User talk:Alientraveller/Archive 9

hey man

do you condede I was right about the beathed thing? is the edit war over? Was the info up to your standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.233.253 (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I got the same message, so I thought I'd let you know ;) BlackPearl14 04:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Hey man, take it as a compliment. Don't be all mushy on me princess.user talk:Wildroot|(Contact me)]] 11:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Spidey

We definitely could, since the other two films are GA and the film series page is GA. But, we may need to have more than just one article FA, we might need the majority of them to be FA. I don't know the requirements though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Today was the first time I've even heard of WP:FT. :-P Thanks for the learinin', AT. I feel like we're getting ahead of ourselves, though... why don't we finish up Batman Begins for Featured Article status first? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to focus on Spider-Man 3, I definitely recommend the making-of book. It is so loaded with information about production that it made my head hurt. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to snap images from the film, but for some reason it doesn't work. I have PowerDVD, but, unless there is something I have turn on/off, I cannot get a screencap from it. When I try, I just get a black image.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is to be comprehensive, and I can still access the page with relatively quick load time. ;) I don't what it is, but I think the newer the DVD the less likely it is that you can capture a screenshot. Though, there's probably some program that can do it, PowerDVD I don't believe is one of them, because you can find screenshots all over the web.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bats

Yeah, I'd say to attempt a summary. I'll take a look at it in-depth myself to see what could be used from there. I would suggest, though, to have a stand-alone Themes section -- for what Nolan intended, then what has been perceived by others. I suggest this because Nolan's quote from VFXWorld and his perspective about themes in that BOM interview wouldn't belong in a Reaction section. I think it's better roofed under Themes, both intended and unintended (in that order). What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• concept 1
• concept 2
• mold
• on set
• promo

Ok, what do you guys think of these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bignole (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Heroes Episodes

great link, I'll bring it to the project page. Actually, I'm not looking to keep or merge/redirect any or all of them, I simply wnat Our project to handle it internally if we can. I do not expect all of the episodes to survive as full articles; but do expect the premiere and finales, the five years ahead and the flashback episodes to survive easily. there's a LOT of material to use, and hopefully we can do so. Certainly the multiple articles in Empire and EW will help out. ThuranX 19:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Images

Very true; I agree that the new images work with the article a lot better than the previous set. I want to restore the DVD cover, though... there's a citation somewhere that talked about the packaging. I'll have to find it before I put in the cover. I asked the admin about the appropriateness of the image at Sunshine (2007 film)#Cast, and he didn't think it fit, so that would make something like the image at American Gangster#Production not workable, either. Also, he even said that he was one of the more lenient admins in terms of fair use, which is quite the terrifying thought. Now, I just need to find time to summarize the interpretations of Fight Club so I can put it up for the FAC process. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, but considering that admins have the power and we don't, I'm going to see what else could be implemented. I haven't seen Sunshine yet, and there's a few more headlines on the talk page to include. Perhaps I can find some appropriate screenshots like Fight Club. American Gangster is kind of difficult, though... it's a "conventional" film, so I doubt there's going to be anything seriously unique in its production design to warrant discussion. It'd probably be character-driven, and Washington and Crowe don't look much different than they do in person. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Potted Plant 3

Okay having watched Potter's 2 & 3 again, I definitly going to do 3. As, its a lot darker and cinematically different to the first two. So if you do in your travels find any basic production and cinematic style sources, and anything that compares it to the previous two films, then please wing them my way. Gran² 18:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well, I've started a lot of things (Star Wars cast for example) but I hadn't actually fully decided yet... Gran² 19:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

spiderman 3

The reason i made the home section is because it took to long for me to find it myself.--Playstationdude 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand about the image. I will instead put the complete trilogy info and pic up.--Playstationdude 20:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't even know that page existed.--Playstationdude 20:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Cloverfield

I'm not very good with articles, I admit, but the evidence for Tagruato being connected to Slusho! and Cloverfield cannot be ignored. Slusho! has been put in because a major news site referenced it. Tagruato was found after that chef pic on the 1 18 08 website was put up. Before it went up the site could not be found. Tagruato links to Slusho!, and vice versa. I do not wish to vandalise, I only wish to present what I know is right. If you can help me out, I'd appreciate it. --General Holtarna 13:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If I were to rephrase it, cite the connection, and remove the gamejack comment, would it be ok? --General Holtarna 13:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

