User talk:Bignole/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Casino Royale 2006

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

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

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

I have begun copy editing -don't be alarmed by the number of edits -they are not major changes but polishing phrasing and making sentences flow. I have nearly finished the casting section and I have to admit it reads pretty well ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 13:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done exactly as you said anyway for the script It seemed the appropriate place to mention it briefly ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 13:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes I usually prefer I am so occupied with trying to reword it that I forgot about previewing it! Will do ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 13:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That fine -remember I haven't read it all through yet so I would have picked up on that afterwards. It is just general polish and increasing concisenesss e.g stage in the process of being taken down replace with dismantled etc and ridding of some short stubby sentences which affect the flow of the article ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 13:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortuntaely there are some notable faults with the release section. The paragraph North America in particular -3/4 of the section focuses on the UK and Russia and I do feel the film Happy feet it mentioned too many times even if it is appropriate to compare earnings to some degree. The reaction section needs rewriting into more concise sentences -there are far too many stubby sentences which are not professionally written. Also the the awards will need rewriting properly to intergrate the list in to the paragraphing coherently and logically. I have come as far as the top of reaction now I'll finish the rest later. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made considerable restructing to the release section often it repeated itself twice and was written in disorder. I have also restructured it clearly as North American, UK and Ireland and Worldwide. Reception will be next to copy edit ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 14:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Literature on film

I think I'm going to delay the GA/FA nominations for Fight Club until I finish my spring semester. During my research, I found a couple of books, "Rebels on the Backlot" and "What Just Happened?", that have some extra information about how production came to be. I've always wanted to improve the main Production section further, as the third paragraph about makeup and stuff seems rather trivial. I looked at some of the pages of these books via Google Books, and I found some more information about how the project took off. Apparently, Jim Uhls was writing the script (without the voiceover) with producer Ross Bell before Fincher came on board. There's also more information about the conflict between Mechanic and Murdoch starting before the film even came out. Anyway, the local library (university and town both) don't have either of these books, but my hometown does. So I figure in May, when I go home, I'll get these books and add the new, more relevant information. In the meantime, I'll continue re-shaping the awards, reception, and what-have-you. I've been trying to look up the overall DVD reception for Fight Club, but Billboard.biz requires subscription, bah. I've tried to use Access World News to find the information, but Billboard only reports weekly information. Fight Club was #1 in DVD sales the first week, but that's not very relevant, IMO. Most DVDs that come out of the gate tend to do reasonably well. I'm trying to find the long-term trend, basically. Anyway, I should stop researching this film -- I got three more exams to go, and Wikipedia is all too alluring. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried using Google Books at all? You can search for the series (and add specific keywords so you don't get literature about the superstition in general). Also, you could Google for literature pertaining to the series, then try to look it up on Google Books. That's sort of what I did; you'll be able to preview some pages to see if the material is worth picking up from the local library. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Is Crystal Lake Memories something you're aware of? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park FAC

I've nominated the article here; Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jurassic Park (film). I look forward to your feedback. Alientraveller 20:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale FAC

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

Listen, I don't know what you want. An exact number? Cause that's gonna be impossible. "Some" is as close as it's going to get. ColdFusion650 16:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

300

Hello, I'm curious where the basis for blocking Arcayne is? I didn't see a single warning on his talk page about coming close to a violation of the 3RR, and when I checked 300 I saw maybe 3 edits altogether on the main page with his name on it. Could you please show me where you are basing your decision?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted the evidence here. As for the warnings: he has been blocked (and then later unblocked) for violating the three-revert rule on the article. I warned him about the three-revert rule a couple days ago, but he removed the warning from his talk page, calling me a "stalking horse". -- tariqabjotu 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I took 300 (film) off my watchlist. I'm feeling nearly as irritated as the situation that took place at Children of Men. Look at Miskin's talk page; I explained to him my mild disgust over the continued debate over 300. From the sound of it, the template seems like a good idea. I've noticed a lot of inter-traffic on the talk pages of editors from 300 -- civility warnings, conflicting perspectives, etc. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

James Blond

I hate the website too but the massive protest of Craig and film must be at least referred to in the intro it can't be ignored however much I think those protesters are pathetic. We cite all the positive sources saying how successful the film etc - sources which also show negative views in this case an extensice campaign are not inappropraite I hope it tries to give a balanced view of the film. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have used the CNN profesional source for the James Blond part but I would also prefer not to elaborate too much on that dreadful craignotbond site. Can you bleeive that site still exists!! Who do they think is having the last laugh when the producers are about to make over $600 million!!!! If I don't site the website the boucott should still definately be nmentioned ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say "he was cited as" someelse did that. I didn't ven add it to the casting section somenone elese did ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool you've probably notcied the new summary of the title sequence which I thought would be useful the gun barrel image now is appropriate to go with it. I have also sorted out and filled in some of the redundant referencing changing several to professional sources such as The Guardian etc. Finally I would love to take a screenshot of the great Pinewood rig and tank using during filming from the DVD to show the structure and the baloons in the base - as the largest ever Bond rig and one of the largest ever an image of it particaulrly as it is discussed well in the article would be very helpful and look great I think ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 12:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK but will you please let me complete things first befire making comments - I have added several more sentences to the credit so the image is very apporpariate ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 12:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

I know you to be a fairly neutral editor who hasn't been involved at the RFC for usernames. Someone has asked for a neutral look at Byron Coley, contesting my claim that the part near the end about "an anomaly" is POV and weasel worded. Do you think you could drop by and give your opinion on the talk page? Thanks in advance. The Behnam 20:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The Behnam 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you had to get an argument with that troll. The Behnam 02:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Freeman

