User talk:The Filmaker/Archive2

Revenge of the Sith

Please don't revert changes for no good reason. If you knew enough about filmmaking to make an educated edit, then you'd know that there are only 2,500 shots total in almost any movie out there, short of something that's about four hours long. So the information previously entered on the ROTS page, like so much on Wikipedia, is totally wrong -- there aren't "over 3,500 effects shots" in ROTS because there aren't even close to that many total shots at all! There are exactly 2,151 and this is well documented, well known information. There is only ONE "Making Of" book. The point of Wikipedia as you well know is for people who have knowledge and information to contribute and make it better and more accurate. I'm writing a book on the subject, I've done my research, so if the citation is not proper or correct, then fix it! The lazy way is to revert a good change because the citation is not perfect (even though I did put it there), but the way to do it that benefits everyone is to fix the citation to your liking! Thanks.

Ep iv

Today We sat down to copedit it for you, and I dropped my cup of tea on the keyboard. I've only just got a new one, so I haven't done it yet. I have school tomorrow, so I must sleep now. The article will be done within a week, but most likely within four days (I hope). Sorry about that. The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 11:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Producers (2005 film)

In the 2005 film version of The Producers, although it takes place in the 1950s, please put the year they said in the film it takes place. PJ Pete

Thanks

Thanks again for expressing your free rights to alter the Public Access Television article's discussion page. Yet, you cease to amaze me. You're so bent on trying to burn me. You think I made a mistake and your God's gift to humanity to make sure that people know my efforts in getting the article GA and FA failed. And not only failed, but you relish pointing out that I failed miserably. You're entitled to your opinion but way to go on supporting freedom of speech. I hope you remember this the day whoever takes freedom away from us and you're no longer able to watch Star Wars again. Your Brother in Christ, DavidWJohnson 13:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Empire

Well, I kinda jumped the gun, and re-vamped both the plot summary and the cast section ages ago, so I've kinda given all I've got. :( But good luck, and do a damn good job...it's my #1 film of all time. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 01:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Believe it or not, I have a short break before exams at the end of this week. I will do ANH then, or so help me god I'll go on forced WikiBreak!! The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 04:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep sounds good. Then toward the later half of November - if you have compiled all the information - I'll be able to copyedit ep 5 + 6 as well. The Duke of Copyeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 22:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Buffy article

Hiya

Being a fan of the works of Joss Whedon, I first noticed your work through Serenity, and then your amazing work on the Star Wars film articles. I have recently been working on Buffy the Vampire Slayer which has only just been judged as 'featured', but it really could benefit from a copyedit from a professional editor. I was wondering if you would be interested in improving the language of Buffy the Vampire Slayer by giving it a copyedit so that it genuinely deserves the featured star. Don't worry if you're too busy. Thanks - Paxomen 21:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

This is a good review

Hmm

I'm in a little bit of a pickle right now, but I'll see what I can do before FA. It shouldn't need too much at all. — Deckiller 22:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Apparently the link that brought me to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope was aimed at a specific old version ... and I'm either sleep deprived or going prematurely senile for not noticing a warning to that effect when I hit edit ... :( ... As it turns out most of what I actually (intended) to change was already done anyway. Except "Princess Leia, leader of the Rebel Alliance" ... really should be "Princess Leia, a leader of the Rebel Alliance".--Invisifan 21:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Memento trivia

Hi, I noticed you removed a bunch of entries from the Trivia section of Memento - I found some of those items very interesting and classic 'trivia'. I appreciate it may be tricky to draw the line at what is encyclopedic, but I don't see the items removed being more or less than the items remaining. What are your thoughts? --Mortice 22:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Apology for missing Pilot (House episode) copvio

Hey,

I just wanted to apologize for missing that there were still pieces of copyvio material in Pilot (House episode). There is a significant amount of new material, but Rob's right: There are significant parts remaining. It's really unfortunate that it went undetected for so long. I already speedied another copyvio at Autopsy (House episode), and I asked Rob, who's got more experience in these matters, to look at other cases. We need to weed these out ASAP so that we don't have another situation with a bnch of wasted effort being detected way down the line. — TKD::Talk 07:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied there. I find the claim that the reference itself is invalidly a bit tenuous, in my opinion, but I did point out one problem in that paragraph.