FF

Galactus wasn't that bad. It was the Surfer's film, not Galactus's, and it's hard to make a character like Galactus work on the big screen (I like him, but he is ludicrous, let's face it). I think the Surfer movie might be pushing their luck... Elektra Natchios was cool in Daredevil, but her own movie looks terrible (I haven't bothered to see it). I'm not too excited about Magneto either. Just because a character works, doesn't mean they need their own film. I was surprised at how genuinely funny Invisible Woman was in FF2; I was even laughing with her some of the time, which was a change. The scene where she's on fire is hilarious. So, who do you want to be the big bad of FF3? I'm pushing for Namor, but it seems unlikely, since he's getting his own film. Paul730 13:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have low expectations for a Surfer movie. As cool as he is in FF2, I ask myself "If they can barely adapt great characters like the FF, Hulk, and Daredevil into good movies, what chance do they have with someone like Surfer?" (who is far from the best Marvel character). The FF franchise kind of redeemed itself (at least in my eyes) with FF2, but they really seem to struggle turning these comics into films. My only hope is that they don't screw up the Avengers franchise. Hopefully since the characters are getting individual films, that'll make the Avengers movie a bit better, because the characters will be more developed. Oh, and I know zilch about Transformers so I didn't really understand that last sentence, lol. But Galactus did look cool in the Marvel video game. Paul730 14:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, because I'm more interested in the fictional characters than the people behind the scenes? :P I know some stuff about the current writers, and some of the old X-Writers (ie, Claremont), but not Marvel writers in general. Galactus might be cool if he was fully-realised, I'm just not really that bothered. I was happy with the cloud. Paul730 14:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think Doom was that bad in it. The whole "wanting to steal the Surfer's board" thing is from the comics isn't it? (I remember seeing it in the old cartoon) I dunno, the film wasn't perfect by a long shot but it was just such a vast improvement on the first one that I can't help but like it. I can see the third one being rubbish though, as I said, I can't see anyone except Namor being able to top Surfer. Paul730 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Evans and Chiklis are okay, I haven't been blown away by any of the cast TBH. I'd like to see more of an actual heroic side to Johnny, as opposed to just attention-seeking. I think the Thing should be a bit uglier - he looks too much like She-Thing. They revealed in the comics that his power is constantly evolving, so it would make sense continuity-wise if he got a bit more deformed. It might be quite cool if Doom was the Big Bad of FF3, he needs more time in the spotlight without other stories getting in the way. I like Julian Whatshisname but admittedly he isn't a very effective Doom. Not regal enough, as you said. It would be cool to have a showdown in Latveria, maybe base the film on Unthinkable which is my favoutite FF story (the one where Doom sends Franklin to hell). Paul730 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If they make an "X-Kids" movie, who would you like it to star? I'm sure Iceman, Kitty, Rogue, and Colossus will feature, but they're so bland in the movies I hope they beef up the cast a bit. Emma Frost is a must, it'd be cool to see a rivalry between her and Storm as the two mentors at the school. I'd love to see the current New X-Men, but they'll probably throw in a few New Mutants instead. Paul730 15:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

X-Men

A Cyclops and Emma relationship would be cool, and allow Cyclops to be something other than Wolverine's love rival. I think Wolverine's role should be played down, I'm kind of sick of him. What do you mean, a "younger" Emma? She's only 27 in the comics (if you believe her, lol). Do you think they should make another trilogy, focusing on Apocalypse? It'd be cool to have an Age of Apocalypse/Days of Future Past adaptation with time travel. I'd like to see Madrox again, maybe as an unwilling Horseman of Apocalypse or something? I love Madrox. Paul730 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If they made time travel somebody's powers as opposed to technology it might not seem ridiculous. Certainly no more ridiculous than weather manipulation etc. They could use Quicksilver, he's a time traveller now, and Callisto already filled the "super speedster" role, so no point in repeating it. Emma is brilliant, she's one of my favourite X-Men. Typical Emma quote;

Jean: I think this year's students are a terrific bunch.

Emma: Well, that's very civil of you Jean. Only you would use the words terrific bunch to dignify this horde of ghastly illiterates.

Lol, how can anyone not love that woman. :P Paul730 15:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why X-Men Origins: Wolverine is created? Announcement of a title and a release date doesn't equate certainty, and filming is not until December 2007. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey. Yeah, I'm largely happy with the cast list, I plan on supporting it. Just thought I'd bring up some questions first. I have no idea if Bishop has a time travelling friend... he's a nineties characters, which is not really my area of expertise. The only 90s X-book I've read is Mutant Genesis. This era. If he did though, that would be handy for a DoFP story. There are a few time travelling mutants, I think. Speaking of which, do you watch Heroes?  Paul  730 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Watchmen in the sense of superheroes being hunted down? Or just in the sense of superheroes in a real, political world? Yes, Hiro did make me think about how time travel doesn't have to be silly; that episode was very close to DoFP. Do you keep up-to-date with the X-Men comics? The current storyline seems very exciting (I'm waiting for the collection). Although I was a bit gutted to hear that one of my favourite characters was possibly killed off in today's issue. :(  Paul  730 22:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You like Civil War? :) I had a massive discussion with Bignole about that story... who's side are you on? I was surprised to find myself leaning towards pro-reg, but I think Iron Man's corruption would prevent me from actually fighting on that side, were I one of the characters. Red Hulk... I'm not a big Hulk fan, as I think I told you. I always wondered why he was green and not red though, red meaning anger and all that. Lol, forty years later and the penny drops for Marvel. ;) Green suits him better, though. If you're going to read Messiah, you should probably catch up with recent X-events. I heard it's very continuity heavy, since the books have been building to this since Decimation.  Paul  730 22:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

