warring. TTN 22:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For helping me to the best of your ability

See headline. the prize...

		The Bloodfox Barnstar
			See headline

many thanks,  ATROCITY1313  |}

All hail Xenu

I didn't see it before it was added to Wikipedia, but it's an interesting turn to this production. I was expecting some controversy since it was going to deal with Hitler (with Cruise in the lead, no less), but I didn't realize the distaste for his Scientology was this bad. Should be interesting to see what kind of fair and balanced coverage editors of both opinions will want; something akin to the disputed state of 300, I suppose. Additionally, I haven't really had the time to touch my RSS feeds or Google Alerts for the past few days, so I have a serious backlog of news to add (if it hasn't been added already). I need to fix the Google Alerts in some cases to come in once a week 'cause I get bombarded everyday with redundant reports, like for The Dark Knight or The Incredible Hulk. Maybe I'll catch up tonight... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Singer as director and writer would out rule Cruise as an actor mind. This is quite intolerant. It could get ugly: the rebuttal will come, and Singer may have to quit production and just move onto Superman. Which would be a shame, as I feel that he needs to do something ordinary, or else superheroes won't be so cool to him anymore. Alientraveller 12:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Transformers sequel

Are you fine right now with having sequel information in the article, or would you rather have it spun-off? No matter what, we have a cast signed on, and producers who actually know what characters they wish to introduce: Soundwave, Dinobots and Constructicons. Alientraveller 12:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, have you seen all the promotional adverts for GM and Burger King? Damn funny. Alientraveller 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[2][3][4] here you are. Man, Peter Cullen was so game by appearing in these. Alientraveller 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie itself

It's called voice acting: I would never have known Frank Welker voiced both Megatron and every animal on The Simpsons. Alientraveller 15:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

He voiced Rex the sheepdog in Babe, which I've not seen for years so I can't remember his voice. But Weaving need not always go for low, British, drawn out voice, and it's not hard to try something more gutteral and thuggish like he's doing for Megatron. Indeed, there will be modifications, because they are robots: Soundwave in the cartoon had his sing-song synth that embellished Frank Welker, who was putting on his Inspector Claw voice. Alientraveller 16:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy it: my cinema has previews on the weekend of July 22, so I hope to see it sooner. Tell me how the Autobots were like individually, and if Starscream's original character still shone through despite a tiny part in this "first encounter" tale. Thanks. Alientraveller 16:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh excellent. I really look forward. Again, how were the Autobots (each of them) and Starscream? Sounds like it's going to be a fun time. Alientraveller 12:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OKay. So I'll just assume from your tone Starscream does something grand. I look forward. Alientraveller 12:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Smallville

I've never been to the exterior filming location of the Kent Farm but I know exactly where it is. I don't think I'll be releasing any photos I may take of the place though, because it's a private residence and all. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 04:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My university has a search engine for online full-text journals, so I just threw in "smallville" and got some relevant results to read. Been learning to research such materials better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal

Please assume good faith. I simply have a different editorial POV. As a result, I have been maligned, mocked, and accused of disruption. I have done nothing to personally persecute you so please believe we have the same goal - to make the best encyclopedia possible. Ursasapien (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

I put together a linkspam blacklist after it seemed that someone was promoting Variety a little too much. Got a question, though -- do you think http://www.tracksounds.com/ qualifies as linkspam? Run it through "Search web links" and check Google hits (about 18,000). What's your opinion? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; I guess I'll save it for last. I'm just checking the URLs from my previous linkspam purges. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll address them sometime. Just a heads-up, if you see an anonymous editor indiscriminately adding Variety reviews to multiple film sites, let me know. Seems like there's a self-promotional campaign going on today. I've warned 63.76.213.5 to spam3. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

cars images

Looks like the 'fair use' images on Cars has appeared again. Have fun! SpikeJones 19:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

ET

Would you believe it? Alientraveller 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ack, I tried reading the stuff you supplied and it was all a bunch of baloney. Didn't get it one jot: if you could incorporate it then that would be wonderful. Alientraveller 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm... any chance you could crack out a few now? Adaewit is going as far as trying to discredit supporters in the FAC now. Alientraveller 15:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're too busy, maybe you churn out a few notes and choice quotes on the talk page for me to handle. Alientraveller 16:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm hope you can add a bit: every little helps. But in all honesty, FAs can be improved over time; what matters I think is there is a Themes section, which makes life easier for both Production and Reception. But just how much can we include in Themes for various articles really? I'm being bugged by Titanic; should I include everything on the film's script in Themes and Historical accuracy, and just focus on the shoot and editing in Production? I'm also really thinking about each LotR article: is it satisfactory to have each article with a section on the adaptation, drawing away from the actual legal development of the films? I guess each article has its own flow. Alientraveller 21:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I do feel annoyed that somehow everybody has access to all these essays but I don't. I really got to get more people to work at it considering I've worked so hard on the article. Could you perhaps be mean to Adawewit and tell him/her the whole article is pretty much comprehensive? I'll bite if such complaints pop up over Titanic. Alientraveller 11:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've looked, and what I've found mostly were articles about real life aliens, and those about the film were adverts or subscriptions to books or articles, which I'm not willing for from websites I am unfamiliar with. Frankly if such academic resources can only be accessed in such a way, then perhaps they are not entirely notable. Alientraveller 11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's as if my libraries are there to just supply books. I'd certainly have picked out books on cinematic themes if I could, but for me the only reliable sources I have are the filmmakers. Anyway, it bugs me that E.T. is still in FAC, because I'm moving away from the article and onto Titanic. Hopefully that'll be easier. One word: Marxism. Alientraveller 12:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your question

Thanks for asking... no, just busy in not-easily-able-to-focus sorts of real-world ways. I tend to be online far too much throughout the day, but with marked differences in how much time and attention I can devote to a specific aspect of the project. Some days, there is enough time to read through and properly contribute to involved issues like the "Episodes" process. Other days are more along the lines of quick Wiki-hits as time permits, and those are the times I am mostly cleaning up vandalism etc. (I'm sure you know what I mean - periods where you can spend, say, an uninterrupted hour on Wikipedia versus the same hour split up into two- or three-minute bursts.) Thanks again, and don't worry - I am keeping up with the process and will definitely contribute as much as I can. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about List of Lost episodes LOE

Hey Bignole, You made a good point about redundancy between the 'DVD table' and the season sections. I merged the two blocks of text. I invite you to take a look at List of Lost episodes and Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lost episodes. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent. Thank you very much for your feedback and help. -- Wikipedical 20:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Locke thinks Walt is special. The capitalization and quotation marks around 'special' is unnecessary though. An editor must have put it there because it is name of Walt's flashback episode (episode 14).