As for Pilot (House), see what I wrote at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Other. I hate to say it, but you'll probably need to write up the plot summary from scratch and rewrite the problem areas that I've noted. Ask Robth whether he sees anything else other than what I've already noted, since he works heavily with copyvios. — TKD::Talk 04:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Batman Begins

I assume good faith in your edits to my contributions to Batman Begins. Much of what I added was incomplete, and I couldn't avoid leaving a mess after adding in a lot of detail last night. Some sections, such as character interpretations for Bruce Wayne and Alfred Pennyworth, were under-developed, and I had planned to expand on the interpretation of these characters in the film. I'd like to know why such interpretations, via primary sources, would not be notable? Furthermore, this article lacked a well-cited thematic scheme about why the film was made the way it was -- something I started by using an interview with Nolan and Goyer. Do you have any suggestions about how to go about this? I only got to around February or March 2004 in the links that I pulled off movie news archives and organized chronologically, so there's a lot more in store. I wanted to implement some of the material right off the bat so I could show that I was serious about the suggestions I made on the talk page. Let me know if you have any ideas about how I can go about improving this particular article, because I have a bit of citable content at hand. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 03:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I generally work on upcoming film articles, so this is my first major approach (other than general reverts and copy-edits) to an article of a completed film. I had always found it kind of amusing that the sequel for Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, had around five times as many citations as its predecessor. I plan to keep The Dark Knight clear of uncited information, but obviously a status can't be attached to it as the film doesn't come out until June 2008. So in the meantime, I guess I figured I'd try to bring Batman Begins up to par. I've been looking at featured-status film articles, including the Star Wars ones you worked on, to get an idea of how to make the best possible film article. I'm just trying to envision the layout in my head, especially when it comes to sectioning -- still trying to figure out stuff like how I can set up the Batmobile section better and the Batsuit section I plan to add. I'll continue to edit this article over the weekend (if I have time, since it's the weekend), so if you notice anything that to which you want to make a suggestion, feel free to drop a line on the Batman Begins talk page or my user talk page. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Plot section was tagged as messy and then recently revised by another user. Does the Plot section seem better now, and what suggestions would you make rewriting it in any way? Also, feedback on other parts such as the new Design section would be appreciated. I hope to expand the Production section over the weekend. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 18:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion about toning down spoilers in the Cast section. It makes sense to do that, especially to mask the roles of Liam Neeson and Ken Watanabe. Is the film article really ready to have GA status, though? I guess I still feel that the Production section is underwhelming (the production notes are chockful of information, just haven't gotten around to drawing from them yet). I've been busy with The Fountain, since it was the film article that got me editing on Wikipedia in the first place, and I felt the obligation to finish the job for the film's release this coming 22nd. I've avoided sectioning this time for that particular film article, and it seems to work better. I just tended to section a lot with stuff in film articles like Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight because the information is so specific and detached from each other due to the secrecy of the productions, so it's hard to tie everything together. Anyway, how does the GA nominee process work? Are there further changes requested to be made, then when Batman Begins editors follow through with the changes, the article's approved by other editors? --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the Sequel section. I guess the habit came from contributing to the current Sequel section at Spider-Man 3, for which there isn't an article yet. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 19:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

FA layout recommendations

Hello there. I greatly admire your work on the Star Wars series and I'm currently trying to bring The Lord of the Rings up to the same level. Just one thing really: your Production sections often tend to feel small. How much should I really write on about on set stuff such about accidents, locations filmed or the weather? Don't tell me it's because the prequels were mostly done on a greenscreen. Come down to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King to look at my work so far. Wiki-newbie 15:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

New queries

Hello again. I got ROTK up to GA and am currently working on The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and I'm thinking of shaping it into being very different. I have some questions:

1. Would it better to take information from a Design section and respin it into a 'Cultural references' section for ROTK?
2. How would TTT look if I made the article focus on different areas of the film? ie. an entire section on Helm's Deep from script to film?