Yeah, I know this isn't usual of us to permit that kind of unconfirmed information through, but there haven't been any complaints. Probably would've been some if he wasn't there. I guess when we find out for sure, we can remove him or slap on a citation. Nice list, by the way! Getting into these lately, are ya? The coding must be fun. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Canceled Superman films and Fight Club in popular culture both got de-prodded on the. very. last. day. I really, really don't want to go through AfD discussions for these. Oh, well... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If Jameson does bring the symbiote in the film, I have the urge to go to all the dissenters' talk pages and say, "I told you so." The temptation is incredible and would be well worth the defense we've been putting up. Also, I noticed on IMDb that Daniel Gillies is listed in the cast? Not that I'm trusting IMDb, but it's getting pretty close to the release date, so the information may be increasingly accurate. If it's true, I'm not sure how John Jameson could fit in the film with the numerous villains and his apparent absence from any sort of love triangle. Of course, this is one fan's inference and certainly not an argument to present on the talk page. I was wondering, though, about the novelization and the storybook -- is it said why the symbiote lands in the park near Parker? It seems like a million in one chance for some crazy alien goo to land near a superhero. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying not to spoil myself with the film, either. Sort of the price that's paid for working on future film articles. It's weird, though -- before I started working on Wikipedia, I would find out about some film news on a website and come here to add it. Only, I'd find that it's already been added, and I would think, "Damn, they work fast." But now... I'm so far ahead of these folks now. :-D RSS feeds and Google News Alerts FTW. Speaking of which, I've revised my subpage of future film articles to be updated with IMDb links (mostly locked, though) and links to most of the films' source material. Metal Men is a new addition as well, and there's a new headline under Spider-Man 4 about Maguire leaning toward returning. Just giving you the heads-up on that. As for the symbiote issue, yeah, I plan to present the point that you mentioned, that it wasn't verifiably correct at the time. Imagine putting up with trashtalking on Wikipedia -- just how cool can any of us be? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We can request some help from others to increase the chances of a decent editor seeing the film and writing the plot for the article. We can also request semi-protection on top of that because there's bound to be vandalism -- this film's gonna be bigger than 300 (minus the controversy, thank God). As for Fight Club, I agree with you, I don't think that there is overwhelming evidence that the film is now universally acclaimed. The cult status fits, but the Total Film polls aren't enough. (Where was Fight Club in their 2005 poll, anyway?) I haven't really tried to mess with the lead, as I haven't fleshed out Themes and Reception completely yet -- kind of saving the lead for last. Obviously will be a while, since I want to include material from the books I found. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to create a guideline for when to start articles about future films, we could take this a step further and list what references would be acceptable or not. We could list examples of improper novelization/film pairing like Superman Returns and so forth. We could also list rumors from film sites that never panned out and back it with prose saying that there's no verifiable origin for that kind of information. And so forth. Just an idea for the guideline. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have one last exam to prepare for tomorrow night, though -- had one last night, so I slept in this morning. Gotta get on top of the material for this last one, though. Also, I don't know if this would be of any use, but a while ago, ThuranX, Ace, and I were collaborating on a project at User:ThuranX/FutureComicsFilmsPage. It's not quite like what we're planning here, as that one's more about structure, but maybe ideas can be drawn from it. And yeah, it'd be nice to have these kinds of guidelines to show new editors instead of repeating. Like when the meteorite information got re-added by someone new after I archived the talk page, I was thinking, "D'oh!" Had to make the arguments all over again. Anyway, about Metal Men, I've put most of these films' articles on my watchlist (as you can do that for uncreated articles). That's why I cleaned up the subpage this morning -- I came across Escape from New York (2009 film), which is way too pre-emptive. I've prodded it and will probably put it up for AfD if it's de-prodded. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The two interviews with the author of the novelization of Superman Returns, Marv Wolfman, could be implemented as sources to back us outside of Wikipedia policies in avoiding novelizations and similar sources as authoritatively speaking for the film's events. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I remember a while ago that I showed you an interview with a director about the lack of reliability with IMDb, and you responded, using a quote from the interview to reflect the absurdity of it. Do you remember what the context was? I can't find our discussion in my own archives. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind; I found it here. I was telling myself not to ask until I looked everywhere, but I didn't think I would come across it... oh, well, good to be wrong. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I dropped the information off at the subpage project. I should be studying, yeah... I had a review session today, and the exam isn't going to be pretty. I was thinking about getting out of this house to study at Barnes & Noble, but the wiki-nerd in me began contemplating checking out the novelization for Spider-Man 3 while I was there. So, eh. I need to get away from the Internets for a while. What level of sign are you at? I'm starting an ASL Club next year, but we're letting people know about it now, 'cause there's a big waitlist for the courses here at my school. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The people taking the ASL courses here at my university are usually doing it to meet the foreign language requirement. The weird thing is, though, the business school that I attend here has a separate foreign language requirement, which excludes ASL as an option. It's too bad, but I can see why -- it's not exactly part of the business world like actual foreign languages would be. Anyway, from my talks with the ASL professors and proficient students, many students in the class take ASL because it seems like an "easy" choice compared to the other languages. They still struggle, anyway, 'cause I think it's a language that's even less visible outside the classroom than German or Spanish or what-have-you. The different projection (physical gestures instead of auditory) probably doesn't help, either. Good luck on your exam! I do believe I'm gonna make my escape now. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Spidey 3