The Christopher Reeve Superman Collection

Hi.Sorry to bother you again (and thanks alot for your replies), but I wanted your opinion to my edits on the article.Since the explicitly article discusses the content of the films in this collection, i added a small detail that not all deleted scenes were included and provided the link.I would not have done so if it didnt talk about the contents of these DVDs.-Vmrgrsergr 22:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Oh you thought I wrote the article? No no no.I just made a few edits and added the small detail aobut the deleted scenes section in Superman 4.I felt that was the best place because it is not known to most people aobut these scenes sinc ethey were not included in the film. That's all.-Vmrgrsergr 05:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

---

feel free to improve the article then.But I think it should definately stay.I felt that it the best place to add a small reference about not all the deleted scenes being shown as most people dont even know aobut it.But it's just a small detail.-Vmrgrsergr 20:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Will do.Good luck in editing the other articles.-Vmrgrsergr 20:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazon spamming

I can see it clearly in the diffs. For example this, your Amazon ref. code is no longer in the URL (/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-9866605-0752131). Also note that the software automatically formatting dates according to preferences isn't a good enough reason to have grammatically incorrect dates. Matthew 02:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English — an American article, thus American grammar. It's not excusable to purposefully have bad grammar, just like it wouldn't be excusable to have bad spelling if the software fixed it. "You accused me of spamming, which you know very well that wasn't what I was doing" -- no of course you didn't, you just pretend you didn't insert your referal IDs then. Matthew 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to show me where it states that it's acceptable to have bad grammar! Also remember that Wikipedia is mirrored, the mirrors wouldn't contain the comma unless they use the same setup as Wikipedia. Thus there is simply no excuse to have bad dates. Matthew 03:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars

While I look for reviews online for the CRSC (amizon is the best I can find so far,however amizon links could be considered spamming since all the reviews are for marketing), I wanted to ask you about Star Wars.I saw the article on space opera and found it fits the description of star wars perfectly.I brought it up on the talkpage but no one seems to respond.What is your say on this matter? I mean space opera includes space adventure, heroism and romance and all are seen in Star Wars.I think it should be changed.When you have time, please see the space opera article and tell me what you think.Thanks alot.-Vmrgrsergr 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Yes space opera is a subgenre of science fiction.In general terms star wars would be science fiction but in specific terms we would subcategorise it.the science fantasy definition states that it is fantasy/magic but with scientific explanations just to give it realism.I dont think that would match star wars as it is more sci-fi technology not magic. Im hoping to discuss this on the talkpage.

In the meantime Im still searching for some reviews of the Superman discs.I'll check back to you when Ive got something good.Regards.-Vmrgrsergr 22:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I found so far...

Here are the non-add reviews for the CRSC I found so far: [5][6][7][8][9][10]

Vmrgrsergr 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ironhide

You removed one of the images from the Ironhide article, and stated that it wasn't Ironhide in the pool. However you left in the text that says "He is seen in his protoform mode in the trailer, rising out of a swimming pool in front of a little girl". Out of interest, who is it that climbs out of the pool? It's nearly four weeks until I get to see the movie. (sob... sob...) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've seen the film and understand its context, have you got any suggestions to improve the article? Alientraveller 18:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Movie reviews

Check this out. If you go to Google and type movie:<movie title>, like movie:batman begins, Google provides an list of reviews for you. I don't think it's compiled immediately, as I tried Transformers, but it could be a good link to go with RT and Metacritic instead of individual reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Template deletion

Ack! Sorry about that. Can't you just use Special:Whatlinkshere on the redirect page? If not, I'd be willing to undelete to let you go through and re-add the category with a bot or AWB or something. I saw there was a lot of transclusions, that's why I redirected, I thought it would a lot less disruptive. Best, IronGargoyle 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville "Pilot" lead

No problem - apologies, but I didn't see the "in progress" header until after the fact. I hope it didn't affect your edits. The name "Pilot" certainly complicates the lead, eh? --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4#Template:Dated episode notability -- Ned Scott 07:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there. Earlier on today I took a look through Angie Y.'s contribs in order to gather evidence of her incivility, to bring it to her attention (here). However, it struck me that her behaviour really wasn't very nice on more than one occasion and I wondered if this can be resolved in some way. Do you think there are suitable grounds for an RfC? Quite a few editors have been involved with trying to mediate the disputes going on but it doesn't seem to have much of an effect. Angie doesn't seem to understand that her behaviour is not civil or correct and has unfortunately continued in a negative pattern. What do you think?

14:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The reason I ask is that RfC asks that more than one editor has tried to resolve the dispute and I thought that you had helped, amongst others, but wanted to check first whether you'd be happy with having your name mentioned in it? I'm not really an experienced editor but I know something needs to be done. I collected all of the obvious diffs with name calling and such, but as I went through there were clear attempts to canvass other editors for a "fight".

Seraphim Whipp 14:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. From the conversations going on at Angie's talk page, I won't persue an RfC anymore. I'm not sure, but I think she might geniunely change her behaviour as she now recognises that some of the things she's said aren't acceptable. I might take it up, only if her behaviour of personal attacks doesn't change. Thank-you for your input :-).