World War Hulk looked fun, I read a lot of summaries of the X-Men issue where he basically kicked the shit out the entire team, including the students. I'm glad Hulk's doing something these days, for such an A-list character he never seems to have much impact on the overall universe. No, you're not the only one who think's Astonishing is out of synch. Basically, Joss Whedon hates crossovers and refuses to acknowledge the other books. And because it's always so late all the time, the other books can't acknowledge it in case it causes a continuity error. Since House of M, all the other books ganied new direction and moved on without AXM, making it kind of pointless. Whedon's great at characterization, but the whole Breakworld story has no impact on anything. I think vol 3 and 4 of AXM are set after HoM, since the students at the mansion are ones who surived M-Day and Stryker's attack. Vol 3 and 4 might take place immediately before Messiah, because Shadowcat hasn't been seen in any of the Messiah previews and not everyone is coming back from Breakworld...  Paul  730 22:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think when Whedon leaves, Marvel is rebooting AXM as kind of a independant series that won't acknowledge the other titles, so new readers won't be confused by continuity or something. Basically what it is now, only deliberate this time. Apparently, after Messiah there's going to be a whole new status quo for the X-Men, and Marvel are going to cut down the books and make them more streamlined. That all sounds good to me. I'm just worried about who lives and who dies... Shadowcat is mysteriously MIA, Archangel is suddenly getting lots of attention (which might mean he's going to get the chop), and Hellion has been fatally stabbed (Nooooooooooooo!). Also, Layla Miller, another of my favourite characters, describes herself as an expendable pawn. I just hope that Cyclops, Emma, Madrox, and the New X-Men manage to pull through relatively unscathed. And why wasn't Kitty in the cartoon? I much prefer her to Jubilee. Not a Jubilee fan.

What I meant by Hulk not having much impact is that, while the other titles were getting big stories like Avengers Dissasembled and the X-Men Morrison Era, Hulk was just kind of going through the motions as far I as know. Since Planet Hulk, he seems to have more direction, which is good. Spider-Man hasn't been very good lately, I heard Marvel plan to retcon his entire marriage to MJ and the fans are raging.  Paul  730 23:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Future films

I've created a future film watchlist using THR's production listing. Gives us an idea of what exists and what doesn't. Some links are probably too vague (purposely so disambiguation links can be checked for). Feel free to make comments on the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hulk

can you please review my sandbox version of an improved, cited, Out of Universe based Hulk article? I have a couple bits after the refs section to finish integrating, but a review would be appreciated. link Thanks. ThuranX 20:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Howdy. I've done massive work refining it, and would like a few mroe reviews befoer i put it up... thanks! ThuranX 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a link in the Hulk talk; tomorrow night I expect to put it up, unless there's major objection. ThuranX 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer

I've finished adding the production section and I've nominated it for GAC status. There's still some stuff that needs to be done though, the plot needs a copyedit (if you'd like to take care of that, it'd be much appreciated), and there are some things for the reception status that are yet to be added. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox movie certificates

I'm considering Template:Infobox movie certificates for deletion. I've never seen the encyclopedic value in listing these certificates as part of a film article. It's been up for deletion before, and I was wondering if you saw any merits or flaws in this template. I'm formulating an argument for an eventual TFD, but I'd like to hear what you think about its usage. I'm asking because Pixelface inquired about my conduct in removing this template from Bee Movie, and I explained that some encyclopedic examples of rating information would be Live Free or Die Hard being rated PG-13 compared to its predecessors, the BBFC's rating treatment at Fight Club (film)#Release, or something like Disney's first PG-13 film being Pirates of the Caribbean (can't remember if this is true or not). Let me know your thoughts. I may bring up the matter on the WikiProject Films talk page to gauge the preferences of the community before proceeding with the TFD. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack Sparrow FAC

Heya, an article you contributed to extensively is being considered as a featured article candidate and is gaining a concensus of supports. If you wish to make a comment about the nomination, please feel free to do so--Hadseys 19:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

GACs

Hi, we have a few episode GACs that have been waiting for a while, so I was wondering if you could take a look at one or two of them. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism" Warning

Just wanted to tell you that I wasn't the only one who added in that "Abner Ravenwood" information to the Indiana Jones article — there were several folks who also tried adding it after it was revealed on AICN, which scarcely counts as "vandalism." --139.67.70.62 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EarlyGollum.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:EarlyGollum.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

I hate it when people ask me that question because I never know how to answer it. I have several favourites, Homer's Enemy, Cape Feare, Marge vs. the Monorail, Simpson Tide, You Only Move Twice, And Maggie Makes Three and several others. It's good to see you back and reviewin'. You picked a good time to because it looks like another FT drive has gained momentum so GA mania is back with a vengeance. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah welcome back, enjoy the holiday? Anyway, have you seen the Jack Sparrow FAC yet? Gran² 15:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully goning to see it tomorrow, well either that or Stardust, but I'd prefer to see Ratatouille though. Gran² 16:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, pal! I hope you enjoyed your time away and didn't have to clean up too much on Wikipedia coming back. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it definitely captures the spin-off feeling. No worries about Wolverine -- I've created duds myself, like Nottingham, which I userfied. Los Angeles Times reported a rapid rewrite for Wolverine before the strike, so hopefully there aren't any issues with it. The 2008 Hollywood strike is getting to be a big mess, forcing stuff like the JLA project into the pipeline. I've set up Google Alerts to see if I can clean up the aforementioned article; it'd be something of interest after the end of this month, I'm sure. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember what's supposed to happen -- from what I hear, it's the WGA rattling their sabers. There's a couple of other organizations talking about striking, but it's mainly WGA. Thus it seems like an issue of being able to hired screenwriters to write. The studios are basically stockpiling scripts to use when the screenwriters can be hired. I've no idea if Transformers 2 is at risk, but I'm just glad that films already in production (The Dark Knight, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, etc.) will come out without a problem. It's just afterward that would be problematic. By the way, I saw Downfall, which was a pretty decent inside look at the last days of Berlin and the breakdown of Hitler. Have you seen The Lives of Others, though? It's another German film, this time about when Germany was divided into East and West. It beat Pan's Labyrinth for Best Foreign Film last year, and seeing both, I understand the victory. These days, though, I'm binging on Jericho. I also met up with my parents last night (as we meet somewhere between our home and where my university is), and I got season 1 of Heroes from them. I just got done with midterms for the semester, so I plan to do some serious lounging and snacking. :) Which is what I'm going to do now, actually, with disc 4 of Jericho. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Post-credits scene films and Transformers (film)