I asked for independent opinions here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Spider-Man 3 plot dispute. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the overhaul? The great thing about Wikipedia is that the major films' articles will show up in search engines' top ten results, so we're a better source of information (in one place, that is) than anywhere on the Web. I have to wonder if the fact that we've been pretty comprehensive has reduced the number of anonymous edits adding miscellaneous information. I'm sure the lack of a Trivia section helps that, too. There are probably people who come here, though, and wish there was a Trivia section to read about little things instead of the entire production of the film. That's why we have IMDb! :-D —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I was actually looking at that passage the other day and thinking about how I haven't really heard anything about the budget other than the fact that it was over $200 million. I keep my ear pretty close to the ground in regard to SM3 news, and I haven't heard any specifics about the budget. I'll dig around, though, and see if there are citations that more directly mention the budget. I'm not crazy about using The-Numbers.com -- sort of feels like citing IMDb for budget info. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"'Spider-Man 3,' due out in May, has a reported budget of $250 million; it's rumored to be even higher."[1] It's from Oct. 2006, though... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Variety article says "reported", which is the same word used in the SM3 article. Sometimes Variety adds information based on unofficial sources, I guess. No one's ever disputed the budget listed at the article to my knowledge, so there's probably not an alternate number out there. I guess we'll stick with this one until someone from the studio can provide the information directly. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, I would support it, but that particular article is somewhat shoddy shape. :-P I guess I feel that it would be better controlled at Spider-Man 3 in the meantime -- I have this theory kicking around in the back of my head that the more filled out an article is, the less chances there are of editors feeling like they want to contribute something (especially with the trivia section purged). Lemme take a look at the film series article and get back to you. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you link me to the film series article? I'm not sure where it is... clearly it hasn't been implemented enough... haha. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was typing Spider-Man (film series) and was confused why I didn't get there. Probably could move it. Anyway, in regard to putting the sequel information in that article, I'm not sure. I guess part of my hesitation is that the "battlefield" will be extended to that article. We have a pretty tight setup for the Sequel section as it is, and it feels like editors may move in to fill the "gap" with uncited edits even if the sequel information is just a link away at the film series article. Another reason that I hesitate is, well, that Spider-Man film series isn't in such great shape (pretty good, but not great). What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:SmallvilleSeason1fullcast.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SmallvilleSeason1fullcast.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShadowHalo 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

TV.com

As a member of said project...... I'd be interested to know where you pulled that from. User submitted sources do not meet the criteria as a secondary source. Matthew 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good lord. Firstly the person who added a star to the Smallville LOE is not an admin. Secondly your message doesn't make sense, where am I using IMDb "on all those individual episode pages" as a source? I don't believe I've ever done such a thing. TV.com has minimal editorial oversight (and is full of incorrect information), incorrect information can easily be submitted thus making it non-reliable. I see no reliable source (such as a press release) to confirm those are indeed the production codes and not something a fan made up. Matthew 21:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any intentions of going around creating a billion stubs - if I create an article I put a bit of effort into it and I also source, and prior to removing the TV.com source I did my self look for an adequate source but I came up with nothing. Please do not think I'm targeting the Smallville LOE (I'm a fan of it my self - you know, heh). My apologies if I've come across as rude to you, I'm letting personal stresses seep into my comments - sorry. Matthew 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Smallville

Ok. Nice to be helpful, then. Sorry about my english. --Kal-El^{post here!} 16:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino

No, unfortunately I haven't seen it -- just another thing on my vast "to do" list that didn't get done. I'll see it eventually. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 20:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale plot

I've revisited the plot to review the flow and explanation gaps.

Generally, I agree with your comments on plot detail and length of section (thanks). So I've kept to a minimum this time, and to make it easy have summarized the edits on the talk page in a short list. It is still a reasonable length, but now fully explains the film. I also removed a couple of unnecessary details - figured that would be good practice too.

Please let me know your comments, but can we discuss rather than revert if you have concerns, since this edit looks good to me.

Many thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: FAC

Casino Royale or Jurassic Park? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Sorry, I'm enjoying a few Killian's, so it didn't quite click. I'll take a gander at the film article, though I may want to put in my final recommendation when I'm more clear-headed. Have a good holiday weekend? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never really followed Casino Royale that closely. The article seems to have undergone major changes since the nomination (or right before it, actually), so I didn't feel like keeping up with it. I guess I'm not sure if it's anything more than a glorified GA-class article at the moment; it doesn't scream "the best Wikipedia has to offer". Maybe it's just my stance; I'm more the kind to offer the content than to evaluate it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Valkyrie (film)

This is the project that Bryan Singer will apparently complete before he begins directing the sequel to Superman Returns. I've revised the article to be cited and up to date, so can you take a look and see if it's worth keeping as an individual film article? Director's attached, star's attached, and production is set for the summer. Barring any Halo incident, this seems fairly certain. Of course, the content is minimal enough at this time to be placed in Singer's article. Let me know what you think. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, it's really a judgmental call, and that's what makes dealing with articles on future films difficult. If there was an AfD discussion, I'm pretty positive that people would say "Keep" out of the blind assumption that it's certain that this film will get made. It's too difficult to objectively determine the likelihood of the film's production based on the facts available. I can say this, though, that it's more declared than Jurassic Park IV. If there's any sign of difficulties, we can redirect the content to the director's page. Also, I get the feeling that this film article will be hounded upon release just like 300 -- who knows how creative liberties of this historical plot will offend some people out there? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Braveheart