16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm very dissappointed. After the conversations that were had yesterday, Angie is still canvassing. An RfC it is :(.

Seraphim ^Whipp 11:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just made a sandbox to create it there first before I post it. If I drop you a message when it's done, can you take a look over it for me?

Seraphim ^Whipp 11:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs. I'm STILL going through her contribs...I didn't realise how long these things took to create...

Seraphim ^Whipp 15:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oki doki. I think I have everything sorted now. Come over, take a look and tell me what you think. :-)

Seraphim ^Whipp 15:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the RfC is officially created now and can be found here Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Angie Y.. Thanks for your input.

Seraphim ^Whipp 16:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah

Hehe, of course not. I just wanted you to notice me. :D Dam-itch 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, where/how can I contact them? Dam-itch 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked. It's mostly about job opportunities, and I can't find an actual way to contact them. Could you take a few minutes (maybe with a few buddies) to search for a way to contact them (not in person)? I feel like this could really make a great sequel idea, but I'm pretty sure they've already begun to write the script. Dam-itch 00:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want the job. :O I just want them to hear my idea through. Dam-itch 00:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question

I don't think that your AfD would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting through, honestly. The topic would most likely be too notable. I would suggest a different kind of structure to the article, such as limiting the list to no more than 20 films per category. I mean, who cares about Eragon being "#89" in the list? I think if the list is trimmed, it may be easier to control and also be more relevant. By the way, I assume you saw the teaser for Cloverfield before Transformers. What was your impression of it? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me know the result of the prodding. If you do venture to AfD territory, make sure you can outline your argument very clearly and explain the article's unverifiable history. BTW, can you check out Talk:Cloverfield and add your $0.02 about the viral marketing links based on the film? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. There seems to be something similar with Watchmen as well -- see Talk:Watchmen (film)#Rorschach's Journal. There's not much traffic regarding that one, thankfully. And I'm not sure whether to take offense at being called a WikiNerd and WikiPitBull or not. With that pseudo-praise, I would hope for a new editor would have some faith in me. :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My god, man! People need to get off this JPIV "plot hole"! It's not even being used anymore! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought there should be a repository of laughable edits for each film article, like this one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Is your watchlist broke? I have, "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 1273 seconds might not be shown in this list." And counting... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

A whole hour!? I guess I'll wait till I get home... did you see JimDunning's proposal for writing plot summaries on the style guidelines, by the way? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of A Christmas Carol (2008 film)? Too early? Could use a second perspective here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

I don't follow your complaint about listing the fates of the characters. If it's relevant to the film's plot (which according to another wiki user, made it too long to include there), is it not inherently relevant to the article?

Also, I concede you're right on the words "mysterously" and "ultimate" but the fact that Frenzy "accidentally" destroys himself is very pertinant--to leave it out suggests that he destroys himself deliberately and is misleading. --ScreenwriterJeb

LoL,eh...sorry I'm being nitpicky. I do actually agree that the information should go in the plot and tried to put it there twice, but I somehow missed this 700 word count rule that another guy used to validate removing the information from there (is that real, btw? one tries to learn all the various guidelines here but there's SO damn many). Anyhow, sorry if I came off as a pratt.

OK, but I think who dies need to be mentioned, so no one adds into the cast. Anyway, neat, the article is 63 KB, minus all the refs, so it's readable. Alientraveller 20:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the Megatron info: I read the five-page preview for an issue of the adaptation comic book, and he said something angry, which I assumed he was vengeful for being treated as an experiment. I saw that clip in which Megatron says he'd let Sam be his pet: I suppose he was just being black-humoured then. Alientraveller 20:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lost World GA Nomination

When you're not busy, I'd appreciate it if you reviewed The Lost World: Jurassic Park for possible Good Article status. Yes, it needs an expanded Production section, but I think there's enough there to qualify as Good. ColdFusion650 23:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Preciate it. This has kind of been my pet project for a while. At least now it's a good article. Hopefully I can get some serious help to get it to FA. ColdFusion650 02:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Jurassic Park III before I nominate it for GA? The Production section needs work, but I don't know if it's enough for GA. The release section seems shorter than Lost World because there aren't as many awards or box office records to list. ColdFusion650 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. ColdFusion650 13:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What make a film from a certain country?, part 2

Hey Bignole, you were a major voice the last time this happened and I wanted to alert you again. Once again there is a disagreement at Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)#What makes a film from a certain country? as to verifying that the film comes from both the UK and the US. See the bottom of that section, and please contribute. Thanks! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The country of origin, not the dates thing, is being discussed. In reverting his edit I accidentally reverted additionally his altering of the date formatting, which, though I inadvertently did so, made no physical change to the appearance of the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same argument, but he is looking for a valid citation this time. He wrote on my talk page that the argument we presented last time isn't very clear to him. However, T-dot has just written a response to it that is a bit more articulate. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode review TfD

Noticed you haven't commented on the second TfD yet. While it's pretty obvious that you are supporting the review stuff, it might be a good idea to leave a note there to make it clear for the closing admin. -- Ned Scott 08:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Budget