Wiki-newbie 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation of plot

No, however, Raul654 did make a statement in an FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/V for Vendetta (film)): "No, the purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary." However, this would apply only to uncontroversial descriptive claims about the plot. Any interpretation of the events would require some secondary reference. — TKD::Talk 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars

No problem. No, you're not being a bother. — TKD::Talk 03:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

my last message

Just want the filmmaker to know I left my last message to him on the Star Wars discussion page which has been transferred to archive 4 of the talk page. You dont have to respond if you dont want to but you should still read the message.No dont worry its not personal,just an explanation for why i have disagreed with you all this time.

Thankyou

George W. Bush trivia section

Hi! I understand where you're coming from. But the guideline doesn't say to just throw out the trivia section; it says to work towards integrating the facts into the article. Towards that goal, I've added a discussion area at Talk:George W. Bush#Trivia. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I really dont care

No film maker I really dont care,why else you think I stopped editing your articles?I just edited them in the first place out of respect to a newcomer to star wars or people who'd like to know more about the trilogy. As for the "prequels",you knew exactly what Im talking about,no Im not accusing you,no personal attacks.That Superman Returns thing was only an example-and you know that. I just though it would be respectful to fans of the original trilogy and a newcomer that the "prequels" are not considered as star wars-thats all!!! Just as the Han shoots first thing.

But you know what if wekipedia is not unreliable as many have said,why else do you think people are allowed to edit articles just like that or write about things that dont really matter.

And Ive got a good idea here-DONT respond to this because all it'll do is continue this uselees and boring debate.Its a waste of your time and my time.

You and I have thrown the ball back and forth for a week now non-stop and I have decided to put the ball down.

Really this is not worth your time.And worry about what you write-it doesnt matter whather its true or not,since not every article written in history has carried facts. Good day.Nadirali 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

ANH

We might as well nominate it for FAC - the prose is better (albeit not perfect; we're going to need feedback from a larger group with strategic distance). — Deckiller 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we might have to wait another couple days; the bottom half still needs work. — Deckiller 17:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look, but I'm still finishing a copyedit request from about a week ago. I'll try to get to this around Thanksgiving. — TKD::Talk 02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We patched up the bottom half; now we just have to work at ironing out lingering issues that we find or people bring up. It's a large article, so it's certainly not 100 percent yet. But since we haven't had any prose objections yet, it's not a major issue. — Deckiller 01:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Clearly I didn't put enough effort into it. I'm sorry. — Deckiller 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Filmaker. My apologies for adding some drama to your FAC nomination for Star Wars. I certainly didn't start it: the idea that an experienced and usually critical user like Tony can whimsically (and "accidentally") throw around accusations about "blatant rule-breaking" and not be held accountable by anyone—well, it's not gonna happen under my watch. Good luck with your nomination! –Outriggr § 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

TPM

Hey, would you mind giving it a rework first? You wrote the article as a whole, so it might be best for you to take the first run. — Deckiller 19:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Fountain

This film article achieved GA status recently, but I'd like to continue expanding the content and improving its quality. What are the steps that you suggest in seeking out help via peer review and other methods? Your personal suggestions on improving the article would be appreciated as well! --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 00:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Empire Strikes Back article

Hello this is Nadirali.

I am messaging regarding a small error on the The Empire strikes back article.Do you want to fix it or would you like me to fix it for you?

RegardsNadirali 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

"It was re-released with changes to theaters in 1997, and this version was later released on VHS and Laserdisc, and finally on DVD in 2004."