I was watching the director commentary of the movie this last weekend, and Mel Gibson had been talking about the jump-cut editing techniques employed in the film, as well as the use of the Irish Army in the battle scenes. He then made mention of the fact that Spielberg made use of both the effects as well as the Irish army as well, but didn't name the movie where this occurred. Further research indicates that it was Saving Private Ryan.
My question is this (and I pose it to Erik as well): how do I specify the referenced usage and avoid synthesis? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Civility tag

Actually, youmight want to do a temp post of it; the quoted text reveals some of the coding: "Please remain civil amongst each other for the general discussion of {{{1}}}." -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, folks are thinking I made it. lol -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Much better! María (habla conmigo) 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It says, 'kiss me, I'm friendly, and probably won't steal your wallet.' :D -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: MySpace

Meh, I guess that's a fallacy in the process. I suppose it may be best to use sources that point out information that surfaces from these MySpace blogs. ComingSoon.net and SuperHeroHype.com do that pretty frequently, and it helps give a "nod" toward the credibility of the information. Also, I just started a case competition for my business curriculum today, so I'm going to be extremely busy the next ten days. I'll probably do dab-editing wherever possible, and update from the RSS feeds, but I won't be able to monitor my watchlist or engage in discussions. So my so-called wikibreak templates really apply right now. Feel free to message me, but I'm probably gonna be seriously AWOL for a while. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an example to show what I'm talking about, in case you needed one for any reason. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Googoosh Question

A new source was just added recently, replacing the cn tag previously placed (the editor removed two tags but only cited one of them; I replaced the other tag). My question was that the source cited was the recording artist's self-named website. The citation (listed as #1) refers to the statement:

"In the 70s, she was considered the most celebrated recording artist in Iran."

As the article already has a peacok word tag, I am wary of citation inclusion that doesn't have stronger provenance, esp. as it sets a bad precedent in a BLP. Thoughts? -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliability

Than what is the point of Wikipedia's exsistence? It might as well be taken of the World Wide Web! User:Hpfan1

Chop Top

Abu just nominated Chop Top's image for deletion. Do you think its a lost case and I should just find a new one?--CyberGhostface 20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

300

I thought this was amusing. Speaking from personal gaming experience, the Oblivious should not wear costumes. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No one cares...

See? Isn't it frustrating when you work on something and then less than five minutes later....boom! "No one cares..." deleted. Nice. I would call that vandalism of my work. But, I come on YOUR talk page and there is all this diatribe. I guess I understand now. Wikipedia is an exclusive site. Only the select allowed to participate...I guess I still can...you want my money to help keep you running. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scoulld (talk • contribs) 04:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the above signed. WHY CAN'T YOU LEAVE US ALONE?! YOU HAVE NO POWER TO STOP ME AND YOU NEVER WILL. I CHOSE THE LIFE I LIVE, THE DECISIONS I MAKE, NOT YOU. EVER. Art1991 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for lead paragraph

I removed "Academy Award-nominated" from the first sentences of The Prestige and Pan's Labyrinth recently, explaining that the initial-sentence was biased toward the Oscars and that it was unclear about which nomination the film had received. I know you had to deal with the same issue on Superman Returns -- can you tell me the criteria that you presented for that? I'd like to make a stronger case, though it's hard to do so when I consider this common sense. Any specific terminology to use? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads-up; that makes sense. As you probably saw, JimDunning proposed an alternative that seems acceptable; I looked up the awards section of the IMDb page for The Prestige, and there's only three other, minor nominations that it's received. And who is the new joker that's trying to charge you a fee for your edits? Page history FTW, extortion FTL... another nice bit of news; I'm starting up an ASL Club for the fall, and I think I have over a hundred names and e-mail addresses for the mailing list. This club might be a pretty big deal... I have no idea how I'm gonna make sure both Level 1's and Level 4's have fun at the events. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Meh, look at this Google search. The "Academy Award nominated" mention is used a lot. Probably gonna work my way through these sometime. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that an indirect argument against mentioning the nomination would be considering all the trailers and TV spots that say, "Academy Award-nominated actor Robert De Niro" or someone of that caliber -- that's self-promotional in nature, so along that line of thinking, it would not be neutral to begin articles that way. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jason Voorhees wikia

No I don't have a hyperlink yet. I just filled out the information describing what the wiki will be used for and who will add to it, ect. I think you could be an aministrator for it, as well as me and some other people. I don't know the rules of Wikia very good, but it's on my watchlist, so I'll post on the Jason and Friday the 13th talk ASAP Aaron Pepin

Here you go. It's in a scratch pad format though. http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Friday_the_13th_Wiki Aaron Pepin

Smallville (TV series) on hold

Hello, and I am your GA reviewer. Please see the talk page for my suggestions. Hope it's not too much of a tall order. Alientraveller 19:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, referencing episodes, have I look at what I did for The Transformers (IDW Publishing) with issues. Alientraveller 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

New handle

Just to give you the heads-up, my handle is User:Erik now. My talk page, though, temporarily redirects to User talk:Erikster, as I've put in a request to move the page history from there to User talk:Erik. Guess I thought that the "-ster" seemed childish (heck, even signed my name saying "Erik" all this time). Making this more professional, I suppose. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that's Erik16. I was surprised myself that there was no user account named "Erik". Oh, well, I got dibs on originality. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I may sound stupid asking this, but what is a Bignole? Sounds like something out of The Hobbit. Alientraveller 21:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your handle is pretty good to carry around yourself as a nickname. I myself have way, too many usernames on various websites. Most of them variate around Gandalf or the Doctor. Alientraveller 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

666

Yikes! Yeah, do a dab edit so you can be "Neighbor of the Beast" instead. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, is it bad that my first thought was of Atticus Finch shooting you like a dog? Congrats, you're in the blue now, but I have to admit, I was surprised you had the most edits. I thought we'd all be evenly balanced... how long had you been editing SM3 before I came around in the middle of the summer? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

DVD_TV links

Good afternoon,

Thank you so much for your notice regarding the external links I added to some Wikipedia entries, and please know that I in no way intended to add promotional spam; I'm truly sorry if it came across that way. Simply, our DVD_TV blog contains information about the movie that - as a regular Wikipedia user - I thought was additive and would be of interest as an external link. We did a considerable amount of in-depth research, with professional sourcing, to develop the information on our entry, and I thought adding links might be helpful and relevant.