I find it difficult to recommend the article for deletion because 1) It's a topic of interest, despite the unverifiable nature, and 2) I don't think it makes a difference at this point in the AfD process. I would suggest a clean-up in which you trim down the list of 97 items to a smaller number, because many of the $100 million films weren't really known for that budget size. Also, you could mention that Forbes drew upon Box Office Mojo with box office estimates -- sort of a "let the reader beware" bit. Smite IMDb information based on the fact that it's user-submitted information, replace with BOM where you have to (if no other source exists), since Forbes cites it. You could also rewrite the article as prose and try to focus on articles that talk about what it takes to fund an entire film -- ranging from actors' salaries to that of special effects. It would be a pretty big project, though, to revise it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Forbes seems to recognize it as a site whose estimates of films' productions budgets can be relied on. I'm not wild on either BOM or IMDb, but the estimates at the very least give some kind of idea of films' scales. Obviously, Superman Returns was not cheap, even though the information is faulty. I think a lot of people would be under the impression that faulty estimates, if they were close enough to the mark, would be better than not pointing out any kind of budget number. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the case with BOM is that they create their own production budget estimates in the vacancy of studios being surreptitious about their numbers. Forbes seems to cite BOM directly for its estimates, and I assume that the people at BOM take into consideration a film's production budget based on various criteria. Obviously, we don't know what they are, so I think it depends on how ultimately reliable BOM is, since we wouldn't question a passing mention of a film's budget number in The New York Times. It's a slippery slope, considering the nature of the film industry to protect its assets whenever possible -- even with "money well spent", studios don't want shareholders to get details of their most expensive projects. Thinking about this, how about a Most expensive films article? Take away the list aspect, which seems to cement the budget numbers way too much, with the sources available. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, film budgeting starts out by saying it's a secretive process. I've also made my push for deletion to at least instigate discussion. Most of the entries aren't very necessary. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville seasons

Season 1 is a job well done. I await to see the further completion of its counterparts. It's looking very good, and once season 1 is implemented I feel that it may already have gotten near, if not to, GA status. Great job! Cliff smith 17:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Got your message - I'll try to give it a good read over lunch. You've obviously put a lot of work into it, and it shows. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Really commendable! I feel inclined to give you a barnstar! You deserve a barnstar for your hardwork, and as a pre-emptive, here is one (below):

Seraphim ^Whipp 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For your exceptional hard work on Smallville season One page. Seraphim Whipp 18:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

X-Men film series

Hello there, I'm currently drawing my attention to X-Men film series. Care to do a fancy cast list table? Alientraveller 11:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but Daniel Cudmore was in all three films, and Sumela Kay and Katie Stuart played Kitty in the first two. Alexander Burton played Pyro in the first. Alientraveller 13:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but they are there. Unless you want me to go with the bolded profiles. Alientraveller 13:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well there's something I hope to never do again... Alientraveller 13:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found it tedious. Alientraveller 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah well. The article looks sprucier now, just need to work out how to include stuff on spin-offs and some franchise history. I recall an article on how X-Men 3 became The Last Stand as the series was too costly and the studio preferred spin-offs. Alientraveller 14:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Batman

I've restored the Jai White information and removed the bank manager information, which was the subject of an editing war yesterday. There's an ongoing discussion on the talk page about the appropriateness of both bits of information. Can you interject your $0.02 on the matter? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers (film)

I'm sure its good-article status is due in large part to your contributions. --EEMeltonIV 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be better to keep the Daily Variety citations on the box office, or kills many birds with this one stone? I'm unsure if a studio source is neutral. [11] Alientraveller 17:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[12] Any spoilers in this interview? Alientraveller 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware Autobots always (well, mostly) win. Alientraveller 20:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can wait then. The UK is having "preview" screenings this weekend (why don't they just release it?) so I'll be seeing it soon. I saw the trailer with Harry Potter (best one yet btw, good editing which quickened the plotting), and I was shivering with excitement. After I see it I'll read the Q&A on the official message boards. I may also have to dodge questions of "what's masturbation" from my younger family members. Alientraveller 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Keeping up appearances Christmas special tables

Hi, I and user Updown have regular disputes over the Christmas special tables of the show. He believes in having a range of mini tables scattered about the page, one per special; I on the other hand believe in one table with all the special episodes together, still in chronological order. It seems folly having so many tables, when simply one will do. I’m interested in your thoughts, so please air them on my talk page or on the television episode debate page; which now has a link to the page in question by the way. Thanks! Edito*Magica 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: Help request from Comicsproj talk....

Best I can do w/ Statan's Six #4... http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=53343

- J Greb 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

keeping up appearances debate

The debate has gone on long enough; the views aired weren’t getting us anyway near to a decision. I’m settling the debate with one balanced system.

• If you have any points to add under the new debate, then please do so. Thanks! Edito*Magica 00:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

From my list, don’t you think one table would work so much better. The other way clearly isn’t neat (tables everywhere), illogical (a WHOLE table for a five minute children in need special?) Updown’s policy is skating on madness Edito*Magica 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Comments

Hey, I noticed this comment on Edito*Magica's talk page about deleting comments. Was this directed at me? I wasn't sure if I should've done what I did, but it seemed to me like Edito's originial post was designed to pre-instill an opinion, so I made it more of a notification than a "come support my opinion" thing. If it was, thanks for the correction. I  ^{(said) (did)} 05:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees

Hi, hope you don't mind, but I was snooping around in your sand box, and noticed the following things;

• Jason's mask is only mentioned in the design section, IMO it should also be mentioned briefly in the opening section and the plot section (at the Part 3 bit). It should also be added that he wore a pillow case/sack cloth in Part 2.
• In the characterization section, Kane Hodder claims that Jason would never hurt a dog. This seems random; was he actually meant to hurt a dog or was Hodder just talking hypothetically?
• I believe that this source, which is already in your sandbox, is particularly valuable. It contains lots of good quotes from people in authority such as the following, which I believe would look good in the charactertization section.