Anon's are constantly adding Category:Post-credits scene films to the film - the cat is up for speedy here and possible salt. I've reverted twice already - don't want to face 3RR. master son^{T - C} 01:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Schindler's List

Hello I've made a few recent edits to Schindlers List and feel with a little work it could reach GA and with dedication, even FA. I am going to try to improve it as much as I can with the materials I have. I have decided not to try and get Spielbergs biography to GA, given that hes still doing so much! I thought Schindlers List, one of his finest works would merit at least a GA. Would you be interested in a joint mass improvement operation, working together to improve the article!? LordHarris 09:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Transformers

I'll see what I can do. It may not be till the weekend before I can sit down and listen to the commentary, since that usually takes longer than just viewing the film itself. Is there a place you'd like the information placed?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This may take longer than a day, because it's harder to write what he says without captioned commentary..and my hand needs a break from time to time.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, sometimes he talks about things that probably wouldn't be relevant to the article. They're interesting in regards to the film sometimes, but not always noteworthy. Also, in the beginning he was talking about his normal filming style--which didn't change for Transformers. I'm not even sure what from what I already got will be relevant, but I'm trying to take just about everything I can. I'm only about 25 minutes into the movie right now..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you listen to the commentary when the DVDs are released for Region 2--one is that I may miss something that you think is relevant. Two, there's a funny side story about Shia and the two junkyard dogs, which wouldn't really be relevant to the article but is certainly funny.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh of relief*. I finally got through the commentary--8 1/2 pages of legal pad, and I'm sure I still missed something...I was getting tired at the end--I'll try and get it on the talk page of your sandbox tomorrow...er, later today sometime, after I get some rest.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There ya go.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

He didn't specify, but I think he was saying that the portion of the scene where Optimus explains his intentions of destroying the All Spark was added to explain why Sam did what he did. I believe the initial portion of that scene, where Optimus scans the glasses for the coordinates to the All Spark location, was probably already there. But, again, he wasn't clear on how much was added, just that it was definitely Prime's explaination of his intentions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, congratulations. Sorry I wasn't much help in there. I had a bunch of people asking me to help review their FACs and I just haven't had the time to stop and read through entire articles. I don't think The Simpsons episode is going to make it this time around.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. He was talking about how they were trying to conserve digital shots in this movie--I think that's noted in the info I grabbed--so they wanted to put more emphasis on the digital faces in the next. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. I just hope the budget doesn't sky rocket for the next.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to see some Aerialbots, because I think it would be good to have some Autobot/Decepitcon dogfights. I want Megatron back, because it seemed like we just didn't get enough of him, and I'd like to see him actually leading the Decepticons in an organized attack.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you come to me awhile back requesting some specific images from Batman Begins, like I think one of them was the blue flower?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they could stand the test of time for critical commentary in a FAC, but if you got good info for them then I think I can get the images now. It wouldn't work on PowerDVD for me, but I have a new program that allowed me to do it on a movie that PowerDVD would not allow. So, I'm hoping it would work on Batman Begins, especially if I can get a better shot of the Batsuit for the design section.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm actually going to try and get a shot of the suit during production, instead of a film shot...as the production shots usually have better lighting and quality. But, that all depends on whether the program I have now will play the movie or not. About to find out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Didn't work. It wouldn't play the movie. Well, I read that PowerDVD 7 (which is not the version I have) can snap screenshots, so I'm going to try a free download to see if it will work. It could just be that my PowerDVD is an older version that cannot perform the functions that other people can with their newer versions.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. It looked so good. Apparently, the capture image is disabled with the "test" version. ----Checking something....---OK, now the movie is playing in my other program just fine. I got the blue flower now. You said the other was the vaporizer right?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The microwave emitter

The blue flower

If you think of something else, let me know.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

F13 franchise

LOL, thanks. I still have a lot more to add in the development, merchandise, box office (going to change it to "reception" and add a bit of critical reaction), and try and create a cultural significance section. Did you see the audio file?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was my first audio upload, I was quite proud of myself with that one. What do you mean, "write like [I] do"? Like, writing in different sections out of chronological order? I have to do it that way, or else I'll get bored. I get bored working on one article for too long (hence the multiple sandboxes on my user page), so I try and fight it by working on a section here, and then a section waaay over here, so forth and so on.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek (film)

I replied in the talk page for the film, since it looks like more than just the two of us in the discussion, although you've probably already noticed, as you no doubt have the page in your watchlist. EvilCouch 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lisa the Skeptic

• Thanks for taking a look at this GAC. I recently expanded the Production section with more background and info from the DVD commentary. Feel like taking another GAC look? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

"Pirates" Future in "Pirates 3" Article

I'm going to re-add what you took away. True, I did take it from the main Pirates of the Caribbean artice, but actually, that section was originally in the At World's End article. And it's not really thunder... That wasn't the whole point of the main article. The thunder of that article was everything BUT that.