Would it be acceptable if I were to reduce the number of links to just one for a particular movie if I thought DVD_TV had something to add to the entry?

Thanks so much,

Rachel--DVD TV 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject James Bond

You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:TDK

No one has been giving vandalism warnings to the users committing the vandalism. Reverting and not reporting it is not the way it should be handled. The use of sockpuppets makes protection more reliable anyway. Leebo ^T/C 19:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll try and cool down. *Thinks f***ing w***ers in head* I don't why we should leave an article to the dogs though. Alientraveller 19:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I warned him in my way, as I don't have a link to templates for them. Alientraveller 19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Letting the vandalism stay on the page for 5 minutes while taking the proper steps to have the user blocked could prevent about 30 reversions. Protection doesn't mean the "vandals have won." Leebo ^T/C 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope no one is getting the wrong impression. I am not trying to give you guys a hard time; I'm trying to help by eliminating the chance for the user to vandalize. Yes, I'm an outside user who has not previously edited the page, but it's frustrating as a recent changes patroller to see vandals continue without anything but reverts in their way. I'm aware that you are not new users, and I apologize if I gave the impression that I was talking down to you about the issue. Leebo ^T/C 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon reviewing it, it looked like the cast dispute and spacing edits were from the same users, which is why I mentioned discussing it. I was talking to the vandal -- I should have been clearer. Leebo ^T/C 19:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Differences

Funny you say that -- I was just about to create the talk page for my film article guidelines subpage. :) Can you link me to the style guidelines used by WikiProject Books that explain how to handle the differences? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I probably won't initiate anything tonight... I've been at the library from morning to evening today and yesterday for the business case, and I don't have much energy for a wiki-debate. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:JP FAC

Ahaha, you said the "English" way. I laugh my head off when Yankies say that. To a more serious note, I guess Visitor's Center would be right being the film is American, although Hammond is a Brit, and there's even a bit in the behind-the-scenes book which set me off on the FA trail about the crew thinking Hammond has a devout background being a Brit, and therefore builds the Center like a Temple. But I'd think it's a bit excessive: people come to Jurassic Park wanting to know of the effects and the script.

Personally, it's my judgement to write the Production section like that, as I like it to be a history of the film's making. I find discussing it in sections hard given my brevity, and the only one I've done it for is The Lord of the Rings, because I've had to dig deep to find anything remotely like a timeline. Alientraveller 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see. A southerner isn't from New England. I wasn't offended or anything, nicknames sprout up all the time, it just made me laugh, because, you know, what are Americans, Aussies and Kiwis speaking then? Alientraveller 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahahaha, I didn't get that at all. Back on topic, I seriously am in a bizzare state of mind of which superheroes I really want to sink my teeth into for improving. Batman Begins and Spider-Man have shaped well, although the latter isn't GA, but Spider-Man 2 needs further whipping, and the X-Men articles need a lot of work. I think I'll work on Spidey 2, given the DVD has a magnificent documentary. Alientraveller 19:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Road trip

I'll be taking a road trip to NTID/RIT for a festival today (just finished my semester yesterday). I'll be back at my university Tuesday or Wednesday night, but in the meantime, I'll probably be more AWOL than my wikibreak template ever suggested before. Best of luck standing guard! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Spider-Man 3 plot

I caught your comment on your fears for how people will inflate the Spider-Man 3 plot, so I took the old synthesised version of the plot section and put it in my sandbox for eventual expansion and placement. So rather than wrestling with vandals, I guess we can write it ourselves privately if the article starts to fall apart. Oh, and it's my second sandbox btw. Alientraveller 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'm not of the crowd who's going on April 23. Is there ever a time when people are allowed to post the plot, given most people won't know until May 5 or something? Alientraveller 18:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Refs

I'd rather have a specific link at the touch of a user's mouse. Alientraveller 17:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Unmasked

Image:Leatherfacenomask1.PNG Image:Leatherfacenomask2.PNG Just wondering which pic you think would better serve the article more.--CyberGhostface 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the entire scene is shown in shadow so those are the clearest I could get of him.--CyberGhostface 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale (2006 film)

Thanks for this. I wasn't sure, so I went with the full term. —AldeBaer 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned Images

Hi Bignole. Good work on replacing the Smallville season 6 images with non-watermarked versions. In the future would you tag the old images with {{subst:orfud}}? This will place the image in the deletion queue because all unused fair use images are to be deleted. Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the ones I missed. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

YouTube

How is adding external links from YouTube to the King Kong (2005 film) article violating copyrights?? Scorpionman 21:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale (2006 film)

I'd sure like to know why you just removed my section on product placement on a whim. That was by no means original research. I know product placement in itself is not notable, the fact that Sony had taken over distribution duties from MGM and Sony's product placement is. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

