User talk:Bignole/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Voting

I'm opting to use the "Sample Survey" method Wikipedia:Straw polls. (FF7SquallStrife7 13:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

I've found that some of the active surveys in Wikipedia follow the format I've used in the Discussion page of The Horror Icons Template.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28settlements%29#Proposal:_U.S._to_adopt_relevant_aspects_of_Canadian_convention_.28ACTIVE.2FFORMAL.2FOFFICIAL.29

I'll just be cleaning up some of the mess on the Horror Icons Template.

In addition, I don't think the surveys should have a time period seeing as how the opinions of voters and potential voters on such a subjective matter can always serve to benefit as evidence of why a certain horror character remains or should be on the template.

(FF7SquallStrife7 14:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for pointing out to me Template:Horrormovie Icons. Since I see this as User:Piecraft violating Wikipedia rules by circumventing the protection status of Template: Horror Icons by creating a somewhat duplicate template of yours and then replacing yours with his, I'll just notify User:Avraham and see wait for a verdict. (FF7SquallStrife7 05:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

Mysterio

First of all, I've archived the talk pages for Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight. Secondly, I've reverted a couple of edits trying to include Mysterio in the article. I've started a section on the Spider-Man talk page for discussion, so if you have anything to add to my argument, we can link Mysterio edit-in folks to that section to present the argument. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 20:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The recent edit by Legs of boe has me thinking. While I still don't agree with including Mysterio in the article, I'm questioning the validity of Bruce Campbell having a cameo as a restaurant maître d'. Legs of boe's edit said: "Non offical sources said that they had a video of Cambell, saying he will be playing a restaurant maître d' who will be "annoying Spider-Man", with a few clips. Later on, this video was put on to the Spiderman 3 blog, minus the clips of him actually being the restaurant maître d'." Any idea on how to address the Campbell cameo thing? I'm still against including Mysterio until something concrete comes up, but I'm not so sure about the current cameo information we have. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've updated accordingly with the official video interview link (which does lack the maître d' scene), and I've explained the edit on the talk page under the Mysterio section. Maybe we should edit in a comment at the end of the Campbell/cameo sentence as to stop editors from making a change and to review the discussion in the talk page's Mysterio section. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Legs of boe edited in Mysterio information again without any attempt at dialogue (as I've tried to direct him via edit summary and messages on his own talk page). I don't want to violate 3RR, so I'm giving you a heads-up. If he persists on editing in without any kind of dialogue, we may need to go ahead and report him for violating the 3RR policy. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

89.241.252.66 seems to be a sock puppet for editing in the Mysterio information. I can't tell. If this is the case, how do I go about warning about the three-revert rule policy? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Should I withdraw the sock puppet report? The editor's apologized on the talk page. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, Bignole. It's good to see our proper diligence pay off. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I kind of wish we could've scared him off... --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know. I assume good faith about his contributions. I guess it's just that Spider-Man 3 doesn't necessarily need further editors (we're a jealous lot, hah), so he might be better off working on a smaller scale article and going to us or others for advice. I got my editing legs by playing around with The Fountain and The Illusionist, which were low-traffic film articles at the time, then I moved up to the "big leagues". I guess we all have different learning curves. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your hard work on Leatherface and countless other horror icons. CyberGhostface 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bourne Ultimatum

I could use your advice about the The Bourne Ultimatum (film) movie page. I recently spent some time editing quite a bit of the information. Then another user, Gunslinger, came along and pretty much rewrote the entire article and changed everything I wrote. I'm not sure if this is justified, he isn't an editor or even an established contributer to Wikipedia. Would you mind looking at his edit, and then compare it to my last edit, and let me know if his reworking the article was warranted, or should he have contacted me, etc. I'm trying to grow as a solid Wikipedian here, and I thought you'd be the man qualified help. Reynoldsrapture 04:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate the help Bignole. Here are the links-

Gunslingers edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bourne_Ultimatum_%28film%29&oldid=85361474

My edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bourne_Ultimatum_%28film%29&oldid=81339015 Reynoldsrapture 16:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This helps a lot! I agree with you, some of the production material should have been left in. I'm not totally dissatisfied with what Gunslinger did, but I would have appreciated a heads-up. Anyway, I'll probably contact him about these discussions, and go from there. I'll keep you informed. By the way, I've read all of your posts in the Spider-man 3 disscusion, and as always I'm impressed with how you articulate your thoughts. It's one of the best film pages on Wikipedia. Reynoldsrapture 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Protection

I agree. Plus, it would serve as a pre-emptive for the upcoming trailer on November 17, which will probably bring in a nice stream of anonymous editors. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how bad it would've been if we didn't have semi-protection against this Venom news. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I really hope they just show Venom in the upcoming full trailer so ridiculous "leaked" pictures stop making their way onto this article. I have a feeling the trailer will show Venom, 'cause it'd hook the audience big-time to see him in the movie. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, putting up the image would violate the fair use policy, right? Because the image belongs to someone? Just wanting to make sure that could qualify as a defense if this image posting continues today. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, I know. I feel like Link from The Matrix Revolutions saying that this is the "ugliest hack" I've ever done. I guess I'm too citation-happy, but it feels like with the citations, we can tell people to stay in line with what the trailer shows, instead of trying to speculate on the depth of the story arcs. (Like I told Ace on his user talk page, Sandman seems like he's like The Fugitive whose innocence will come out, but that's obviously not gonna be edited in.) Feel free to revert if needed; I know it's uneven because we don't know what else would be happening to the minor characters, such as Captain Stacy and the carjacker. (And I just checked my watchlist and saw that you made edits and gave me the heads-up, so that's fine.) --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Aliens

Hi, I think you're right on verylong for aliens. Also, I agree that some sort of cleanup is needed for it, so, I'm adding a cleanup tag to the article. Feureau 18:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Feureau has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Oh, tell me about it. The article Pulp Fiction was full with speculations and original research and every interpretation imaginable. I chopped thru the article skimming abut 75% of it and now, the tidbits are creeping back.Feureau 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good luck to you too. Maybe one day we'll see each other again on another movie article ;)Feureau 18:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Horror Icons Template

As I've stated to User:Avraham moments ago here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avraham#Horror_Icons_Template, I feel User:Piecraft's template was just a means of avoiding the protection on Template: Horror Icons. I'm not sure if this violates Wikipedia policies but hopefully Avi can sort this problem out and maintain your template as the original "established" template regarding the topic of Horror Icons.

User:Piecraft certainly can't make the case that he didn't copy your template, seeing as how it imitates yours right down to the color and "icon" placement! Unbelievable!?