Though it's a small and almost unnoticable error,it indicates that the 1997 special edition of EMpire was released on DVD.Lucasfilm's never released the 1997 editions on DVD as far as I know.The 2004 versions are really a seperate version all together. I just think the DVD refference to the 1997 version should be removed. Regards Nadirali 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

No problem.Always happy to help out.Nadirali 05:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

The Godfather characters

I weighed in. Merging into a new list article seems to be the best option, at least to me. Keep in mind that merging (or just redirecting) doesn't require an AfD. — TKD::Talk 09:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

S/he does have a point

S/he does have a point about that one line; there is no source to back it up (a citation would be required right after the comma), and it does seem a bit too general to be neutral. — Deckiller 03:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at both versions, I would say that you should probably start from the stable version, remove anything techincally unsourced, and add a very brief mention about George Lucas' response, but certainly not an entire paragraph or two to it. For the most part, the changes introduced are unhelpful, though. However, it's probabvly time to work towards a compromise. — TKD::Talk 02:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically, you're in violation of the 3RR, too. That said, I don't think a block is the best option here. Discussion is. You guys are trying to argue your points through edit summaries of reverts instead of on the talk page. As such, I've protected the article for now and will watch the talk page. — TKD::Talk 04:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring isn't really productive, either. I understand your points about the stability, but there's a reason that we don't (generally) protect featured articles, too. :) Exceptions to the 3RR are only very specific cases (like clear-cut vandalism), and this really wasn't one of them; it's more of a content dispute (yes, there are formatting issues, but those are more mechanical). I thought that temporary protection was a better solution than blocking in this case. If there's no further discussion on the talk page, I'll unprotect. Then again, maybe the holidays will cool things down a bit. :)

Anyway, full protection is usually used in cases like this to enforce a cool-down period and promote discussion. I've actually asked Deckiller if he thinks that there's a better idea to fairly handle the situation. — TKD::Talk 04:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've decided to unprotect for now. Because of previous heavy revert warring, though, it'd be justified to issue blocks before 3RR is hit if reversion continues. I'm hoping that the temporary protection has calmed things down. — TKD::Talk 20:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope...

In the spirit of good faith, and so as not to start a revert war, I am leaving an explanation here. I do not approve of the wording your edit promotes, as it just feels grammatically wrong to refer to the word jidaigeki as "it", rather than "which", in that context. Maintaining that article's featured status requires making sure it is well-written, which absolutely necessitates grammatical perfection, and your wording feels awkward. elvenscout742 09:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, since I'm editting it anyway, I'm going to completely restore my wording, but I would also accept which can be translated as... or which, when translated into English, means..., but the use of the word "translated" seems fairly irrelevant. elvenscout742 10:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR block on Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

To User:Venom-smasher and User:The Filmaker.

I have blocked both of you for 24 hours for breaking the three revert rule on the above page. Let me remind you first of all that breaking the three revert rule means making four 'reverts' - edits that remove the content of antoher editor - four or more times within 24 hours; see WP:3RR for the full details of the rule.

I could have protected the page in question instead, but I don't see why others should suffer for your repeated reversions. In blocking you, I want to hammer home that repeated reverting is not acceptable on Wikipedia. There are other ways of dealing with disputes or editors that you disagree with. Reverting only harms your own 'cause'.