I'm gonna re-add it. There's no real reason to take that away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppa Yami (talk • contribs) Alientraveller 11:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But

But...there's talk about the sequels, if there will be any, in the Spiderman 3 article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppa Yami (talk • contribs) 11:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta FA

Hi there. The Preity Zinta article has recently achieved A-class status. Due to the wealth of support I have decided to now nominate for an FA class article which I believe and judging by the comments of others is pretty much up to. In my view it is better than some existing FA actor articles. I would therefore be very grateful if you could give it a final review in your own time and leave your comments and views at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta. Thankyou, your comments are always valuable. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Spidey

I like the Spidey movies, but there are loads of moments which just make me cringe. That would include, the bit where the guys turn to skeletons in 1, the bit where a woman drags her fingernails along the floor in 2, the raindrops scene, any and all dancing, Stan Lee's "one person can make a difference" cameo. Just little moments which I feel are too cartoony or embarrassing, makes me thing there's some pandering to the kiddies going on. As you'll know from reading Bignole's page, I did enjoy the movie, I was prepared for a lot worse based on what other people had said. I'm really not a fan of the symbiotes either, as I said already they're so nineties. I hate nineties characters (although I'm aware that Venom first appeared in the late eighties :P) I like Sandman, I think Doc Ock is a bit crap (although he was executed extremely well in the films). I don't really want Lizard, they basically gave Doc Ock his personality and storyline (friend/teacher of Peter turned into monster by his own experiments, seeks redemption, etc etc) so he seems kind of redundant. I'd like to see Electro, I'm a sucker for electric powers they're so cool. But the series is fine as is, I don't want a string of crappy sequels to ruin it.  Paul  730 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the cartoonish tone, but I think Raimi can get carried away and take it too far. I love the Evil Dead series (though I take it you don't, lol) but sometimes I wish he hadn't made it so slapstick. That series basically goes from horror, to horror comedy, to total comedy. They're fun movies, but the continuity is non-existant. :/  Paul  730 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen this video, but it points out a lot of what I was thinking during Spidey 3. The Gwen Stacy part especially - her boyfriend and father are just having a nice little catch-up while she's about to die? WTF, lol.  Paul  730 11:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The scene was cool, and a good introduction for Gwen, it was just when her dad asks "what is she doing" I was thinking "she's hanging from a building for the good of her health, what do you think she's doing!?" Lol, in hindsight, it was fairly in character for Eddie - more concerned with getting photos than his "girlfriend's" life. Eddie was a pretty good asshole character - Topher Grace did a great job IMO.  Paul  730 14:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

X-Men cast

Very nice, structure and groupings seems fine. X-Men is clearly easier to do that the Star Wars one, as the official site is so inaccurate and confusing for the one line alien characters. Anyway, this is just as good as the Harry Potter one, good job. Gran² 15:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd just put them in the section which they are most associated with, so Mystique would be with the Brotherhood of Mutants. For example, with the Harry Potter one, Remus Lupin could go in either the teachers or OOTP members section, but he is in the OOTP in more books/films and so he goes there. Gran² 15:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

IMDb won't pass as a source unless the list was taken directly from the SAG--which I think some film pages on IMDb actually have an SAG stamp, but I'm not sure. Technically, I'd simply use the primary source and leave it as that, but maybe the SAG has a website where you can find a list of the cast from all films. The only reason I mention that about IMDb is because I've run into snags with other editors who won't even accept IMDb's cast listing, even after they've already aired. Other than that, I think it looks good--drawing from that Harry Potter list of cast members?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed your sandbox editing. How about breaking the Bond films down by decade, so it's not so squeezed in horizontally? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. :) You did a great job with List of X-Men films cast members! I'm familiar with the wear-and-tear that Good and Featured Articles go through... makes me wonder what Fight Club (film) will look like in ten years. I can't imagine the page histories for articles of ongoing controversial topics in the far future. Also, I've been amiss lately because I've had school to deal with (I still do, Wikipedia just sucked me back in for a bit). I had the tendency to review my watchlist every few minutes when in the middle of some academic priority, so I needed to go cold turkey for a while. I'd like to do less constant maintenance -- it's easier to revert some anonymous IP's mess at the end of the day when they've crapped it out, admire it in the article with satisfaction, and go on doing something else. I have a bit of schoolwork to do, but I want to see about improving American Gangster (film) some more today. (I've already done so; it's a challenge to subsection the content in some regards.) The Cast section at that film article annoys me -- there's a few notable listings beyond Washington and Crowe, but these two are the only ones that have context (for obvious reasons). I'm thinking about some kind of mini-cast-table that could be put on the right side of some prose, like a quotebox type with smaller print. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Batman vs Superman

It's the fact that you two people keep deleting the information entirely. What's is it that you hate? Wildroot 11:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: The last thing I want to do is get in some ridiculous wikipedia fight. As such, I think you, me, and Erik need to discuss this issue in the discussion page of Batman vs Superman. I guess I can understand you validity to this point, but the link you showed me brought an interesting point. It explains how we create "mini articles," then link the rest to a more suitable article. The point is, Wikipedia needs to show as much info as they possibly can on certain articles (well not literally). But, that's why I didn't include the entire Plot section of Walker's and Goldsman's script, as that could be put elsewhere in the BvS article in general. Same goes for Batman: Year One. Anyway, I don't mind if people edit my articles as you said. It's not "my baby," I mean sure if there's a mis-proper link or extra info to add, I would be happy to know. But to delete the entire article, without showing any sign of existence is another. Thanks, and I look forward to this.Wildroot 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah...so...you must be changing all of that stuff....