YourGeekNews.com

Thanks for your help with Wiki policy and guidelines, Bignole. I'm still working to bring the YourGeekNews.com article into line with them. And I do apologize for deleting those tags... I didn't realize it was up to an editor to remove them... whoops. Let me know if this is in anyway an improper use of Talkpages, I read the guidelines and it seems to fit the bill. Any further guidance you can give me to improve the notability of the Your_Geek_News article would be greatly appreciated. Zymaseman 12:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Zymaseman (April 27 8:38am)

More than meets the eye

I replied on my talk page, but I didn't know if you were watching it, so I thought I'd repost here!
http://www.transformersmovie.com/intl/uk/ has the UK release date and
http://www.transformersmovie.com/intl/au/ has the Australian one. -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 15:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Only One

Actually it deals with primarily the films and then the series, as well as the cartoons, etc. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Final round

I've finally added the rest of the thematic information... what do you think? I felt that I had to quote more, 'cause I didn't know how else to rewrite some of what they said. I also used a quote box (stole the idea from Aaron Sorkin). I'm probably going to put it up for peer review, even though I still need to take a look at the two books to help shape the ongoings behind the scenes of the film's making. Any more advice that can be offered? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can rephrase the narrator/Marla paragraph. Also, I wasn't sure about the application of the spoiler tag, because it's kind of mentioned throughout the article that there is a twist involved, like in the detail about cinematography. Any idea how to address that sort of thing? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, feels like a challenge to do, since it's so easily established in my mind that the narrator = Tyler Durden. I'll see what I can do to tweak the wording in the course of the day... and don't get me started on Casino Royale. I think that there were too numerous changes to the film article before its nomination. I think it might be better not to have techniques like COTW teamwork right before doing that; should be reviewed by those who are pretty familiar with the material. When I put up Fight Club for FA status, I'll probably summon the film article editors that I know would impart a critical eye, like The Filmaker or Hal Raglan. Might even summon the editors who opposed the first FA nomination of Fight Club (speaking of which, look at its revision for August 8, 2006... blech). —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nixon's Enemies List

Hi,

Just a comment on your edit summary at Nixon's Enemies List, "original research unless you can prove that it was Nixon's list they were referring to": that's actually not what makes something original research. What you cited is indeed original research, because it doesn't cite a source for the claim; but "proving" the claim is irrelevant, since Wikipedia is a secondary source. (Is that clear at all?) Sorry if you already knew that, and just weren't expressing yourself well.

—Ruakh_TALK 05:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear. If you cannot prove that it was Nixon's list, then it means that you are drawing your own conclusion of that film's joke. That's original research. Maybe it would have been better if I said "until", instead of "unless".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, not really. One could potentially prove it by demonstrating how it ties into other things in the film, or noticing that there's a single frame with Nixon's head in there for no reason, or whatnot; but that would still be original research. For example, in math-related articles we don't grow our own proofs here (at least, in theory we don't); we rely on proofs from the mathematical literature (though we do clean them up for clarity and whatnot). By contrast, this statement could still be included, and simply attributed to a reputable source, even without being proven in any sense. Do you see what I'm saying? (By the way, feel free to reply here; I'm watching your talk-page for the moment.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you find some off beat "reliable source" that says "hey, that mean's Nixon's list", it's stil not reliable in the sense that it didn't come from the filmmakers. When I say "prove" I mean find a source that is attributed to the people that made the movie, because they are the only ones that can verify such a thing. Even a critic has not authority on what IS in a film, unless it's something that they literally say in the film. Right now, it's nothing more than someone connecting to things that look alike. Unlike in Math-related articles, we can't say 1+1=2, because in film articles, 1+1 could very well equal "15". Math has a logical foundation, that, unless you're trying to add some mathematical theory, one doesn't need to cite a simple math problem. For math, one person could interpret any other person's theories, or stat simply "John Doe was saying 45 X 2 = 90"; they wouldn't have to be connected to that problem, or John Doe for that matter. You cannot do that in articles of a different nature, like film articles. If you use a "reputable source", that isn't the makers of the film, then it would have to look something like "In Batman Returns, it appears as if the film makers were trying to allude to Nixon's enemy list by saying..." That would be verifiable with an outside, reputable source. This would satisfy your attributed source, withouth being proven, but it would also just open the door for people say "well, doesn't seem to be a real connection, just someone making an associated observation about the similarities between the two...not really that important".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ye Merry Men

I thought the threshold for creating a film article was having a director, a star, and a production start date. That's what was done for Valkyrie. Correct me if I was wrong; I thought that was what was decided? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How about we apply the same concept to Nottingham as with Valkyrie -- at the first sign of trouble, merge elsewhere? I suppose I feel somewhat lenient today. :-P I'll see if I can possibly merge the information to the director and actor's articles; it's kind of tricky, since redirects couldn't go anywhere specific. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not trying to go back on my mission. I've been cleaning up articles of films that will come out. I guess when I saw the new Nottingham headline today, I tracked for more and thought it was similar to Valkyrie, though I didn't consider the later production start. Probably went a little too far, but yeah, I'll watch over it. Right now, I'm cleaning up American Gangster -- production goes back to 2003, so considering the different directors and actors attached, I feel slightly guilty over creating Nottingham today. :-P Nice user page photo, by the way. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good thing we have page history for Wikipedia articles. I might take a similar vacation (or at least try glazing my eyes over any plot details), and in the next few days, we can revert to the last decent revision, then back to the existing one, and figure out what changes were worthwhile or not. Don't forget, the article's under semi-protection, so that should lessen the shockwave. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