“ He was a deformed child who almost drowned and then spent the rest of his childhood growing up alone in the woods. He saw his mother get murdered by a camp counsellor in the first Friday the 13th, and so now he exacts his revenge on anyone who returns to Camp Crystal Lake. Teenage fans can identify with that sense of rejection and isolation, which you can't really get from other killers like Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers. ”

• I think that, in the characterization section, we should include something about the novels stating Jason was born "normal" (as opposed to being mentally/physically disabled), along with Miller's original intention. This is already in the "childhood years" section of the existing article, but not in your sand box, I believe. An actual quote from the novels (or even a title) would be helpful, although I haven't read any. I remember an earlier draft of the page included something about being motivated by jealousy of hs victims, also from the novels. I would like to see more from the novels included in the page, provided that we note that their canonicity is questionable, as is done in the Doctor Who articles.
• You say that stating something without comments from official sources is OR, but I think this is debatable to a certain extent. I do not think it would be OR to simply observe that Jason's physical movement changes following his resurrection in Part 6, or that he does not speak aside from grunts in Parts 2/3. Please take a look at the page Spike (Buffyverse), a current project of mine, to see how I dealt with the characterization. Much of it is observation, albeit backed-up with examples and quotes from the show. (additionally, if you see a fault in Spike's page, please bring it to my attention as I am trying to get it to GA at least).
• In the plot section, you describe Jason's drowning as having been retconned in Part 2. I know what you mean, but it sounds as though the entire event was retconned to have never occured; he still allegedly drowned.

Anyway, sorry for pointing out flaws, but seriously, the improvement in quality between the article and your sand box, based on the research you've done, is amazing.  :) I wouldn't be spending as much time looking over this article if I didn't think it was capable of being excellent. Paul730 14:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to chip in on one thing in your rewrite: can you clarify why children's books were published for a serial killer? Alientraveller 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Could me be made clearer. I look forward to reading it in mainspace, so it hasn't got those image links which screw up the paragraphing. Alientraveller 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your images look very good. I would definitely still use the Part 4 image of Jason's umasked face (the fact that it was designed by Savini makes it better than Parts 2 or 3) and the pic of Uber-Jason. The lightning-resurrection/Freddy pictures belong more on the pages of those individual films I think, although maybe look for a pic of unmasked Jason in Part 7. As for the main pic, defo use the current Elm St one, because, biased or not, it's the best actor and make-up IMO.

BTW, your strictness when it comes to OR is very frustrating ;), but ultimately will make a better article I'm sure. Like I said, whenever you find a spare five minutes, please look over Spike's page because now you've got me all paranoid about it's quality, and another pair of eyes would be appreciated. (it is still a work in progress) Paul730 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Spike/Jason

Hi, sorry it took me while to repsond, I was arguing on Link's talk page and there's a lot to reply to you about. Anyway, everything you say about Spike's page is completely true, although I really don't want it to be. The problem with the Buffy pages is that most people (myself included) approach them as a fan website rather than an encyclopedia. Believe it or not, the character history (which was entitled biography not so long ago) was actually about twice as long as it is now before I started working on it. It's difficult, because Spike recieves more screen time than most characters and his storylines become increasingly complicated in later seasons. You're also right about the relationships - I've been asking other editors about deleting them but haven't recieved much response.

The thing about canon with Buffy and Angel is that, unlike Jason, the whole franchise is controlled by one person (Joss Whedon), so anything he isn't repsonsible for is of little importance to the series. Most editors on the Buffy pages are very dismissive of anything non-canon, so the minor mention of such material at the end is considered sufficient. Spike's layout is somehwat similar to Jack Harkness' page, which is currently GA and being reviewed for FA; your comments/soul-destroying criticism would be appreciated. I don't think completely re-writing Spike's page is necessary; if I condense his history even further and delete specifics, especially the relationships, would that work?

Back to Jason, concept sketches would be brilliant. After all, anyone can Google the movies to see images, but original artwork would be very encyclopedic. If you like behind the scenes pics, I remember seeing a cute one of Ken Kirzinger in Jason's bedroom holding a teddy bear; don't know how relevant that would be, but it made me laugh. :) Paul730 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to move portions of your sandbox to the article, especially now you've uploaded fair use images. Alientraveller 16:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Smallville Season Pages

Wow! It turned out even better than I thought it would when I first saw your ideas (see comments on mainspace page). It's nice work. About the only thing I could suggest is for you to make sure the tables are user-colorable, for people who like to do that sort of thing. But maybe you could just ask those people to help you with that after you put it in the main space.

Anyways, feel free to add my support anywhere it is necessary. I don't mind people quoting me. In fact, it saves me work.

-- trlkly 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that some people might not like the color choices made for the table (not that I don't. Red and gold are the official colors of the show, right?) I've seen other tables that change colors, depending on the style sheet you use. I just wondered if you might somehow be able to implement that. But you'd have to ask somebody smarter than me on how--I didn't even know there was a wikitable template. -- trlkly 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. They can probably decide about the coloration after implementation, so moumentai (Cantonese for "No worries"). -- trlkly 22:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The last edit was ok. Alientraveller 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was pointless, and the m was good faith abuse. Anyway, Ashmore looks like a cross between Radcliffe and Jimmy Dean there. Alientraveller 21:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I meant James. Alientraveller 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Random research

Here's some stuff I got from the Freddy vs Jason DVD to use in the Jason or any other article. You can use anything you think is relevant.

"Born with a dark curse, forged from undying hate, he became the ultimate killer. Now that killer... has met his match." - a cool line used to describe Jason in publicity material for FvJ.

At the tongue-in-cheek Pre-Fight Press Conference in Bally's Casino, Las Vegas, NV, on July 15, 2003, the announcer claimed that Freddy has 1000 career kills and been resurrected 7 times, while Jason has 1200 kills and been resurrected 10 times. (this is pretty pointless, I know, but thought i might as well mention it)

Script Development taken from the "Freddy & Jason Go to Development Hell/Slicing Towards Production" Fangoria Magazine Articles in September/October 2003 issues. (I'm not sure how to cite this; it's a DVD special feature but taken from a magazine article. Also, I'm Scottish and own the Region 2 version)

An original draft of Freddy vs Jason by Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore, known as the Law & Order version, had the premise that the Friday the 13th series were actually movies, with the real Jason having only just been found and put on trial. The writers enjoyed the ridiculousness of seeing Jason part of a courtroom drama. The script included strong gallows humour, including a scene in which Jason's crimes are being read off in court, and the list goes on forever. In this draft, the same Freddy Krueger from the Nightmare movies uses Jason as a vessel to bring himself into the real world, resulting in a final battle in a shopping mall. This script tied the two franchises together with the revelation that Jason had witnessed his mother and Freddy having sex when he was just a child, with Freddy then lashing out at him for spying on him. The protagonist of this story was Jason's defense attorney, Ruby Jarvis (a nod to Tommy Jarvis, but not a relative of said character).