When your ban ends, I encourage you both to work together and avoid reverts. Failure to do so will result in page protection and further bans. To create a better enyclopedia, we need to be collaborative. --Robdurbar 22:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, just to you Filmaker; given that you're obviously a valuable Wikipedian, I don't like banning you. However, I need to be fair and act equally towards both sides. Given your contributions to many quality articles, I hope this doesn't put you off editing on Wikipedia. --Robdurbar 22:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, I just wanted to say that I was the one who filed the dual report on WP:AN3 for this. I didn't want to do it, but, short of protection, which I had already tried on another article, I didn't see a feasible and transparently fair solution. I know that you initially called me in to investigate, but when there's a full revert war ongoing, spilling over to multiple articles, and even in light of discussion attempts, there wasn't a whole lot that anyone could mediate. I know that you know what makes a featured article, but persistent reverts over content disputes are bad form. An FA isn't going to die while disputes get resolved or a stronger consensus of multiple editors develops on the talk page. Throughout, I did what I thought was best, long-term, and I hope that you still have confidence in my judgment. I think the talk page showed that people agreed with your edits; this was a procedural block that doesn't imply anything about philosophy about article content. — TKD::Talk 23:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand where both of you are coming from. And I do not blame, nor do I hold a grudge against either of you. That being said, I disagree with my being blocked. I fully understand why you did what you did. But it's a perspective issue. Robdurbar blocked me for violating the 3RR on basis of the report filed by TKD on WP:AN3. But the situation is much more complicated than "he reverted more then three times". The reason I was blocked was because of violation of the 3RR on Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. However the situation is not simply encompassed by that one article. The problem began on the Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace where User:Venom-smasher began making changes to the article because he believed them to be POV, by deleting cited entries and replacing them with entries that were not cited that conformed to his own personal outlook on the reception to the film. From what I understand and from what a number of other experienced users understand, this new user understand the concept of what is POV and what is not. He at times gives the impression that he is either over analyzing every little detail or pushing his own personal POV. Myself and User:Deckiller (a veteran user, and admin) attempted to reason with him for 2 days. Over the course of the 2 days, he would simply engage in one-sided circular discussions in which it seemed he was not even reading our replies (you can view this at Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace). After one such attempt of mine at engaging in a discussion with him. He replied:

You leave me with no choice. You are just being stubborn and are clearly biased about this article for whatever reason. Maybe you are the one who made many of these edits. There are some serious mistakes in this article and I am not going to stand for it. - 24.148.141.38 20:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

After this it became clear that he was not interested in any discussion whatsoever. He simply was going to continuously revert or making the atrocious, unhelpful edits that completely defaced the article. Worse, he started making the same edits to the other two prequel films. They were most prominent on Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. After it became clear that he would not engage in an progressive, and adult discussion over what to do, I simply contacted TKD and Deckiller asking them to handle the situation. The discussion was over, there was no point because there never was a discussion in the first place. It was him presenting his opinion, me correcting him on his evidence, and him accusing me of pushing my own personal POV. As you can see, it began happening on Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith as well. I have been blocked for engaging in a bad form of problem solving. The issue is that he had a problem with the article, I disagreed and the way we both went about it was bad form. How should we have handled? Through discussion? Yes, and this is where we differ. I did attempt to engage in discussion as you can see with the talk pages for The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith. He would not oblige and would simply make unfounded changes and accusations on the character of other users. I can see why it would be easy to look at it as a simple edit war, because there was no discussion on the Attack of the Clones talk page on my part nor his. However, at this point I realized that no discussion would take place even if I had attempted one, I contacted the admin and asked them to reason with him. Meanwhile he was still defacing featured articles, I was reverting him because I was under the impression that he would be blocked soon because of his rude and obnoxious refusal to discuss the unhelpful changes he was making (and longer than 24 hours might I add). When I was reverting his edits on the Attack of the Clones page, I was reverting all of his edits. It was not just a petty dispute. It was part of the larger dispute that I had already attempted to discuss with him. I was reported for the one article that I did not discuss the changes with him on, however this case is the perfect of example of why we have human beings as admin and not BOTS running around dealing out blocks at the first flag. It's subjective in this case as I was aware that the discussion would not go anywhere. I am being blocked on a technicality, not because I did anything wrong. I am aware that some admin may prefer to leave me blocked as an example to other users, which is why I am not requesting an appeal. I am writing this to clarify to TKD, Deckiller, Robdurbar and anyone who might read about this in the future that I did not carelessly break the 3RR and that I contest the block that I was given. But let me reiterate after all of this that I fully understand the actions of the admin that I just mentioned and hold no grudge against them. Just a healthy disagreement. :) The Filmaker 01:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize if I am rather redundant, but this is too long for me to copyedit at the moment. :) The Filmaker 01:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your side. I took this into account. I just think the situation had degenerated to a low point. Stopping the revert cycle lets other editors get a chance to assess the situation (and possibly make edits :)).