(FF7SquallStrife7 06:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

Just wanted to update you on the Horror Icons situation. I had suggested for Template:Horrormovie Icons's deletion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TFD#Template:Horrormovie_Icons. Another editor has already agreed with my reasons as to why it should be deleted. Feel free to add a "per nom" or any opinions of your own to strengthen the suggestion. (FF7SquallStrife7 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

Wow I see you and your fellow automaton Wikipedians got what you wanted, congratulations, you win with your shitty template. It makes no difference how many barnstars or whatnot you get from articles the fact remains that the characters listed on mine are unconditionally recognised as horror movie icons, now if it's slasher horror icons that's a different story - you should DEFINE this on your template. Bah humbug and enjoy your victory, even though it was petty and blatantly out of pure spite but I guess that's the beauty of letting retards run this encyclopedia. Piecraft 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Leatherface1974.jpg

I have a feeling that Abu Bedali is going to try and get this removed again.--CyberGhostface 15:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Abu badali, who had in the past nominated and succesfully deleted the original pic, on November 1 labeled the picture with no source without properly notifying the uploaders of the pic. Orphanbot automatically removed it later.--CyberGhostface 15:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The new headshot picture is pretty kickass. Thanks.--CyberGhostface 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I was on a weeks wikibreak and was not editing. Abu marked another one of my pictures? Ok, I'll go and try to find the source where I got the pic from. But if I can't, the one you uploaded is fine. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I provide the hyperlink for every picture I upload except for this one. Every other image I upload he marks as replaceable under FUC. Him and another admin are deleting every fair-use image on Wikipedia and its getting really annoying. Thats why I took a wikibreak. And when I come back, almost all the fair-use images I and other users uploaded were deleted. I'm about ready to leave here altogether. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've heard what your telling me a hundred times. I'm trying to save some of the images, because they are important. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

I'm curious as to what you mean by "highly replaceble" for all these images you are tagging. You're using a "fair use criteria" as your reasoning, but I'm not seeing how this is applying to the images you are tagging. I just looked at a couple of them and they seem to come from screencaptures, and not from photographs that that are attempting to be sold, thus requiring a "free version" to be found. Bignole 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? --Abu Badali 20:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only assume when you say "more specific" you mean could I give you an example of an image. The first one I saw was the Rob Van Damme image; I think it was the one where he was holding two belts. I followed the source link back and it was from a set of images from one of the WWE shows. I was curious as to how this was something that needed to be replaced with a "free version," because it appeared to be a screencaptured provided by the WWE itself. Bignole 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It was "provided" but under a non-free licensing. This permission to use the image is actually irrelevant. As any non-free image, it can only be used if it follows Wikipedia's policy for unfree material Wikipedia:Fair use criteria (that is not the same as the concept of Fair use as in American law). The use of this image is against the item #1 of the policy because a free alternative could be created (actually, one already exists). --Abu Badali 22:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is what I am asking you. Where do you see that it is a "non-free license"? I'm curious if you are taking the time to find "equivalent" images that are "free," or if you are just tagging them because they aren't. Wikipedia wants free images, but sometimes there are not "equivalent" images that can be found or created that are free. I'm curious if you are taking the time to actually find an equivalent image, or if you are merely going through and tagging. I only say this because your contributions are riddled with nothing but tagging, and I hardly see anywhere where you have contacted all of the editors that submitted the works to find out if they have an equivalent. Not everyone goes through and finds every single Wikipedia policy, or even understands it for that matter, and if you do not properly explain what it is that you are telling them to do you cause conflict, as with Mikedk9109. You mentioned there was another version of the Rob Van Damme picture; where is it? I looked on his page but only saw the images you tagged. Bignole 22:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You said "Wikipedia wants free images, but sometimes there are not "equivalent" images that can be found or created that are free". It's considered that free images of living (healthy, free) people is something that "can be found or created". User Mikedk9109 himself proved it's possible to produce a free image for Rob Van Dam. See Image:Rob_van_dam.jpg (I own him a barnstar for such contributions). Besides tagging unfree images for deletion, I also enjoy uploading free images to Wikimedia Commons. See my user page for some examples. --Abu Badali 23:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed that you don't upload images, or that you don't like images in any sense. What I said was that it appears you are merely going about tagging any image without actually looking into it. It appears that you expect people to run out and stalk these people till they can get an image of them doing something that actually fits into the article. Has someone created an image for RVD of him and his two belts? The image itself works with the article, because it's quite an accomplishment, and noting that with an image can help a page. Are you saying that people should by ticket after ticket till they get a picture of him with his two belts? I'm not up on the wrestling world, but if he doesn't currently have the belts any longer, and you needed an image of him with the belts, how do you propose creating that image? Bignole 23:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I though the image was being used to show how the man looked like. If it's used to illustrate the information "Rob Van Dam won/has two belts", it's now a case of violation of WP:FUC#8, as the unfree image is not necessary to the information (it may make the article prettier and more attractive, but it's absence doesn't make the information incomplete nor unintelligible). Unfree material must be essential information, not simply fit into the article. --Abu Badali 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So now you think that articles should be restricted to a single image? Bignole 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. Did something I said made you think I did? But remember, per WP:FUC#3 we shouldn't use multiple images when just one server the purpose, and according to WP:FUC#1 we should always use a more free alternative if one is available. --Abu Badali 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

...As for it violating #8 on the fair use, if him winning two belts in the WWE is significant (I don't really watch wrestling so I can't begin to assume anything about it) then a photo of the event when he wins the second belt would be "significant" as described by fair use rule #8. Bignole 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the picture of someone holding a prize hardly adds new information to the text "Someone is champion". I agree it is useful to make the text more eye-catchy, though. --Abu Badali 23:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

...I understand most of your image tags, because they appear to be profile pictures of people, but this "free image" question wouldn't really apply if it was an image of some person in the act of doing something. If the image is attempting to illustrate a significant event (i.e. Like RVD's double belts....if that was significant..again don't follow it) then it cannot be claimed that the same image could be "created", because it is an event that is in the past; unlike a living person that can easily have their picture taken by anyone (hence why I can agree with having RVD's infobox image replaced with that type of image). Bignole 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Images of significant event are not considered replaceable. As I stated above, this image is replaceable if it's being used to illustrate the person. If it's being used to illustrate the event "Rob Van Damme won 2 titles", it fails WP:FUC#8 (and not WP:FUC#1, as this information ("Rob Van Damme won 2 titles) doesn't need an image to be complete. --Abu Badali 00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You said "holding a prize" wouldn't be significant...probably not if was just one, even though becoming a Champion is a significant accomplishment in other sports why not Wrestling, so him gaining two belts should be even more of an accomplishment in the wrestling world. An image of him accomplishing that goal is hardly "eye candy". It would be like images of wrestlers performing their "signature moves." It isn't eye candy, it's meant to help illustrate what is being said. I'm not trying to save the RVD image, it is just the first one I saw, thus it has been my example image as we've discussed this. Bignole 23:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Winning some prizes is essential information for your bio. A picture of you holding the prize isn't. It's a good on-topic image, but not essential. (OT: I'll have to take a short break right now and I may take some hours to reply you) --Abu Badali 00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Killing Joke

The interview with Nolan seemed pretty clear about The Killing Joke influencing the Joker's creation, as well as the first two comic book appearances. On the other hand, the interview with Ledger didn't sound like much of an expansion. Just because Ledger received The Killing Joke to understand the Joker doesn't mean that other influences weren't used in the screenplay to determine how the Joker would behave. The interview did mention Ledger doing 3-D image scanning for his role, so maybe that's something worthy of inclusion instead. Let me know, though, if you still disagree about the Killing Joke issue. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 00:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. It's hard to tell from an interview transcript whether someone is shrugging off a lead-on question or enthusiastically going with it. I didn't realize that there was more information from the interview with Ledger at Newsrama (since I just looked at the SuperHeroHype.com citation at first), so what we could do is re-insert the sentence in the Joker subsection of the article right after Nolan mentions The Killing Joke. I guess the way it was before, it felt tacked on and thus useless. We could make it work, though, and use more information from the Newsrama interview (which was a pretty informative interview in retrospect) to flesh out the re-inserted sentence. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 01:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Batman Begins