Ethan Reif and Cyrus Voris revealed that an earlier attempt to combine the two series had Freddy as a camp counselor who had raped Jason as a child, and then drowned him in Crystal Lake. Fangoria describes this as one of the most disturbing storylines used in early drafts. One of the protagonists in this plot was Whitaker; the judge who had forgotten to sign the search warrant that set Freddy free on a technicality. Reif explained that Whitaker had dedicated the last 20 years of his life to destroying Freddy; that all of Freddy's crimes following his death were because he had been derelict in his duties. The concept of Freddy's molestation of Jason was eventually dropped by later writers Damian Shannon and Mark Swift, who felt that retconning the mythologies of either series would be unnecessary and disrespecting to the fans.

I think this might be good for the characterization section:- During the development of Freddy vs Jason, early writers Brannon Braga and Ronald D. Moore decided that two villains fighting would not be interesting, and that one of them had to be somwhat redeemable. Moore explains that they decided on Jason because, "He seemed like a blank slate and we knew his backstory, but never really got inside his head. We were attracted to the idea of making Jason into a guy the audiences could root for." One draft penned by Mark Protosevich had Jason protecting a student called Rachel Daniels and her unborn child. Protosevich explained that "It gets into this whole idea of there being two kinds of monsters. Freddy is a figure of actual pure evil and Jason is more like a figure of vengeance who punishes people he feels don't deserve to live. Ultimately, the two on them clash and Jason becomes an honorable monster." Later writers Damian Shannon and Mark Swift disagreed about making Jason a hero; although they drew comparisons between the fact that Freddy was a victimizer and Jason was a victim, they stated "We did not want to make Jason any less scary. He's still a brutal killer." They claimed that earlier drafts had Jason being given commands by the heroes, and even driving a Camaro at one point. "We never wanted to put them in a situation where Jason is a hero." they said. "They're both villains to be equally feared."

When discussing the rules with which they would stick to in their draft, Damian Shannon and Mark Swift decided that the murders should reflect the style of those in both series. They described the Friday killings as "brutal, shocking, bloody" and the Nightmare killings as "suspenseful, supernatural, character-based."

Paul730 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Disc 2/The Production/Fangoria Magazine Articles. Though if your version isn't Region 2 it may differ from mine. Paul730 03:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

They weren't documentaries, with people talking, they were just a direct copy of the articles. Paul730 03:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond

File:Walther PPK.jpg		WikiProject James Bond
		Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed you have made some edits relating to James Bond. May I interest you in joining the James Bond WikiProject, which aims to greatly improve the rugby league articles on Wikipedia. You may wish to seek some help about the WikiProject, if so please ask your question here. If you need help on general Wikipedia place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question. SpecialWindler talk 23:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

^{Superscript text}

Sorry

I'm sorry about that problem on the Bond 22 board. I am sort of new, and exactly how do you site sources. Just wondering. Thank you so much, and it won't happen again.

Commas

No, I didn't miss it I just re-did when I did some other stuff. If you desperately want commas, manually add them, don't undo all the hard work I did that is not just the commas. I fixed some spaces too.

It is "hard work", since I have to go though the entire page FIVE times now and it takes a while each time. YOu're not listening to me now.

Why not wait until after I'm done and then go in and add your commas, you so deperately want?

It's obvious you're not looking too hard at my hard work otherwise you'd know what I"m doing or even read my comments. You don't "always link dates", it's kind of hard to when you don't have one and if you're paying such close attention, then you'd notice not all dates were linked which why I removed some of them. It's called consistency. ;-)

Amazon

Actually you're wrong all together on Amazon. It's not the American one, it's the French one, so it would not be ".com".

Casino Royale

Ooops! You're quite right; just checked that and you've saved me having to revise!...martinsfsa 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Buffy Summers

Hi, I just made a drastic edit to Buffy's romantic interests section. You said that these sections were too fannish, so I've rewritten it as prose and included a real-life context. Its not quite finished, I've still to cite some references for quotes and stuff, but thought I'd get yout opinion first. I think it's a great improvement on the long and largely-pointless list that it was before. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think.  :) Paul730 02:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to see what you thought, so I wouldn't waste time citing parts and then have to delete them. By minor relationships, do you mean Pike? Or Parker? I didn't really want to waste time on Parker, but he is in it for quite a few episodes, so... I'll try to find a reference for the first paragraph, I'm sure there's something in the DVDs about Buffy's relationships in general. What parts in particular would you recommend trimming? Paul730 02:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your input. I really do want to make the Buffy pages more encyclopedic, their current condition is pretty dire. This has probably been asked before, but why is there no page for Camp Crystal Lake? It seems like quite an important fictional location, just as much as Sunnydale and the X-Mansion, although those probably aren't the best quality articles to use as an example. Paul730 02:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Jason article really will be good once it's finished. Noticed Freddy's getting the sand box treatment too, but where's Michael's one, eh? Doesn't he deserve any love? ;) The reason I suggest a Camp Crystal Lake article is because I recall pop culture references to the camp itself (Scary Movie 2 and the Simpsons, to name a couple) which may feel out of place in Jason's article. With info on the real-life shooting locations etc, it could be turned into a decent little article. I'm not goint to push strongly for one to be made, but with some of the crappy articles I've seen (individual pages for X-Men characters mentioned once off-panel? wtf?) it seemed strange there wasn't one already. Paul730 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen most of the Nightmare movies, just 1 - 3. I much prefer Jason and Michael to Freddy becasue they have this silent charisma whereas Freddy's just an annoying cartoon character. I think the Friday series is probably the best overall; the Halloweens are all dire except 1 and H20, which are both better than any Nightmare or Friday. The F13 series is the only one of the three where the killer actually improves as a character with each new film instead of getting progressively worse. I know what you mean about too many characters though, I've been working on the Buffy pages for ages and it's an uphill struggle. Every time I look at a page, I'm like "Mm, need to get started on this soon..." but never quite manage it. Paul730 03:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I usually just copy stuff over to a word document, edit it, and then copy it back over to the article page when it's done. How do you make a sand box, would I just type User:Paul730/Buffy Summers and then start working? Are there any major rules I should know about? Paul730