I would say that you have a couple of choices if the dispute continues after the blocks expire:

• go to requests for page protection and have the pages protected in order to force discussion; and/or
• go to requests for comment and get more editors looking at the situation.

Other than excessive reverting, I don't think that anything that Venom-slasher has done really warrants a block for disruption yet. It's a content dispute, and we're really not that far along in the dispute resolution process. If an editor isn't discussing, then limiting your reverts while others get involved (contacting Deckiller and me was a good start, but consensus becomes more readily apparent with more people) makes it less of a two-person battle and allows a more grup-oriented consensus to form. — TKD::Talk 03:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So far the people who have defended the articles along with me are you, Deckiller and User:EVula. All three of you are admin. While you aren't infallible, it seems odd that Venom-slasher cannot draw a consensus from three administrators who agree that the articles are just fine. Not to mention the other users who have reverted his edits but have not posted on the talk page, and let's not forget that he happens to be disagreeing with whoever supported the vote to these articles becoming featured articles. But since we have four different people (three of which are admin), I'd consider it a group-effort at this point. How many people have to be involved to consider it a group-effort? The whole issue is that once the block expires, he will either give up (hopefully, but I doubt it) or he will keep making his changes without actually conversing in a discussion. In the meantime, the page will keep becoming protected and unprotected, people will constantly be reverting his edits, god help us if he creates a sockpuppet and eventually the article will be put for FAR because of it's lack stability. All while we're waiting for enough users to come along to agree with us, which they most likely will. The Filmaker 04:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It rarely happens like that. If he keeps on 'being disruptive' then he will end up being blocked. BTW, and I've not looked at the wider situation here, but the sentence: Although many saw the film as a marked improvement over "[[Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace|The Phantom Menace" does seem a bit biased if only supported by a 3% increase in ratings at Rotten Tomatoes. For one thing, it indicates a contemporary change in opinion, which RT clearly does not represent. And 'marked' has connotations of notably higher - a 3% increase in something is not necessairily noticeable. It does seem a legitimate grievance to me.

If you have a user who you think will not be willing to discuss, then reverting him is not the right way to go ahead, whether he is being disruptive or not. Two wrongs = a right? --Robdurbar 08:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole purpose of writing that long explanation was for that sentence right there. It's not that simple. He was defacing featured articles. Articles are viewed as being above in quality above most others. And I believed that he was going to blocked. He is obviously wrong in most respects. He is obviously not interested in discussing it. He is obviously just going to continue to revert war to the end. Therefore, he should obviously be blocked. What else was I supposed to do? Leave his atrocious edits up on featured articles that are supposed to be examples of what Wikipedia is striving for? The Filmaker 03:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

However, since I was gone all day, I missed the end of our blocks. He has already begun to make his horrible uncited POV changes again, mind you, without even bothering to post in the talk pages again. And so it begins again. Let's see if he'll bother to even respond to me in the talk pages. The Filmaker 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I just warned him regarding WP:NPA about his user page. — TKD::Talk 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) That was intended to be part of the warning. I clarified, although I'm not sure that the amplification was strictly necessary. — TKD::Talk 04:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you wanted to continue discussion: I know that you mean well for the article. But a revert war is... well... a revert war. I'm not saying that the end product, the encyclopedia, doesn't matter (it's paramount), but taking the high road makes it clearer to the uninitiated that you are doing your part to help to form a consensus. If discussion stagnates and there is still reverting ongoing, take it to WP:RFC (at this point, a topical RFC rather than a behavioral one). — TKD::Talk 05:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Little point regarding Pilot (House)