Don't know if you were aware, but I've been revamping the Batman Begins film article. I guess I got bored of waiting for more news of The Dark Knight. I'm aiming to bring Batman Begins up to good article status. I don't know if you watch it, but can you take a look and see if there's anything you'd suggest for improving it? (Don't worry, I don't feel like I've fixed it all up yet.) --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 02:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess at first I thought it was funny that the upcoming Batman and Spider-Man sequels' articles were better quality than their predecessors' articles, then I figured that it just didn't seem right to have that. Thanks for the suggestions about Batman Begins -- I recognize that the plot needs a rewrite badly (as it sounds like someone typed it as they watched the film), but I don't own the movie, sadly enough. In addition, I was saving the lead paragraphs for last, because according to WP:LEAD, it's supposed to be a concise description of the film touching on each topic the article's sections present. I put the first two Spider-Man films on my watchlist, but I'll let you do your thing with them. I do suggest something, though: my film article expansion guide. I used the news archives I linked there to gather information about the film, since it's too difficult to Google through reviews by both working critics and fanboys. The way I did it with Batman Begins was that I just opened Notepad and dumped relevant links in it in a chronologically ordered list (with date and short description), then I used another Notepad to piece it together. I never even got halfway through my list of URLs for Batman Begins, as I went off on a tangent writing about the Batmobile and the Batsuit. Expect the Production section to grow soon, though! --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thought you'd enjoy this old version of the article. Someone actually nominated it as a featured article. It's fun to look back at The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 3, too, before they got cleaned up this past summer. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Smallville images

There are two images on Smallville that are hidden. Please do not put an "abandoned" tag on them. They are hidden until the episodes that they correspond with air. Screencaptures were released early and I felt they shouldn't be viewed till the episode airs, sort of like plot summaries not being written till after the episode airs. Bignole 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what are the series screenshots going to be used to?

What do you mean "what are they being used to" for the Smallville images? The title of the image corresponds with the title of the episode. Other than that you'll have to be more specific about what you are asking. Bignole 16:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you plan to use Image:Smallville rage2.jpg and Image:Smallville static.jpg. These are unfree images and you know we have very strict rules on their use. I just want to make sure they are going to be used in a way ok with WP:FUC, and not simply ok with the "common practices in Wikipedia" (i.e., most against policy). --Abu Badali 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Both are used in the same practice as every other episode image, as an image that is illustrating the episode. There is nothing "special" about them other than the same thing that is "special" about every other episode image on every other television show page. I merely "hid" them until the episode airs, one airs this thursday, and I think the other airs next thursday. I personally felt they shouldn't be shown until we have a plot to go with them. Bignole 16:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So, you plan to follow "common practices" instead of policy. I suggest you tag this (and any other similar images you've upload) with {{db-author}}, as they fail WP:FUC#8. --Abu Badali 16:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So what exactly are you claiming is wrong with the pictures? They have their sources provided, they aren't "eye candy" because it isn't like they are useless images, they are used to illustrate the episode just like a film uses an image to illustrate itself. Bignole 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfree image must contribute significantly to the article they are used in, and not only illustrate them. As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the fair use criteria and should not be used. If "There is nothing "special" about them", they should not be used. --Abu Badali 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying they are "unfree" images, but you cannot actually acquire personal images of filming taking place. Screenshots do not fall under the "unfree image" of "easily replaceable with a free version" as they are images depicting fictional settings and characters, and kind of restricted access. Bignole 16:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I said they are unfree. No, I never said they are replaceable. I said they don't contribute significantly to the articles they're (going to be) used in. Unfree images must follow all items on WP:FUC and not only the first one. --Abu Badali 16:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You aren't even making sense in your argument. First you say "if it can be replaced then it isn't free", which means you think it should be replaced. THen you go into removing it period. The only reason you are even arguing about this is because the image was hidden from view until the episode aired. That doesn't take away from it's "freeness". You are attempting to apply one policy to everything and you cannot do that. There are other things at work here, like the fact that this is a fictional television show article, and not some living breathing thing whose image can be easily attained/created. Bignole 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

When did I said "if it can be replaced then it isn't free"?

You said "That doesn't take away from it's "freeness"". Those screenshots are not free at all.

I suggest you to avoid uploading new images until you better understand Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. --Abu Badali 22:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Saw III

LOL @ "if you do not have a source that backs that up, a source that isn't some forum rumor, then do not add it...Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Thanks for cleaning it up anyways.

 ViperBlade ^Talk!! 17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies for replacing the entire section. I should have used more discretion before hitting Save.--Dleav 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Piecraft

This user is really getting annoying. It seems that once we settle an edit war with one user, another has to come along with his/her own "opinions". I really hope this users template gets deleted in the next few days. It probably will because 6 people voted delete and no one voted against deleting it. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  22:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

False Warning

I apologize, the template was put on your talk page by mistake. I reverted an edit by an IP and tried to warn him/her using VandalProof, but the software put the template to your page instead. I am really sorry about that. Tankred 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Fountain

I'm hoping to improve this article before the release date. This was probably the first film article I got myself immersed into, having done the project history section and the not-so-appropriate trivia section. I have Google Alerts set up to capture headlines about the film, so I have a bounty of links in my Gmail account. (Look at me, I'm wiki-linking my comments, I must be a Wikipediaholic.) Right now, though, I have a test on Sunday and Thursday, so I need to prioritize before I even touch Wikipedia with a major edit -- this thing sucks time up fast. You want to work together to help straighten it up, or were you just doing a dab edit? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've completely revamped this film article. Can you take a look at it and make any suggestions on improving it? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into your suggestions. I've found that FA-class articles have more substantial lead paragraphs, and what I've written so far was based on the information in the body of the article (i.e., "timeless feel" was the way Aronofsky wanted the film to have with the appropriate visual effects). I guess another NPOV phrase would be "critically acclaimed" for his previous films -- should I just remove the phrase altogether, or cite Rotten Tomatoes or a similar site? (Pi has 89%, Requiem has 77%.) I'll expand the citations so they start in the lead paragraph to cover the main points and are referenced again in the body of the article. Thanks for the feedback. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Horror Icons

216.101.81.251 just modified most of the Horror Icons to have the new template that was up for deletion. I tried to revert some of them. Just thought you'd want to know.--CyberGhostface 02:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Horror Icons

No! It should be dones istantaneously. I'm very sorry, I must have compeltely forgotten to actually unprotect the page. I will unprotect it now. --Robdurbar 15:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:MakuOnline

He has also edited links to Venom, and is trying to create a link to the spiderman preview in the new article. Just lookin' out and thought'd you'd like to know V. Joe 16:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Venom Picture