Ah...so...you must be changing all of that stuff.... Well, I'd rather not get into some sort of fight, or get in trouble. So...I'll let it pass. Whatever. Sorry if I caused any anger... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppa Yami (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blind Ambition (Family Guy)

Would you please take a second look on your GA review of the above article? It is common practice to leave a brief plot synopsis at the top of the page, then with a detailed one below. Also, there is no valid magazine/celebrity reviews, even if they were, they would need to be referenced. I have based this on Homer's Enemy, which is a featured article, I stronlgy suggest reconsidering as your reasons were not very fair, and were minimal. Qst 17:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. I noticed in looking at my watchlist that you've "reviewed" several articles within a matter of minutes. Please read over the project page and the criteria to see what's expected of a GA review. Lara❤Love 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

May I please suggest you stop reviewing good articles, until you full understand the good article criteria. Qst 17:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case of good faith, it is a case of admitting you are wrong. I have resubmitted the article for GA, as your reasons did not comply with the GA criteria. I suggest that you stop reviewing articles so quickly, it is impossible to review one long article in four minutes (the Dr. Who one), I have no personal interest in this, I just believe the review is unfair, as do other people (Above), we'll see what the people say upon resubmission. Cheers, Qst 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no sarcasm in my message. You are not adequately reviewing the articles. You should be leaving a detailed review for failures. For passes, you should use the GAlist or the like to detail that you've actually reviewed the article against all of the criteria. Articles cannot be reviewed in a matter of a couple of minutes, as you have been doing. They must be read completely and compared to all of the criteria. Qst renominating at GAN is the correct thing to do on his part, or he could go through WP:GAR. I would not be surprised to see other articles you have reviewed end up as such. Lara❤Love 19:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

LaraLove, I sent it to WP:GAR a few hours back, I'll see what the guys (and gals) their think. Cheers, Qst 21:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks so much for the IGN review by that comedian, that should make enough information for a reception section, I'll add it in now, so you may wish to review it later today, if you want, and if it's ready.Cheers, and thanks again, Qst 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

What did you type into google? Qst 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it is ready now? Qst 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So, should I send it to WP:GAC? Qst 17:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help, sir! Seriously, you've really helped the article, I think you should add this to the GA list on your userpage if it does get the GA status, you truly deserve it. I'm sorry about yesterday, I was a bit irritable then, so this is my fault. Cheers, and thanks again, Qst 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Viewer polls

A question about Doomsday (Doctor Who), although I hate getting unwittingly drawn into the Blind Ambition debate. While you are against IMDB and TV.com polls, what about Outpost Gallifrey? I've got a feeling that you are against it (as it is a userpoll), but just wanted to get your opinion. Will ^(talk) 20:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think BBC held a poll last year. I can't see any mention on Google or BBC.co.uk/doctorwho, anyway. Will ^(talk) 21:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows

Actually, i was thinking of an archive/temp page within the Discussion area of the book article. When we have more info about the film beyond a stub, we can bring it back out, and flesh out the info. Of course, it seems a workaround, and may be more trouble than its worth. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(Just a quick aside to say "nicely handled!" wrt the NF issues.) :) Girolamo Savonarola 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

imdb

I'm sorry about my last edits.

However, I did NOT commit vandalism. Vandalism would be posting "Wolverine ruullz yor all fags!!!111LOL" in the middle of the article.

The thing is: I have a problem, and I'm sure a wise an intelligent person like you can help me solve it.

In addition to using wikipedia, I also use imdb. For months, I've been trying to add the composers of the original themes of movies to their respective sequels (Ie. Jerry Goldsmith in the Alien sequels).

However, I was unmercifully ignored.

So, I rushed back to edit the Wikipedia pages in thevain hope that it would confort me and quell my unending anger at the stubborn bastards at imdb.

I'm sorry.

So, I want to know: how can I make the imdb head honchos to come to their senses and accept my submissions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agustinaldo (talk • contribs)

I Am Legend

Appreciate the contributions! Are you interested in the film in any sense? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've enjoyed watching Will Smith improve as an actor, especially from his stint as The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. The Pursuit of Happyness was a nice turn for him, and I imagine that I Am Legend will show how he can carry a whole film for over half the time. Are you aware of his other upcoming film, Hancock? It seems like such a strange premise to me... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I liked your implementation of the Cast section at I Am Legend, and it just made me think how it cool it is that we've fine-tuned ourselves as editors over the past year (a little longer than that, actually). The way we've handled future films after learning how announced projects turn out (or don't) and developing a relevant guideline for such matters, how we've shaped Production, Cast, Release, and Reception sections, not to mention trying to figure out how to keep the wikihounds at bay when it comes to non-free images. I have to wonder how long we'll be at this... I bet you'd have a buttload of stars, if you keep up the way you've been contributing. :) Me, I have a harder time implementing headlines for upcoming films with the exception of The Dark Knight (film)... a lot of headline dumping... hopefully during winter break, I can crank out a half dozen GAs or something to make up for that. :-P Anyway, just wanted to express my appreciation for all the collaboration between you, me, and Bigs all this time (of course, credit goes to the other editors with whom we've worked). I'm glad we're still able to provide constructive criticism about each other's edits, like the visual aid for viral websites at TDK. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be accepted by the wikihounds. I understand what you tried to do with showing the flower as a significant plot device, but I don't think it's any different from presenting young Bruce and his dead parents to reflect the catalyst that led him to become Batman. To be honest, I don't see a clear-cut way about adding imagines in the Plot section of any film article without needing a secondary source to comment on it, like at Branded to Kill or Dirty Dancing. If we can find some commentary on the flower, that'd be great. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I noticed your work on Sweeney Todd and was mildly curious about your involvement since I recalled what you thought about the film. I think it might be a tad gory from what I've read, but I can't say for sure. As for Beowulf, I put together the Production section sometime ago, and I have headlines en masse from Google Alerts if you're interested in utilizing it. Like Avatar, it hasn't been easy to understand exactly how creating that film has taken place, with the mix of live-action elements (behind the scenes) and computer-generated elements. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you insist on deleting the release date for Malaysia. I've included the reference.Give me a point saying that its not credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabelon (talk • contribs)