So the three-day restriction no longer applies? Why was that changed? Ok, maybe it won't be as much of a cakewalk as I initially hoped... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Deaf

Hello Bignole,

You have been invited to join Wikiproject Deaf! A project commited to improving articles relating to sign language, deafness and deaf culture. We hope to see you soon! Felixboy 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Does whatever a spider can

Keep the costume section for me to retrieve in future. I'm on a roll after viewing some of 2's DVD documentary. Alientraveller 19:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It'd be neat though if you could craft a critical reaction section for me though. I find those so hard: this bloke felt this, and that bloke said that, and that guy critisised... Alientraveller 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What would you think of having two non-free images in the Plot section, and in the Production section, we'll have the Spider-Man punching through Sandman effect as well as a quote box, maybe for the Sandman quote by Church? I'm finding quote boxes to be a nice way to break up the monotony of nothing but paragraphs. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, why do you think that? Film articles of Featured status don't usually have an issue with no more than two non-free images in the Plot section, from what I've seen. Have things gotten more strict lately or something? Something like Panic Room would be problematic, I'm sure... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I can understand these wikihounds' perspectives (as they foam at the mouth at the sight of a new batch of non-free images to assault). Images tied to narrow paragraphs strikes me as more questionable than a couple of images to illustrate a film's plot. Seriously, film articles couldn't survive if we couldn't use non-free images -- what are we gonna have, the poster (maybe not even) and some lucky shot of some of the cast at a film festival? That would royally suck... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you keeping an eye on WikiCharts - Top 100? Spider-Man 3 is #6 on there right now... it's a really cool feeling to think that so many eyes are checking out the work that all of the diligent editors have done. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder; might need to watch ourselves in terms of 3RR when it comes to edits like the poster replacement. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiCharts shows SM3 at #3 now... I am really, really happy that the semi-protection is in place, I can't imagine what it would be like without... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm jealous. I checked for captioned showings this weekend, but there's nothing. It should be captioned by the following weekend -- if not, ah, I don't know what I'll do, haha. I've been averting my eyes whenever I look over the article, but I catch a handful of words here and there. Not enough to spoil meself, thankfully. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hope you enjoyed the show (as I figure you'll be back only after seeing it). Lemme know what you thought. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been lowering my expectations for this film ever since the first batch of negative reviews... it did sound like that there was an awful lot going on in the film; do you think they should've used that many villains? Just seems to me that Arad's desire to meet fanboyism with Venom wasn't the best cinematic idea, even though he'll probably be laughing all the way to the bank. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll find out for myself within the coming week. I wonder if At World's End will be similarly flawed (Dead's Man Chest, while I enjoyed it, had a hell of a lot of stuff going on), with more characters in addition to the ones from the second film. Hopefully the new franchise films like The Dark Knight and Iron Man (with its mentioned trilogy possibility) won't try to pack so much at once. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you used Linksearch? It brings up 11 hits for Hollywood Snitch, but that number is about to drop right after this post. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude... budget issue again. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Very nice! The work definitely pays off. I see you've been combating trivia sections, though... yeah, so much for that theory. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed... definitely new editors. At least no one's thrown a serious fit over not having a trivia section. When do you predict the hype would die down? By Shrek the Third or At World's End? We can keep an eye on the Top 100 list to see when the film article starts to drop... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did see that... that was a Libertarian tantrum. Well, I had a busy day today, but my pair of eyes should be available tomorrow. I'll take over the janitorial duties when I can in regard to that article. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

JSTOR?

Did you mention at one point having access to JSTOR resources? I am trying to find an article, and not just an abstract. As I am no longer a college student, I thought I could impose upoin you for a bit of a favor. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably JSTOR. Sort of like the subscription-based databases I use to get news sometimes. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Another question: sometimes I cannot click on a link to view the actual source of a citation. Using CoM as an example, citations 5 and 11 do not offer linkage to the source material. Is this because they are offline sources, or is it a template thing? If the latter, why would anyone use it?Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I appreciate the quick response. I have a few Braveheart references which I cannot find direct text for online. After I am done with the production section, maybe I could trouble you to assist me in formatting the source? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a question

I know this is not a forum, and you can delete this and put your answer on my page. Who do you like better? Freddy or Jason? I like Jason alot more. And who do you like better, (Your choise between Freddy or Jason) and Michael Myers? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaron Pepin (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

List of Smallville episodes

Hi. Wikipedia:Non-free content has a policy section. Please see numbers three, five and eight. Also, note that "identification without critical commentary" is specifically forbidden, as is decorative use, as are galleries of unfree images. Please don't revert non-free media cleanup. Thanks for understanding. Jkelly 02:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, his tone is pleasant. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's possible to illustrate most, if any, TV shows with free images. It's like New York attractions are at the freest end of the spectrum, celebrities maybe somewhere in the middle, and films and TV shows at the most restricted end. You know they don't allow non-free images for Featured Articles of the Day on the front page anymore? There were actually alternative attempts to put up a picture of real Great Dane for when Scooby Doo was on the front page sometime in April. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Highlander (film)

As part of my schoolin', I am rying to figure out why the referenced piece of data is not showing up in the references section. Halp! Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For maintaining the web

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your stewardship of Spider-Man 3, ensuring its encyclopedic nature through your discussions, contributions, and anti-vandalism efforts. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, good sir. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, perfect lineup! —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrek 4