That picture is a still taken from the most recent Spidey 3 trailer. It is not stolen, leaked, or anything like that. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the trailer that aired this past Thursday then "Venom" never appeared. Topher Grace appeared as Eddie, but the only symbiote shots were that of Peter with the symbiote, not of Eddie with the symbiote. Like I told the other user, I can't see the image while I'm at work so I don't know what it actually is, some I'm going by your descriptions. There was an image that someone confused with Eddie and the symbiote, but it was actually just Peter trying to rip it from his chest. I'll know what the image is later tonight when I'm home. Bignole 17:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well then, the actual image I put up is of Venom, as in with the white eyes, jagged teeth, etc. I'm sure you'll geek out about it when you get home to see it. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 17:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no "Venom" scenes in that trailer. If you have an image of Venom then it isn't a legal image of him, because Sony has requested that all images be removed, and since there wasn't one in the Thursday premiere, I'm curious as to what you actually have. I'll know when I get home what you have and where you got it, because I've seen the "leaked" concept photo, and I've seen an close-up shot of the Venom from the ComicCon trailer; both of which are not legal to show. Bignole 17:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Would this help you see it? http://www.applegeeks.com/temp/venom/3.jpg H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 17:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok so the source of my source has been pulled by Sony. I'm pretty sure the image I have is the one seen at Comic Con. In which case I question why it's illegal to show seeing as how Sony showed it to others there. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the leaked Venom picture from Venom (Eddie Brock). I'll keep an eye on the article for the day. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Maku Online/Venom/New Article

Good looking out... I'm sure its just some temporary, and not especially deliberate vandalism. Cheers V. Joe 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Poster

Try http://i15.tinypic.com/2pzl4sx.jpg and see if you can detect it now. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I just did what you did and zoomed in with that same program, only took a screen shot of what I saw. When you get to take a look, try to look at the upper left corner just off the number -- it's a black box containing the number 3. I wonder why the hell someone even bothered to look this closely. Maybe the person who found it suspected a fake. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Venom

Do you know why there are 3 different Venom pages? Venom (comics), Venom (Eddie Brock), and Ultimate Venom; they should probably all be under one name: Venom (Marvel comics). At least there shouldn't be a page about just the "venom" symbiote. I've looked over it and it seems to fail NPOV, there is a lot of assumption on the page. The first paragraph says "Since Venom is the result of symbiosis between an extraterrestrial symbiote and a human host, the name "Venom" can also refer to the alien symbiote alone." That's an opinion, seeing as Peter never called himself "Venom" when it was attached to him. The (Comics) page doesn't seem to contain anymore information that the (Eddie Brock) page. The character started out as Brock, so everything else should just be some subsection under that page, at least I would think so. Bignole 23:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's all kinda sloppy, but I'm trying to make the best of it. I consider myself maintaince; I revert the vandalism and fix/spruse up where needed. I might work on the links/articles and try not to make it so much of a tree. (i. e. V (c) to Mac or Eddie to Jr.) Still, I'm okay with the situation as is. I mean, the symbiote's notible and the movie will further that. Jr will get notibility from his adaption for the film. I'd say having the three articles—four, counting mac—was just bound to happen. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It just seemed a bit much, but if you are taking care of it then ok. I mentioned the "symbiotes name is Venom" because that was a theme on the "Symbiote (comics)" article. What happens if the only thing taken from Junior's history is his name and his appearance, then there won't be much to say in reference to his page. Oh well, I just thought people had started creating the same page over and over again (kind of like that one guy just did for Venom (Ultimate), before you redirected). Bignole 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, he will be an amalgamation of past Eddie Brocks, but, having a thing for Gwen, Blonde hear, taste for black and such are all ultimate qualities. Still, the name alone is a big deal. That alone will have fans associate more with Ultimate Eddie than mainstream Eddie. Kind of like Tim Drake in The New Batman Adventures. He was really more Jason Todd lite, but people people know him by the name the writers chose to slap on. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re - Smallville Martian Manhunter revert

Thanks for your explanation about the reversion, sometimes all thats needed is for someone to explain why they delete someones work. I think both you and CovenantD should listen to what people are telling you about deletions. Rather than just blanket deletions of peoples work, you really should try to improve it or make it fit into acceptable standards (like you have now done on this Smallville episode). Had either you or CovenantD done this in the first place rather than just deleting, it would have prevented many upset feelings. Looking at the edits on this episode it shows that many contributors tried to include the Martian Manhunter reference and were all deleted. Given so many users obviously wanted it in there, it should have been evident that rather than deleting it, that your final solution was the appropriate course of action. I can see from your list of edits that both you and CovenantD provide a serious amount of input to Wikipedia, but please remember that we all are fans of these topics or we wouldnt bother editing them at all. We may not all be super contributors or know all the right ways to do things, but our contributions are still valid and should not be dismissed so casually by anyone. thanks. Mobile 01 00:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Not been online for a few days and came back to this!!!, firstly let me say that I was not attacking or berating you or CovenantD. Whatever the issue you now have with ANON is all news to me and I am not partaking in it at all. I was happy with your first explantation and had left it it that. My comments to CovenantD were simply asking him/her to answer the other users questions. My main concern was the rampent deletion of edits with no explanation, surely if you have the time to delete, then it doesn't take much time to just put a reason next to it. New users especially find this annoying or just don't understand what happened. I notice you had a similar experiance earlier where a user did not understand why their edits kept vanishing and so just kept putting them back until someone had them barred for a day. Anyway, I am done with this topic and have nothing further to add. Mobile 01 03:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Question Bignole

Maybe my comment was out of line, but if someone was to constantly delete your work without discussing an alternative, what would you do? Stand by and let them push you around?

Yes I was wrong, but so is deleting someone's edit/contribution just because your busy with other thing. So I would like for you to consider what I've said as well. I'm just saying if you're too busy to deal with someone's edit sooner why not wait until you have more time? 71.115.231.16 12:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not anything you did to me, but your debate with mobile 01 is much like what I've dealt with concerning CovenantD. Sometimes you, Covenant and other wikipedian have a "Shoot first, ask questions when hell freezes over". As for the whole responsibility bit. When you choose to participate with a project like wikipedia, that means you get responsibility that you don't always ask for. As I told CovenantD, I recently helped a wikipedia concerning lack of source, where as anyone else would delete it for lack of source.

Yes, if me or Mobile 01 slip up, you don't have to help us, but sometimes the right thing to do isn't always going to be on the list of rules. 71.115.231.16 14:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's your job to fix EVERY artcile, just to help out when you can. Nor is it your job to teach us editing. I'm just trying to remind you that even some of the best editors are going to make a mistake on articles, that doesn't make him/her a bad person or CARELESS (I'm refering to your recent message). I'm afraid no one can be 100% perfect. If wikipedia was perfect, there'd be no need for rules or deletion.

Why should we help each other out as opposed to the who every wiki for him/herself, you ask? Surely you agree that problems/errors abundant in articles who lower dramatically if there was more working with each other and putting in team effort.

Part of the problem, is that it seems some of the more established wikipedians are SO caught up in enforcing the rules, they lose sight of everything else. Even those who enforce the rules are at times just as wrong as those who break the rules. Remember not everything is Black & White.

While I've had a share of disputes with you or CovenantD, I find you to be a more pleasant person. See, if you've noticed in Covenant's discussions, even those who try to ask him something in the most civil manner gets a cryptic/vague response as I've told him. I agree with him that I don't like to be misjudged or assumed, but unlike him I'm willing to bare my soul so to speak.