Maybe I'm losing memory (which would be sad at the ripe old age of 23), but I don't particularly remember copyediting that article. :) I do remember looking for (and apparently missing) copyright violations in the old version. Maybe you're thinking of another user, or were you thinking of that little copyright quandry? — TKD::Talk 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I can try, but it's doubtful that I can get to it until early next week, at least. I'm traveling to see family on Friday, and, from experience, doing more than trivial edits from their computer is painfully slow. — TKD::Talk 05:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way: Apparently there is hope that my mind is not prematurely aging. I checked the deleted history, and I don't have any edits. :) — TKD::Talk 05:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a big deal. The research was more for my own clarification. :) — TKD::Talk 05:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to improve Star Wars articles.

Hello.This is Nadirali.I'm messiging with a proposal to make a few improvements to the Star Wars articles.The reason is I find they are limited only to the films.Star Wars is actually a universe and the movies are just a small part of it.

I also believe the 2 trilogies should be seperated due to difference in vast timing,themes(the sole purpose of the prequels was really Anikin's story).

Another thing is,I know that you may not have created the science fantasy article or the word,the fact is that word does not belong in the English language. It's more of an oxymoron. I know a reference to a magazine has been posted,but how reliable is a magazine for a source?Many magazines make satirical stories of politicians.Anyone claiming the stories to be true could say "hey the magazine says it." If a dictionary can be used to define this word,then I guess it should be fine for the time being.

I think we should take this one step at a time and not discuss wheather it's SCi-fi or fantasy for now.However if you still belive it's a combination of sci-fi and fantasy,then I propose it be called science fiction/fantasy or science fiction and fantasy for the time being.

So to make this simpler,here are my proposals:

• A seperate article be made on the original trilogy.
• A seperate article on the prequel trilogy be made.
• A seperate article on the Star Wars universe in general.

Please think about it thanks.

Nadirali 07:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Preferred revision in an edit war

As far as I know, the only time that it's mentioned specifically in policy is that, when protecting a page, a neutral admin may, at discretion, revert to a version that was clearly before the dispute started. However, protection isn't an endorsement of the current version, anyway. — TKD::Talk 01:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pilot (house)

It's mostly just the medical wording and all that. — Deckiller 17:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're all set now. — Deckiller 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Thank you for your note -- unfortunately, you are not completely making sense. Yes: your initial edits were presumed to be rather hostile since you removed mine on what are rather wilful grounds; only later did you concede anything while interposing your, (still) grammatically incorrect, version/style unto it. That is why I am maintaining the text of my original edit, which is very clear about when the movie occurs -- a simple fact lost in your stated subtleties. And, for true parallelism with your stated intent, perhaps the ROTJ article should be revised to indicate that the movie takes place after 'macro' events in TESB, like a year after the Imperial occupation of Cloud City or the like.

I see you have much invested in these articles (so much so given your 3RR warnings above), but keep in mind that (1) there is no 'set' pattern to said articles; (2) you do not own them. If you wish to engage in constructive discourse and improving these article, please be more considerate and make sense in your edits and summaries hereafter. This will also go a long way to facilitating good faith and all that. I also apologise for any perceived hostility, but (as above) this was reactionary. I hope this helps and let me know if you've any questions. Psychlopaedist 22:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit. Note, though, the sentence is still grammatically incorrect; I will correct.

As for commentary regarding your editing behaviour, remember: it is you that laid the groundwork for any of my mis/perceptions about your editing behaviour. You removed (not copyedited) my editions with (IMO) a foolish edit summary, and I still question whether or not you understand that. You have since elaborated more about your rationale (not fully agreeable), but that's another topic. If you wish to garner respect from editors (which you didn't demonstrate initially), you must reciprocate. I can and will comment as needed, and you can assimilate it or not. Anyhow -- enough of this; good luck to you. Psychlopaedist 02:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)