Pirates of the Caribbean film editor

I saw your attempts to edit Craig Wood, one of the film editors in the "Pirates" series. Just wanted to let you know that I set up a stub for Craig Wood (film editor) so that his wiki-links are no longer red. Thought you might be able to expand the article. Cheers. OccamzRazor 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI

• As you are mentioned in a post I made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive, I thought it only fair to let you know - DIFF. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

X2 Response

I would, but how else would we have that list of things from that trivia section. User:Rtkat3 (User talk:Rtkat3) 1:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mitch Clem

Hi. BigNole has recommended that you be consulted regarding the AfD for Mitch Clem, since you have been recently active in WP:BIO discussions. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack

And I shall oblige, at some point anyway. Gran² 18:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I enjoyed it, and it'll win the Oscar for sure, but I still prefer The Simpsons Movie, just as a mater of principal ;). As for Beowolf, I don't know, all Ray Winstone does is make my laugh (must have been a Dead Ringers sketch), might skip at at the cinema stage. I'll try and see I am Legend though. Gran² 21:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

ET

"Unless you didn't know, leads don't require citations."

Two comments. First, if that is a blanket Wikipedia policy that applies to all leads, please tell me where it is in writing. I can understand that a lead statement that is also mentioned in the remainder of the article and sourced there may not require a citation. But if not, it needs a citation. Otherwise, with that kind of reasoning, I could make a statement in the lead that I wrote, directed, and produced a film without giving a citation. Secondly, regardless of whether a lead requires a citation, the lead must not contain unnecessarily vague, POV, or misleading statements. To simply state that a film is "considered one of greatest films ever made" without additional explanation (or a citation) is very POV and quite vague. Who says it's one of the greatest? The change I made made it clear that the "greatest film" concept came from Rotten Tomatoes. I restored that change to remove POV and vagueness. I'll give you a while to tell me where it says that leads don't require citations before I make other changes to that section. Ward3001 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to say that the RT info is not needed. Again, with that kind of reasoning, I could declare the film "the worst movie ever made", and it could not be challenged because it doesn't need to be explained or cited. Ward3001 19:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Entertainment Weekly was for the "most 'tear-jerking'" film, hardly a standard to determine "one of the greatest films ever made." I am getting the clear impression that you don't want the reader to know the full details because it makes the grand announcement of "greatest film ever made" seem quite a bit less dramatic. And don't get me wrong: I personally think that E.T. is one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made, but that's only my opinion, which is not the rule of law on Wikipedia. I will not engage in an edit war, so I made my last revert for at least a day. I also would ask that you not violate 3RR again (and please read WP:3RR and Help:Reverting thoroughly before arguing that you have not violated 3RR; there is a widespread misconception that four edits are allowed, which is not true). If you continue to revert perfectly reasonable details about what "greatest film ever made" means, my next step is to post an RfC so other editors can express their opinions. Ward3001 22:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Hobbit

Biased how? Both articles could refer to news about The Hobbit, with the book article containing the information. What happened in the discussion for its placement? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

That kind of move sounds like unnecessary corporate catering -- putting content under a certain location because of licensing properties rather than the neutral placement of a film adaptation of the book itself. Do you feel that it's OK where it is? We still don't know if the project will be made. Seems that we're both in favor of keeping the trilogy article titled that way, so it seems more appropriate for a proposed cinematic incarnation of the book to be placed in the book article, rather than an article intended to be for a trilogy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the title is, X-Men Origins: Wolverine. :) However, I think X-Men film series covers all films related to the X-Universe. Have the three films really been identified as a trilogy besides the so-called marketing they do? It seems from its progression, they decided to stop at a certain point, rather than intend to make three and conclude there. The article for the LOTR film trilogy is more focused on the trilogy itself. So I guess there are two options -- have "The Lord of the Rings film series" with The Hobbit film information there, or "The Lord of the Rings film trilogy" with The Hobbit at the book article, since it's not truly part of the trilogy. These are muddy waters, indeed... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. Everything about The Hobbit Movie is speculative at the moment so we don't really have to worry about it at all too much until something is confirmed. At the moment - the film is being discussed as a prequels to Peter Jacksons LOTR movies -i.e. largely in the same stylistic treatment, and with Peter Jacksons editorial comments and oversight being central to it. This content will still be relevant to the full scope of the "LOTR movie trilogies page" even if Hayao Miyazaki or Sam Raimi end up directing The Hobbit, because it chronicles how Jackson pitched the project to New Line and how their relationship changed. If Jackson does not make the movie, the content won't be relevant to The Hobbit (book) at all but it will still be relevant to the LOTR-trilogy page, and would referenced from The Hobbit (Movie 2010) page, in a similar way to how it is currently from the Hobbit. If jackson does direct, then the content can easily be moved to the new The Hobbit (Movie 2010) page and ref'd. Hope that helps clarify my position. --Davémon 20:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure -- I may not have been a huge fan of the film, but its impact is pretty significant. I'm glad you shaped such a great article for it, and I only hope my headlines weren't too redundant with the content that already exists in it. Valkyrie, I'm hoping, will be well-prepared for the POV days that lie ahead about these historical accuracies -- I really hope it doesn't reach a point like 300, at which I had gotten fed up with discussion over such nuances for a purposely over-the-top film. Valkyrie hasn't been updated with true content in a while, though -- I may need to do more headline dumping (common approach by yours truly these days) and see if there's been any major details covered. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: TSM