To help me understand you better, what exactly made you interested in contributing info on wikipedia? 71.115.231.16 10:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• What I'm saying is, just like everything else in my life when it comes to helping others, I love to help people but you have to ask me. I do not do anything when people "assume" that it's my responsibility to help them. Even if they assume that, maybe it isn't my responsibility, but just the "right thing to do" is still kind of assuming that I'll help them without them saying anything.

And I'm not saying to seek out everyone and help with the edits. I'm just asking that if the opportunity should come, don't you occasionally help out (Whether obvious or subtle). In some cases it should be a second nature to do so.

• One thing I've learned is that people can get pissed if YOU assume that they need help and try and talk to them as if they don't know how to edit.

It depends if you approach them. If you ask like this "Looks like you don't know what you're doing, should I take over?", then yeah, I'd be offended too.

Ask them in a more casual manner like "Can I be of any help". That told gives the impresion you want to help a particular person, and not take over because they're incapable. See my point? 71.115.231.16 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Smallville

Hi Bignole, I just replied to the proposed changes discussion on the talk page. Also, I don't understand what you mean in relation to the new image, what do I need to do? ThanksReelusa89 14:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.Reelusa89 14:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I found a page on Image description pages, which told what needs to be done. Thanks for the help again. Reelusa89 14:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Theater/re

Oh alright, i was just going through and making sure everything was sorted right. that makes sense though. Chris_huh^talk 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dark Knight link...

Used to be Two-Face went to Dent at one point... One thing I hate about WIki is that 'be bold' leaves lot of shitty, irrational mutability. ah well. ThuranX 04:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinion

For Jigsaw Killer, which picture do you think is better for the last section?[1]--CyberGhostface 21:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to remove the pig mask.--CyberGhostface 23:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If I have to I'd probably remove the doll picture in the second section...the other pictures represent significant parts of his arc: before he became Jigsaw, his apprentice, death, and etceteras.--CyberGhostface 04:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try resizing them.--CyberGhostface 01:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 poster

Can you explain to me further your rationality about keeping the lenticular poster? While I disagreed with Dam-itch's spontaneity, I do agree that the article could be updated with this new teaser poster. I know that user creativity was involved in creating the lenticular poster for article usage, but these creations aren't permanent, either. You said that the lenticular poster reflects what the film was about better than the teaser poster, and this seems more of a content dispute. The film as a whole reflects the two-sided nature of Peter using the symbiotic suit, a point strengthened by the footage in the teaser trailer of him seeing himself in a similar way on the side of a skyscraper. I think the lenticular poster should be mentioned, however, in the Poster subsection (with citation goodness, of course). Let me know your perspective if I haven't interpreted it fully enough. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 06:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the lenticular poster, I meant the image on Wikipedia itself, not the actual image that was used for promotion. I don't know if any source online has actually reflected the lenticular feature appropriately so we could cite the look appropriately and provide a link to those who want to see what it looked like. Dam-itch has a point in "updating" the article; there's not a large amount of activity as the release date is still a ways off. Also, you have to expect non-frequent editors and GIPUs coming in to update it themselves. I understand your concern about how to decide what poster image to use when a batch of them comes out prior to the film's release, but I don't think being lenient here with the latest teaser poster will undermine efforts to combat theatrical posters of the future. Just my $0.02. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 07:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "allowing" Dam-itch to have his way. I personally believe the new teaser poster should be added because it more accurately reflects the dual nature of symbiotic Spider-Man. The older teaser poster, for all I know, could be misinterpreted as meaning Spider-Man and Venom were in the movie (true, but not what the poster's about). Furthermore, the new teaser poster builds on the reflection theme that's been addressed in the Footage subsection. I understand that you think uploading the new poster image will open the floodgates to editors uploading whatever they want, but to be honest, that's going to happen whether or not they have the specific upload of this particular teaser poster as their rationale. The discussion in the Lead Poster section on the talk page clearly shows that input was pulled from various editors to decide what to do. So it seems like it would be our hand to point to this section to say, "See, we discussed putting up this teaser poster, so it's only fair that we discuss what theatrical poster to put up." It's not that Dam-itch "wins" because the teaser poster goes up -- he's been berated enough on the talk page to really have any sense of pride over this now. It's just unfortunate that there's no compromise with using poster images; like Dam-itch wanted to hear, "yes or no"? (And of course if it's no, it's foolish judgment, lad, so choose wisely.) But I'm not going to push my case; I just wanted to explain my rationale and explain how I see yours. Ultimately, theatrical posters will present a situation for us, and that situation will be a can of worms with multiple "visual masterpieces". Anyway, have a happy Thanksgiving. Hope you got a mountain of food to eat. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Shut up Bignole

I know; I guess I'm just covering our bases. That was a pretty weak move on his part to make that username. You should chronicle this incident on your user page somehow, haha. I know I'll chronicle mine when someone makes "Eat S*** Erikster" when I revert that person's unencyclopedic edits. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have my own "Satisfied Customer" now. :) —Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I initially warned him for his Casino Royale vandalism, and since newly created user talk pages end up on my watchlist, I was able to keep track of him for a while. Wham, bam, thank ya, ma'am, he's out to pasture. But yeah, still need to piss someone enough to make a bastardization of my user name. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

More feedback from another clearly satisfied customer! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Leatherface comic

As you might know, Wildstorm has recently released a comic series chronicling the Hewitts from the Texas Chainsaw remake. I haven't read it yet, but its apparently trying to be in continuity with the film. (For example, Leatherface has one arm due to his mishap with Erin) Should this be included in the articles, and perhaps get its own article?--CyberGhostface 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Seth McFarlane

My bad, thanks.Darkwarriorblake 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Batman Begins Design

The Batmobile and Batsuit subsections aren't original research, but instead based on the citations at the end of each subsection. Do you suggest citing the end of each paragraph with the same reference? (The initial paragraphs for each section are in-universe descriptions to provide more detail than the Plot section does, and is verifiable by viewing the film itself.) Gotham City could use a work-up, though. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I added reference markers to the end of each paragraph. I don't think it's an issue to have one major citation per Design subsection because both provided sufficient detail to each topic. The information is uncontroversial as well. However, I'd be fine with purging the in-universe paragraphs. I tried to indicate the in-universe wording by saying "In Batman Begins", but if it can be worded better, feel free to do so. I indicated the shift into production information with an out-universe transition sentence. Let me know what you suggest. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ed Gein

I was wondering if you could help me with the current picture for Ed Gein (the copyright people are giving me some trouble over it) or find a GFDL image.--CyberGhostface 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I used the template:Fairusein and wrote that there are no GFDL images available, or ones that fall under the main fair use pictures, and that it will not harm any sales and is used only for educational purposes.--CyberGhostface 03:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay...thanks again for your help on this.--CyberGhostface 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Casino Royale

Hi. I think the point is that it as much (maybe more) a British film than an American one. Mark83 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I agree that the headings are not required, particularly as having only "US and Canada" and "Foreign" is North America-centric. Mark83 21:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You reverted my edit - calling it "vandalism", I am offended as this was a genuine edit! Please do not call ever edit you disagree with vandalism 194.80.240.66 16:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Legs of boe

No harm done. Hopefully he understands better now. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Superman sequel