Check out that article and its page history. How do you think it should be handled? Seems really early, even by my Nottingham standards. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, it's here. There's a Shrek (series), and the present editor is amicable enough to merge information onto that article. Might be better to redirect than to have it repeatedly recreated and deleted. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to find an alternative image. I don't think it was exclusive to IGN, so I'll look for other sources that lack the watermark. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I'm fast. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He restarted it under the belief that the previous nomination was at fault with "missing info". It wasn't all the comments and reviews by respectable users are there- all that was removed was the suggestion over referencing which I removed on correcting it. Even this has now been restored. I'm tired of wasting my time and other peoples time who have bothered to review this ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

OK but I have the right to add the comments of people who have bothered to take the time to review it. You can't discredit those and ask them to do it again its such a waste of time when we could be improving other articles rather than debating someone where the overwhelming majority was in support. And why has the article changed? I have just looked through all the Bond films and over the last two weeks some of them are looking worse and its quite disappointing, that some of my efforts and of others are degrading rather than improving. I feel like I am wasting my time with these articles ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Transformers MPAA Rating

Hi there. I saw you removed an edit that mentioned the MPAA rating for the new Transformers flick, and you said that "we don't list MPAA ratings". I couldn't find any mention of that ruling anywhere - could you point me at the relevant page? I completely agree with you, by the way - if we include the MPAA rating we ought to include the BBFC rating, and so on - but I just wanted to be pointed at the page that says it! -- JediLofty ^{User | Talk} 10:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Crackdown over images

This is getting unnerving. Look at Talk:300 (film)#Removal of soundtrack image. The admin is actually presenting a case in which film posters may not even be justifiable for inclusion. This crackdown is starting to infringe on the ability to appropriately illustrate the different aspects of cinema. Film articles are pretty much the final frontier in terms of non-free images, so I'm not sure if I would enjoy being an editor under these abruptly stringent standards. I've always done my best to assure that the images tie in with the content like we've attempted at Spider-Man 3, but the extremely non-lenient reasoning of requiring a specific description of the non-free image in question would deprive the majority of film articles of any visual assistance, especially films that do not have a great deal of scene-specific critical commentary. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The image in question is admittedly weak, but the notion of his argument, especially following the crackdown on episode lists, is of concern to me. Even this editor made a cautionary comment when he reverted Arcayne's reinstatement of the soundtrack image. I'm concerned about giving leeway to these wikihounds who are sniffing out targets. Their methodology strikes me as disruptive, especially with an admin like him willing to bypass discussion for consensus with a prompt deletion. Hell, maybe I'm being alarmist over all this, but the events on Wikipedia don't seem to have unfolded so nicely in recent memory... —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He's saying that the image itself should be described with text in order to warrant its inclusion. Basically, a more direct connection between the content and the image than what we've established at Spider-Man 3. He said that he planned to delete it anyway within the next day or two, efficiently taking victory in his own hands with the tools available to him. Like I've said, I don't disagree with the image has a weak basis for being included, but I guess it's the future implication of this act that concerns me. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably going to be AWOL today; I go home from school, so I still have packing to get done. These two disputes (the soundtrack image and the sequel trilogy AfD) are just going to keep me too occupied to accomplish that if I want to get home at a reasonable hour. I'm sure that I'll undoubtedly pop up with sporadic edits before I pack my computer and leave, but you get the idea of my intent. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As Erik is probably packing while I write this, I am posting it here, knowing he will read it. I don't think he is being alarmist. The image was initially removed by another edior (an admin, it would appear), and when it was reinstated, it was then deleted by FutPerf before he made any comment in Discussion. This means, that his mind was made up before he ever posted to the Discussion page. And to also clarify, I perhaps wasn't addressing the substance of the issue of the removal as much I was addressing FutPerf's un-admin-like behavior. Perhaps the nuts and bolts of the argument should be brought up or revisited there at AN/I. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I hope you noticed which of our editors were strangely silent during this entire discussion... Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never done an IfD before,and am concerned that I might cock it up. I've been to the page, cut I don't see it listed yet. Maybe you could do it? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I am willing to renege on this situation if the admin does not mean to challenge images, such as film posters and album covers, that identify the subject of the article itself. I was concerned with his implication that there were issues with non-free images, even when they identify the article's subject, if they lack specific "critical commentary" toward its design. That's really why I'm putting up this defense -- so it does not lead to images like film posters being challenged where they have not before. If I was the sole author of 300 (film), I wouldn't have included the soundtrack image myself. Like I said before, I'm concerned about giving leeway. However, if the admin accepts that film posters are acceptable for the respective film articles and soundtrack covers are acceptable for the respective soundtrack articles, I would be fine with the 300 soundtrack image's removal. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See, aside fromthe admin's behavior, it sunk in a bit later that if there is give on this, how long before people use this as a means to revert posters and the like? I think it's a slippery slope,and the guarantee of just one admin that (s)he won't remove the article's other images if we give on this seems like appeasment, and short sighted appeasement at that. He's only one admin. Addressing this concern in a larger venue seems to be the wiser path. After all this guy is one of those 'wild hair' admins like Sidaway (with his one-man crusade to remove fancy sigs and whatnot). Looking at his page, he's going to flame out soon enough without any input on our parts, so focusing our attention on him is going to get us nowhere. This image in itself is a smaller concern, but rockslides happen from one pebble starting the flow. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The admin's answer was disappointing; I had really hoped that he was not implying that kind of abuse. I've initiated a discussion here based on the defense that #8 of the criteria, Significance, applies to poster images in identifying the subject of the article. If similar answers to the admin's are received, I'll be informing WikiProject Films of the situation. This is a bit more dire than not having an image to go with a Featured Article of the Day. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)