Cool. Thanks for the advice. BTW, I've finished citing the Buffy relationships section, so if you want to take at look at it whenever, I'd appreciate it. It's not hugely different from what you looked at earlier, I removed the stuff you said, but that's all really. You might as well look at it in my sandbox. Paul730 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive criticism, I'll try to do what you said and incorporate it into the article. The only problem is, the section was previously just a massive list of in-universe information about her various boyfriends, so it probably will take some time for it to evolve into something more notable. I'd like a little more advice about how to write something in context without simply rehashing the plot, so I'll try to re-do some of it and ask for your help again later.Paul730 14:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm asking some other editors to take a look at your comment on my sand box, one of whom is currently working on Jack Harkness' relationship section, so hopefully your advice will be used on other articles. I appreciate you taking the time to help me, since you're busy with other projects. :) Paul730 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just rewrote Buffy's history in my sand box. It's not finished (still to cite some episodes) but I think it's a vast improvement, since it's much shorter and contains more of a real-world context. I tried to use Jason's history as a guide , and was wondering what you thought. BTW, in the infobox, should her first appearance be the movie, or her first canonical appearance? I think I know you'll say the movie, but just wanted to make sure. Paul730 17:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole "first/last appearances" thing has been the cause of problems over on the Doctor Who pages. Some people think it should be the latest appearance, others think it should say "ongoing". Paul730 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You Only Move Twice

The page for the Simpsons episode You Only Move Twice was made an FAC without my knowledge and to be honest, I don't think it's FA quality. But, I was wondering if you could take a look at the page and help improve it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

IMDb

Hahaha... great minds think alike (GMTA, in case you didn't get that). And we cited different examples, sweet. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the focus seems to be on Transformers these days -- will finally be seeing the movie this afternoon after work. I've seen Ratatouille (Pixar does it again) and Live Free or Die Hard recently (just rewrote the Plot for the latter, in case you didn't notice). I've gotten into the hobby of submitting new articles to WP:DYK, and right now, I'm putting together a film series article for the Underworld films so I can shove Untitled Underworld prequel somewhere else -- it's too referenced to go through any of the deletion processes. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your work on Jason Voorhees. Looks great! Definitely will be a much-improved substitute for the article's current revision. I don't have any serious focus on any projects right now -- just mopping up and trying to improve what I come across. I plan to dump film articles' trivia sections onto their talk page if the tag's been there for at least two weeks. Just created Underworld (series). Kind of trying to build a case for dissenters of merges like at Silent Hill 2 (film) and the deal we encountered at A Christmas Carol (2009 film). I expanded The Dark Is Rising (film) using the talk page's citation dump, but I suspect I have Google Alerts' worth of headlines for further expansion. I imagine my next projects would be to watch Road to Perdition (which has been sitting around my place forever), work in the DVD commentary, put it up as a GAC, then focus on an Academic interpretations section for Fight Club to put that one up for FAC. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I struck your last contribution for reasons which will be obvious upon inspection. The poll is for splitting the discussion, not pro or con IMDb. I'd also like to say that I do agree with some of your points - my objection is that I think it's more of a gray area. Which is another reason why I think that creating a separate page (like a subpage of RfC) for discussing this more in-depth and opening and advertising the discussion to all of Wikipedia is probably a good thing - I really am curious to know what the general editors who don't really deal with the WikiProject think. Sound okay? :) Girolamo Savonarola 21:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The system is admittedly not perfect. That being said, it is not horrible either. I understand what your concern is - future events and trivia. I agree that these are rife with potential problems. But my concern is not with the small quantity (10%, I'm guessing) of entries for future films - I want the IMDb to still be considered an acceptable tertiary source for relatively uncontroversial material regarding the other 90%. For example, if I need a release date on a film from 1953 or filming locations. Or possibly even to provide citation for things like mentioning a film referencing or referenced by another film. I don't think the standard here is 100% accuracy or perfectly transparent editorial oversight - both of which can be lacking in sources we normally consider acceptable - I think the standard is more what areas are at higher or unacceptably high risk of abuse or unverifiability by other means?

Anyway...we really need to save this for the proper discussion, instead of talking here.... :) Girolamo Savonarola 21:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Jason