Well, I first found out about it from Wiki-newbie when he was trying to create the article as "Untitled Superman Returns sequel", and he showed me what seemed to be well-cited information. I didn't pay much attention to it, though. It seems a bit of a stretch for it to be titled already when nothing confirms it (except IMDb, yippee). It's difficult to determine when an article should actually be created. I have a "Future articles" subpage where films are officially announced to be made, but there's been no further rumblings of it since. I don't know on what basis "Untitled Batman Begins sequel" was created. Reviewing the citations at Man of Steel, it seems pretty underwhelming and not very affirming for its own article. I'd support a merge to the Superman Returns article. I think it would be controversial, though, so maybe you can check out WP:PM. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what you might do is contact an admin about this. If there are admins protecting "Untitled Superman Returns sequel" from recreation, then this is "cheating" around that. I believe that the admin Wiki-newbie tried to appeal to was DakotaKahn (see his appeal, it's buried in the person's archives somewhere now). Someone tried to recreate a film article called Red Tails (something that George Lucas said he planned to make) by calling it Red Tails (film). I informed an admin, and bam, it was gone the next hour. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Meh, if they're trying to circumvent admins, there's no need to wait. I'm gonna give DakotaKhan the heads up. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Smallville

Let's do this Smallville episode page thing again. I think it's time. - Peregrinefisher 06:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

The film is often referred to as "the homo-erotic Nightmare" in the fan community, just as Jason X is often nicknamed "Jason in Space". PMA 07:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Awards

That seems like the right citation, but MTV.com's ridiculous Flash interface is murderous on my browser. Seriously, how the heck do people even use this site? WAY too much going on. I couldn't seem to get through the "gate" that was advertising the presenters and performers of this shindig, so I looked up Batman Begins on the site. There was an awards page, but amusingly enough, MTV doesn't mention anything about the film winning any of their awards. Ah, it's not a big deal... the rest is cited, anyhow. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 21:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I've remodeled the "Awards and nominations" subsection based on Blade Runner, which is a FA-class article. Looks a bit nicer, though some things could be trimmed out. What do you think? Doesn't seem that "listy" would be a problem if Blade Runner was able to do the same. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good deal. What else do you think can be done for Batman Begins? I'm going to try to dig up some DVD sales information, as the particular section is unverifiable. The features stuff can be cited easily enough, but I'm gonna assume good faith about the sales information; just need ta find the sources. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, busy tonight. Preparing for a house party. That link works for me, but I found two more at ComingSoon.net -- this and this. Either works for me, and I think we should purge the editorial-sounding paragraph and just mention the information from these three citations (if MovieWeb has anything the ComingSoon.net citations don't). --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: 007

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I've tried to overlook the story elements (I already know about Vesper's death, meh). I've just kept a casual eye on this article, but I can make a few suggestions. I suggest purging the release date chart, as most of the information isn't notable. If there's any details from the chart that could be kept, rewrite them as prose. In addition, I think the soundtrack information could use a content fork (like the one I applied to the Batman Begins soundtrack) where the track listing and extra detail can go. Film/shooting locations -- definitely not notable enough for that long of a list. I suggest disseminating any "important" locations into the Filming subsection if it doesn't already exist. I'd also trim down all the "search for James Bond" talk. Maybe you can put the information (summed up more concisely, of course) in subsections under the Cast section, since that's really what the information is about. These are my suggestions, and I think the article would be shaped a lot more nicely and relevantly. There may be other ideas, though. I wish I could help -- the price of being a Wikipedia upcoming film editor is spoiling oneself about the movie too much. Not even sure if I'd want to watch Spider-Man 3 or The Dark Knight articles in the month before they come out, haha. I'm trying to see Casino Royale, but being deaf, the captioned venues are far and few in between. Hope the suggestions help. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of theatrical accommodations for deaf people. One is open captioning, which is like English subtitles for English-speaking movies. (Closed captioning is the mode where there's a black background to the white text.) Open captioning used to be a costly process, since the process originally was adding the written dialogue to each frame of the reel. Films with open captioning used to be available only toward the end of a film's theatrical run, which kept deaf people out of the "pop culture" loop. Nowadays, open captioning is better and more timely, as they have a projector that projects words onto the screen.

The other method is the Rear Window Captioning System. You can see the article to learn about it (although I think the illustration sucks). I saw The Fountain and Borat using this method over Thanksgiving break when I was home. Where I go to school, though, the state doesn't have any rear-window captioned theaters, and just open-captioned theaters in the city, which is an hour away. I've gone out there to see United 93 and The Prestige, but it's a bit of a distance to travel. (I use Fomdi.com to locate movies. I also subscribe to Netflix, so I do enjoy movies at home. I have Amores Perros, End of the Spear, and Paper Clips.

Good luck on ASL and Deaf Culture finals as well as the rest. I don't consider myself Deaf, though, just deaf. You should know the difference. :) If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I don't mind sharing. And about Casino Royale, when I see it, I'll try to help shape up the article. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How about pipe-linking so it's [[tell (poker)|poker tell]]? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I've gotten in a similar tussle over at The Fountain. Some editor changed a lot of things, and it was kind of irritating. A lot of what he did was contributive, but if I made some changes, even valid ones, he'd revert right back to his last version. Plus, he seems to lack the ability to communicate with other editors -- just does what he thinks is best. So I can relate. Heh. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, I'm kinda-sorta keeping up with it, but not too closely, as I haven't seen the movie yet. When someone starts talking about the story, I try to glaze my eyes over until it's editor-related. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Spider Man 3 contents box

Hey Bignole, I noticed there isn't a contents box on the Spider Man 3 talk page. Did it disappear? I'm not sure how to add one. Veracious Rey 03:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See it. How did you add it back? Veracious Rey 04:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. One more thing, while I've got ya, I've added userboxes to my userpage, and was wondering how to shorten the long code down to a one word description. I was looking at one of your boxes (FSU) and noticed a simple code. I tried reading up one how this goes about, and it seemed to me the code was supposed to be condensed on its own. But if you hit edit on my userpage, you'll see for each box about 10 lines of code. Sorry to hit you up with this, if your busy I'll understand. Veracious Rey 04:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Jigsaw Killer

Since you saw what was going on in the history page (given that you reprimanded the anon user for his behavior) I was wondering what your stance on the whole "Jigsaw's last thought" thing is? Granted, I think the whole thing is in danger of going too far; I've explained to him that the quick flashbacks at the end of each film aren't supposed to be someone's thoughts but he's not listening.--CyberGhostface 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* I hate asking usually for help but...

Can I ask if you could back me up with the Wrong Turn 2 talk page? Im trying to defend myself but this guy keeps attacking very agressivly (and looking at his talk page he does it a lot) Jamesbuc

Superman Returns/Superman II

The comments in the intro about Superman II that you just removed (which I reworded to be even less explicit than the anonymous user had written), say the same thing as the "Writing the script" section, which says "With his previous writers from X2, Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty, Singer created a script that tied into Superman and Superman II." The intro sentence neither says nor implies anything more than this sentence does. Also, you know we decided that "critical review" is a better term than "critical reviews". Why do you just revert any changes other than technical changes to that article? -- Renesis (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In brightest day, in blackest night

Green Lantern Movie: 2008 has been nominated as an article for deletion. Please go to the AfD page to vote for deletion. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you clearing that up.

