Mike Tompsonn

Welcome!

Hello, Mike Tompsonn! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

The Internet

Hi Mike. I take exception to your claim that the internet didn't exist 20 years ago. I believe I had a 300 baud modem and connected to various servers... :) Keep your head high and remember that all FAC reviewers are offering their advice to improve the article and get the best possible result. You're doing great for your first effort out there. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to second Andy's words. It's nice to see a nominator, especially a first-timer, take so much constructive criticism and yet maintain an overwhelmingly positive attitude throughout the FAC. I hope that you manage to find the information you need to improve the article and eventually bring it up to FA status. Good luck! Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie

Hey Mike, Great job with the Rookie Page! You are right about the plot, so feel free to remove those categories, but IMDb should not be used for genre cats. You have to keep it specific: some films are way over categorized on IMDb, such as The Host. It's best to keep it simple. I'd say keep it to allmovie's for now. What do you think? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I feel that the film belongs in those categories. Sometimes, the genre of "Thriller" is used for Horror type films. I'll take that one out. But the Drama category, I feel we should leave. It is a police drama. I'll make the changes now. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We already have the genre Police Detective films though. It doesn't really belong next too other drama films listed here. nor does it here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so which one should I take out? 1990s Drama films or Police Detective films? Mike Tompsonn (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.130.66 (talk)

I'd keep Police Detective, and remove drama personally. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove the 1990s Drama Category. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Good! ... It might not be Oscar quality, but I think it deserves more recognition than what it typically gets. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rookie

Hi. I see that you're new are working on The Rookie. I suggest that you read WP:MOSFILM and WP:FILM for the basic guidelines on how film articles should look. There's no need to edit war, please discuss on the talk page if you have an issue. Thanks. —Mike Allen 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mike. I'm here to work with everyone. I'm not trying to start an edit war with you. However, I do disagree with some of your changes. Certain edits you've made are fine. However, as an example, there was no need to remove that first sentence from the critics section and replace it with a redundant worded piece. And the lead section, I can re-add the other part not having to do with the plot. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How it was worded was fine. You could probably remove the word "film" in front of critics altogether. Adding "noted" doesn't make it sound better. What other edits do you mean in the lead? The film year is is usually not linked. I don't see many articles that also list "and produced by...", but I added it back I think it's as important as who directed and wrote it. Also, if you didn't know you can use a variety of citation templates when citing sources, which may make it easier for you. Happy edits. —Mike Allen 05:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike, forget the word "noted". I tried to improve a redundant worded sentence that You inserted in. But I later corrected that. As far as the lead is concerned, I misspoke. You put in the parts that were not related to the plot. I originally thought you took them out. I don't have a problem with the de-linking of the year 1990. Anyhow, the year is linked in the box office section. The Citation templates are fine. And thanks for putting back the producers in the lead section. Mike Tompsonn (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry...what? What parts did I "add" to the lead? I only removed unnecessary parts, read the edit summary again, please. Also, "The film received mostly negative reviews from critics." sounds a lot better than "Reaction to the film was generally negative in nature." Thank you. —Mike Allen 06:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)