I was never an expert on Jason, but I read the whole article and it looks very indepth and detailed. Good job. One comment: Do you plan on writing about the Wildstorm Friday the 13th comics? They elaborate on the history of Crystal Lake and Jason's origins.--CyberGhostface 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that the first time around. I have all seven issues (not the Pamela one yet) so if you want me to scan any particular image just let me know.--CyberGhostface 00:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The initial series was seven issues long. After that came the Pamela miniseries. What also looks interesting is the two part mini entitled "How I Spent My Summer Vacation" which looks like (I think) Jason befriending a kid with a skull deformity.[13][14]--CyberGhostface 01:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right. I just checked, and it was only six issues. I think it was the Freddy Krueger series that had 7 or 8.--CyberGhostface 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, I've read the article and it's good, but it needs copyediting before GA. But it is a real achievement and I'll probably support it come FAC. If I weren't such a wuss, reading the article would make me go see some of those films. Alientraveller 08:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I went ahead and nominated it for GA status. I think it's already deserving of such a status before heavy copy-editing; the prose was generally understandable in my reading of the article. Of course, for FA status, there will be changes that will need to be made. Terrific work! It's very refreshing to read such a detailed character article when there exist so few. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Creating a monster" is a doozy to edit. I also noticed fiction's got stuck in the writing and it's mostly present tense. Alientraveller 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean you've been writing so much about Jason the fictional character, present tense style got into the behind-the-scenes bits. Still, it's a nice read, but I think you may have to rewrite "Creating a monster". What would be interesting is if you wrote why they made the move to making Jason the villain. Alientraveller 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Miner or Minor? I think "Creating a monster" is ok, but it needs more stuff on Jason becoming the baddie, and how they had him become an indestructible zombie. Freddy's glove in the Hell film also needs a mention. It's been fun looking up these killers. Anyway, today's FA is Fighting in ice hockey: no why haven't Robot Chicken done a parody of that? Alientraveller 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

I just got back from seeing Transformers tonight. I have to say that while I enjoyed the special effects, I wasn't crazy about the way that the movie was handled by Michael Bay. I know it's based on a toy line, but the personal evaluation kicked in after the movie, trying to figure out what I would have done better. Something where the violence wasn't so indiscriminate, where there was more human reaction (in a media sense) to the alien robots, and more convincing characters. Sort of had the same evaluation with Spider-Man 3 in terms of the storylines. I kind of hope they go with a different director for the sequel; maybe studio executives will realize that the reviews haven't been -that- great, though the $$$ in their pockets may have them overlook the critical reaction. I didn't grow up loving Transformers, either... never was able to catch it on TV, and only played with the toys a few times, so maybe some of the nostalgia passed over my head. What did you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I probably sounded more negative than I really did. I enjoyed the movie, and I don't regret paying the ticket. It's just afterward that the critical evaluation kicks in. I knew what I was going to get, like with Pirates 3, but it doesn't satisfy me so much on multiple levels. I thought the robots and their battles were amazing, but I suppose I wanted a little more background to them (though I know it's a freakin' toy line) and more to the human element. I liked the humor, though -- had a laugh-out-loud moment when Mr. Witwicky's shared moment of pride with his son for having the chick in his bedroom. Maybe the flashiness of these blockbusters are getting weary for me; something like The Dark Knight, I definitely look forward to. I'll be in line to see Transformers 2, though, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the special effects were the saving grace of the film. I joked with my friend that they were going to release a DVD edition where all the human scenes were cut out, just show the robots slugging it out. I guess I'm at a point in my life where I'm being more thoughtful about the films that I watch -- kind of why I went on that big conventional film clean-up that you see on my user page. Just looking for something that won't tout a gimmick. The next one I look forward to is Sunshine (being a sucker for that kind of sci-fi). Probably will see the new Harry Potter, too... pretty much enjoyed the previous films in a way. When I look at the contributions on my user page, especially the collaborative effort column, it seems like a geeky achievement, what with 300 and Batman Begins and Spider-Man. I know the traffic's high for these, but I guess I want to have more prominent achievements, like what I hope with some of the projects I've listed -- Road to Perdition, Dark City, et cetera. Like we've said before, it's too bad this can't be a full-fledged job, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting discussion there: I've book tickets for Transformers this Saturday, and I'm really excited. I hope to chip in considering I'm a big fan of those robots, and hope they will shine through as characters through the explosions. Alientraveller 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here...

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For the huge amount of work and research it took to improve the quality of the Jason Voorhees article. It looks so much better! Paul730 09:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it's still a vast improvement. Think you could do something about the pop culture bit, though? That big gap kind of ruins things a little. Paul730 13:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The image of the model is fine, it's the Eminem quote box that's annoying me. Maybe move it down a little or switch it to the left or something? They're too close to each other, the layout could be better, that's all. Paul730 13:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who preferred the films split into separate paragraphs? It was more clear that way, what do you think? Paul730 15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right, it's not a big deal. I was watching some Jason tribute videos on youtube and was wondering about your actual opinions on the series. Any favourites, least favourites? I pretty much like all of them, but I haven't seen 8 and don't remember much of 9. people seem to really hate Jason X, but I enjoyed it. Paul730 15:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Part 2 is a better film than part 3, but I hate how Jason is a pitchfork-wielding hillbilly in it. I agree with you that 4 & 6 are the best ones, but I think you're a little hard on Jason X. It's not that bad. The way I look at it, since Jason can truly never die, that film was a nice glimpse into his future and what he will become (that said, I wouldn't want any more Jason X films). Make-up wise, I like parts 11, 10, 7, and 4 the best. Paul730 16:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with the 10 mask? Jason X "normal" Jason looks much better than he did in 9, where he was just a big fat blob with this little scrap of plastic still clinging to his face. FvJ Jason is the best; I like his droopy, half-closed eye which makes him look like Kenny from South Park. Also, why do the fanboys worship Kane Hodder so much? I don't really see what he can do that Ken Kirzinger can't. Paul730 17:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was looking at the articles for Alice Hardy and Tommy Jarvis, and they're not great to say the least. Wouldn't it be better to create a List of characters in Friday the 13th page and merge them into it? We could also include brief information about the other final girls who are too minor to ever recieve their own article. Paul730 20:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Valkyrie

What the hell? United Artists just had a press release with the title Valkyrie... there's no way this could be right. Blasted IMDb. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The page is currently called "Rubicon (2008)" for whatever reason. A Google search shows nothing significant. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees for GA

Hey, I thought the article was excellent, and forgive me if I've been overly critical with respect to GA criteria. But I'm glad you'll have a stab at dealing with my comments, let me know if I can help further. All the best. The Rambling Man 17:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)