Thank you for reminding me that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I thought it was seeing as how it looks exactly like one. The Superman Returns sequel has more details known about it that the Batman Begins sequel, including an actual name (as opposed to Untitled Batman Begins Sequel), so what possible harm could it do? Anyway, presumably, 'Many' other people agree with me. And anyway, who died and made you king of all things? Possecomitatus 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well forgive me, but when the Batman Begins article was first created, it was Untitled Batman Begins Sequel, and was in a similar situation of having only director confirmed. And could you please give me a link to the 'Crystal Ball' policy: it's not that I don't believe you... oh well actually it is. Possecomitatus 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to add the deletion tag then I will report you to admin for inappropriate usage. The article is not in breach of the policy. Thank you. (please note not undue sarcasm) Possecomitatus 21:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the deletion log, there is no violation of policy, and I'll inform Admin that it is quite fair for such an article to exist. And if you wanna take that stick out of your backside that'd be fine too. Possecomitatus 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly watch out for personal attacks, and avoid making them even more. Your behaviour has been quite childish: other articles on Wikipedia talk about a trilogy of Superman movies directed by Singer, as well as a Batman Begins trilogy. Maybe you should be a little more consistent in you obsessive compulsivity (which is possibly not a word, but never mind). If at some point the name changes, we can move the article. If it gets cancelled we can delete it, or even describe it as a cancelled film. Wikipedia admirably strives to be a centre of al knowledge, and nit-picking is getting in the way of that aim. And if you think I'm wrong then that's fine, I think public transport should be, but that's the price you pay for living in a democracy. Clearly others who've attempted to make that article agree. I do wish people would do something useful instead of deliberately picking fault. Possecomitatus 21:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally you've added a delete tag 3 times. Stop adding it and I'll stop deleting it. How's that for a deal? Possecomitatus 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh and could you tell me how to add a 'Hold' tag? I haven't done it before. Thanks

Thank you for placing the tag. An encyclopaedia demonstrates the best wisdom of the time: It's a safe bet that evolution wouldn't have been included in any form of encyclopaedia written before 1838. And it isn't a rumour, it is the current plan. If Superman: The Man of Steel doesn't come out in 2009 then I'll eat something large and unwieldy. Like a car. And tomorrow's Friday, so if you wanna get me blocked then now is a brilliant time to do it.

Then go and delete Bond 22, which has no name (even a preliminary one) or script. Possecomitatus 21:50 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, because being headless I wasn't aware of that fact. The important things to notice there are that the script writers have been hired. Not working on a script but hired. Big whoop. Superman has a director. Bond doesn't. Possecomitatus 21:50 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a hole in your logic the size of that plane in James Bond. I like the Bond 22 page, much as I liked the Superman sequel page. But it would seem soft to target one and not the other. Having said that, I'd rather Bond 22 page then Superman sequel page.

You could have given me the opportunity to debate this issue with you before you tagged so that I could counter it fairly. The stick comment was not a personal attack it was a suggestion, quite fair under the circumstances. And as far as being bold is concerned I already have been. You reverted the results twice and then deleted the entire page. How nice of you.

Forgive my spelling mistake.

I never said ass. For a start it means donkey, and I wouldn't have that you have one. However the comment was a fair suggestion: the article does no harm and your childish insistence on removing it time and time again makes you look a little silly. I can't wait for 2009 and the release of Superman: The Man of Steel, which it will no doubt be called. And IMDB is far more reliable than Wikipedia or any other site regarding films. Not having an individual article about the film I can understand to a degree. But removing references to it in the Superman Returns article is frankly dim. I have reverted it. You may want to watch how many times you put it back, so as not to contravene the three revert rule you're so fond of.Possecomitatus 15:40 8 December 2006 (UTC)

IMDb is more reliable than any other source when it comes to new movies that haven't come out yet. I appreciate other people's decisions but only if the majority support them and I appreciate the rules so long as adhering to them isn't stupid. In this case it is. You reverted by removing my addition. Two to go. As I said, roll on 2009.

The general consensus that IMDb is not reliable when it comes to future films is inaccurate - I go to film school, I work with serious people who agree with me and know for more about the film industry than you or me. And thinking "I know better than them" is insanely arrogant and foolish. I will abide by the rules of Wikipedia until they get in the way of the purpose of the Wikipedia. As yet however I have not broken a rule. The article was legitimate and I fail to see what drove your obsessive anti-Superman sequel rant.Possecomitatus 16:10 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever I'm bored now. But IMDB is accurate, and this is the name they'll use, and even if it isn't the sequel will happen. There needs to be an article of some kind about it, even if it's Untitled Superman Returns Sequel. Let's just agree to say I'm right and you're wrong and be done with it. See below for a good use of your talents.

Wrong Turn 2

Excuse me, but who the hell told you to delete the dicussion concerning this movie? Please stop or use the sandbox. 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much with your actions. Much appreciated. Jamesbuc

Batman

I briefly looked at ComingSoon.net to see if they had any useful images of Gotham City, but I didn't find nothing. I don't even know if there's anything useful — it would have to be a really good image to reflect the city as a whole. Also, I'm not sure if the subsection needs an image with the amount of Gotham City content there is at the moment. Nolan designed it based on typical cities, instead of Burton's crazy-ass Gotham, so would an image really illustrate the content? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erikster (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

And yeesh! That was the first time I forgot to sign in like... months. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then I'm fine with an image. I wasn't too keen on having one. It's actually kind of nice that Wikipedia has this policy about images (to an extent), so articles can actually focus on content. Any ideas on what we can do with Batman Begins next? I'm hoping to expand the Production section some more, and I'd like to purge the poorly-written paragraph in DVD & HD-DVD. I have a guide put together based on what I found so far (much of that is already in the article at this point, but I have a text file full of random links from my initial link-hunting task). Also, you interested on revamping the first two Spider-Man film articles? I'm gettin' an itch to do so... just need to get past finals right now. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice change; works for me. I was just bothered by four different subjects lined up in this sentence: "The writers also applied to Batman Begins Frank Miller's Year One plot device..." I foresee good things to come for this article. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

On a completely different note...

...I have a favour to ask. This article is abominably racist. I tried to clean it up, but now it's worse than ever. Is there a 'racist' tag, or someway to ban the article? The group in question has been proven racist and stupid on many occasions, but it is continually corrected to make it's racist ramblings look like fact. The article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Century_Foundation Possecomitatus 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I'll put that up and edit it again too. Possecomitatus 16:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Smallville_(TV_series)

That's fine, but by your own definition, the first time Clark used this ability was in the episode "X-Ray", so I don't see why you reverted that. 71.201.85.141 20:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Smallville

So now you don't like guest stars and the roles they play? What's the problem with this. No offense, but it seems like you have a Wikipedia:Ownership of articles problem when it comes to my edits. - Peregrinefisher 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If I added someone who doesn't belong, then remove them, that's fine. Why don't you like associating each actor with the role they play. - Peregrinefisher 00:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Enemies

Just thinking about the 'Enemies' tag with the Horror Icons set.

• Probably Norman Bates could stay with 'Women' one.
• The Chucky one can be got rid of though one specific enemy could be 'Andy'.
• Ghostface can stay put with his.
• Jigsaw's one 'could' be 'People who he belive's are wasting thier life's' but thats a bit long winded.
• Freddy's enemys could be either 'Population of Springwood' or 'Alice' (Simple because she defeated him twice).
• Not sure about Leatherface but the current one could be it or 'Stretch' as a specific one.
• Micheal's one could be just 'His Family'.
• Pinhead's one seems a little off but it seems correct
• and finally Jasons can just be wiped completely (Unless you wish to be specific you could say either 'Alice' or 'Freddy' for killing his mother).

On the subject of Jason though his Birth/Death is pretty solid set by the films. (He was truly killed in part 4). Jamesbuc

I see your points that are being made here so ill get on with some bits.

• Andy can be seen as an enemy taking in account part 3 of the Chucky series.
• Nancy did not defeat Freddy 3 times to my count. Nancy defeated him once and got killed near the end of 3. New Nightmare isnt there plot-wise and is in a whole different history.
• Maybe as far as 'deaths' we should place everything plot-wise with Freddy and Jason.

so with Freddy his real deaths have been

• His original death
• His Death in Freddy's Dead (1 he survives by ending, 2 same, 3 he comes back pretty quickly, 4 same applies just he finds a new way out, 5 really is the same as afterwards he winds up killing the rest of the kids)
• His Freddy Vs Jason ending
• (and maybe) The New Nightmare Ending

And with Jason

• Part 4 (Part 1 doesnt count as Jason is very much alive and human, also how would he know to head for Alice?, Part 2 he survives, Part 3 is accounted for, He isnt in Part 5, Part 6 is is shown at the end to be still alive)
• Part 7
• Probably part 8 (though considering he comes back with no explanation unlike the others this is an arkward section)
• JGTH (Explosion and the final hell death)
• Jason X (Both with being blown apart and falling into the atnosphere)

So maybe (taking times and dates from timelines) both the characters could hold multiple deaths. Jamesbuc

I See what you mean about as far as fancruft. At the moment I think the Freddy/Jason deaths could be placed. (aka Freddy's Real Life deaths and Jasons multiple deaths (as explained above). Im not sure that saying Jason didnt die until part 4 is fancruft though. The talk in ther various films about that Jason was still alive (and the fact that if he was dead how did he come back to life to start with?). Yeah it seems a bit silly now that im writing it but its still worth mention of the different times dates (or at least movies) Jamesbuc

Little Superman

Yes. External links generally do go at the bottom.. however in this case it is silly to put them all to the bottom as a sub-sectioned header is more appropriate, and it does not matter if it is wikia or not, you still (wiki)linked the header. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to show me a guideline stating "You _must_ put them at the bottom (* infinity)" thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"A full citation should then be added to the References section. Links not used as sources can be listed in the External links section:" - The links them selves are pretty much secondary sources.

Also please see WP:3RR. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You might be best reading that your self ;) "Try to avoid linking to multiple pages from the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site." thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely you tell a porky pie? You linked to a Wikia; A wikia is not the main article.. althoguh.. Yes! I do agree! We should give them each an episode article what a FANTASTIC idea! thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You had a vote :o! Surely you must know that a vote does not equal consensus? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Favor

WP:NOT#MIRROR helps validate your point. Also, I saw Casino Royale last night. Awesome movie! Now I can just take in all of the film's article without worry. I oughta be studying now (at the library with a billion other people), but it's hard to get focused wherever there's a computer and thus Wikipedia. :-P --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If the issue continues with the editor despite the appropriate citations of policies and previous censuses, feel free to tap me for support in the future. Now I'm going to try to get back to studying for my networking final, haha. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 23:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I could use some input regarding The Fountain. Someone put the article up for review of its GA status. You can see the review at WP:GA/R#The Fountain, my rebuttal at Talk:The Fountain, and my message to the nominator at User talk:Kessingler. I feel that I've addressed all the claims the nominator has made (especially the "unsourced" one, which blows my mind). Please offer your insights and any possible compromise as well. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha. A minute later, the reviewer drops his challenge. Impeccable timing! :) Thanks for the advice; I'll see if I can re-word the article even better according to your observations. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I tapped a couple of people who had voted against the FA nomination of Batman Begins, and I got a very useful response from Rossrs. He had a lot of good suggestions to make, and you can read them on my talk page. Don't worry, I responded to him and told him that credit couldn't be assigned solely to me, as others have contributed as well. Also, I think you need to section your "To Report Vandalism" section with one more pair of equal signs 'cause I think you mucked up our own talk page... :) —Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Production section just needs to link to the word "reboot" in some context, probably somewhere around the sentence, "Director Christopher Nolan stated his intention to reinvent the film franchise of Batman..." That way, the lead paragraph would be connected to a more full mention of the reboot within the article. I'll try to make more changes now, but finals week is now underway... got one tonight, two tomorrow, and two on Wednesday. Might be out of commission for a while. —Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

cleanups

I'll help from now on with the Spidey3 article. Let me know if theres somewhere ot begin. Thanks for this oppurtunity to help Bignole Boggydark 02:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Should I revert Boggydark's comment on the talk page about Sandman? It's not really contributive... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mind taking care of the new film poster and pointing the user to the discussion that we had regarding its replacement? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I try not to read stuff like that. I read about urethral probes one time, and I was disgusted the whole day as a result. I wonder what kind of reaction Wikipedia would get if ballbusting became a FA-class article and was a Featured Article of the Day. Supposedly no censorship, right? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So many projects I want to do... cleaning up Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, getting Batman Begins and The Fountain closer to FA-class, whipping Ghost Rider and Apocalypto into shape... I have no idea how I'm going to prioritize. What's your interest in The Detective, anyway? It's always nice to have a pet project. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the feeling about not wanting to spoil oneself; I want to mess with Children of Men, a sci-fi film coming out on Christmas that has a Plot section of an ungodly length. But not quite yet. What King book are you reading? I'm sort of a King fan, but I haven't read any non-academic literature in a while. Last King literature I read was The Dark Tower series, though I want to read it again — I kind of rushed through the last couple of books to finish it and didn't feel satisfied as a result. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Boggydark

I'm trying to get the discussion to take place at his user talk page instead of the article's talk page. Not sure what he's trying to say. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Meh. Good luck. I'm going to bed soon. I wonder if there'll be a lot of reverting to do in the morning. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

good luck on your finals. As I said on E's talkpage, I think Boggy's a troll. ThuranX 04:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

help me!

can you help Erik understand Im just trying to help. he hates me for being helpful and smartly with this! Boggydark 04:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The slip Im talking about comes from time away, and concern its going to happen because of these problems. I think you guys are on it,even if you don't like me. I'm trying hard here. But the editing is more important. I guess you see this based on your response, or not? Boggydark 11:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats not what Im saying. I dont worry about editing, just the article with the time it has. Couldnt be enough in my estimates. This could be a problem relating to the other articles. Boggydark 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pirates

I honestly don't know what should be done. Was there a specific title revealed on the Dead Man's Chest DVD? Surely it had a look at the upcoming sequel. This is ridiculous, anyway — being so uncertain over a friggin' apostrophe. I'd suggest that we maintain the status quo, since the poster has the apostrophe. Maybe someone will find a citation and challenge the title with it, and we'll go through the delightful page move again. I have no idea why it's not making its rounds domestically. IGN has the apostrophe, so does Box Office Mojo. Even ComingSoon.net had the apostrophe back in July. I have a feeling most sites don't have a clue, either... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything. I just set up a Google Alert for both "At World's End" and "At Worlds End", so hopefully something will come up, and we can make the changes accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)