Yes it is lame its only got 6 deleted scenes, and yes I have pre-ordered it. But two commentaries isn't bad, although I think that the DVD could be a lot better. Anyway, I'd be happy to wait for more stuff to come up. Gran² 21:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, its a lot more informative now. As for the UK charts, we may as well axe them. There pretty trivial, and fit perfectly well into the sub-pages. Gran² 07:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Transformers infobox

Is there a guideline somewhere that explains why Australia and New Zealand's release dates deserve to be in the infobox, and not other English-speaking countries like the Philippines? The Philippines population, after all, is 20 times that of New Zealand. TheCoffee 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxes

I'm not disinterested, I'm still very keen finish them, I'm just not in a Buffy mood ATM, if that makes sense. :) I was thinking about perhaps moving the appearances section over however, I'm more or less happy with that, and it's better than the epic "character histories" that are currently there. Bignole did that with his Michael Myers sandbox, just because the article was so terrible, lol. Might be less controversial to introduce them section by section, too. Thanks for taking an interest.  Paul  730 12:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved my "list of characters" sandbox to List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. It's unsourced and unfinished, but better quality than the info that was already there. Lol, all the Buffy fans are going to go crazy when they see I've redirected half a dozen articles. I'm steeling myself for an argument.  Paul  730 13:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, thank you sir. Does that mean I don't have to stay behind and do it after school? ;) I've not really written anything, just redirected a whole lot of crappy articles. Do you have an opinion on how I should lay out List of characters in the Halloween series? I'm more concerned about lay-out right now than the content, I don't like working in a bomb site. I'm not sure whether to list them alphabetically or in order of appearance. Also, I don't really like the title, what do you think it should be?  Paul  730 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My instinct is confusing me! Lol. Not sure about "film series" - some characters appear in comics as well. Also, should I include characters from Halloween III, which has no connection to the other films?? Sorry, I know you're not a Halloween fan. I think I'll do it alphabetically, because some characters appear in multiple films, so they're all over the place. Also, it means the contents won't take up half the page. I'll wait for Bignole's input too, since he's familar with the material.  Paul  730 17:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: The Fountain

Thanks for the bit about The Fountain! Should help in re-shaping the Themes section, which I've long wanted to do. And yeah, I can't really... imagine? ... Dragon Ball Z. It's so caricatured that a live-action portrayal seems unfathomable. Somehow, considering the writer/director's credentials (or lack thereof), it doesn't seem that it'd be good. Then again, they could make it big with such a creation. :-P And yeah, Surf Ninjas was a film I grew up with in the early 1990s... I rented it on VHS a ridiculous number of times. Via Netflix, I was able to give myself a nostalgic viewing of the film. It sure got torn up by critics at that time, though. I guess I wouldn't like it so much if I saw it today for the first time, haha. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! I just looked up Majin Buu -- 40th greatest comic villain of all time, really!? Kid Buu (scroll down) looks meaner... I guess it'd be cool to see how they do the special effects for such a film. I really wonder with films like Beowulf and the upcoming Avatar just how different films will be in the next decade or two. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Having watched the special features for Lord of the Rings, it was really cool to see how they implemented miniatures in the films, along with everything else. It really created the Middle-earth for us. That's why I like science fiction films -- they push across new ideas, like what we'll see in I Am Legend with an abandoned New York. Fantasy hasn't always impressed me. I think it was the epic scale of LOTR that really captivated me because a formulaic fantasy setup would have a cheap-looking village for the place where the hero emerges and some filming in an actual castle for the bad guy's dominion. LOTR absolutely transcended that. I think that computer generated imagery should go both ways -- for subtle effects and for major effects, as long as either fits the story well. I've played out films in my head in which effects could be used, like a live-action perception of the animated Superman: Doomsday battle. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Live Free or Die Hard

I forgot about that paragraph, after focusing on the other sections. Thanks for pointing it out. I added sources for the names, but had to remove a few of the actresses since I couldn't find any sources for them. I really wish editors would add sources when they include information, but I guess it's possible it came from an inexperienced editor/anon. I decided to leave the European title in the infobox since that is the most common name outside of the U.S., and figured if it included the release dates for the other countries then it would be beneficial to include the title other readers may be accustomed to. I didn't see anything about not including it at the style guidelines or the infobox template page. Do you think it should be removed? --Nehrams2020 23:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't looking at it closely enough. I though you were wondering why Die Hard 4.0 was included in the brackets. I guess Die Hard 4 and Live Free or Die Hard are like synonyms for me. I changed it, sorry for not paying attention. --Nehrams2020 20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to the Future

I'm not trying to accuse, I'm just not clear - you deleted the infobox line in this article about an academy award for Sound editing with the comment "dead". The award linked to the page Academy Award for Sound Editing, which does list this film as the 1985 winner. What was the reason to delete that infobox line? Thanks

On another note, I don't appreciate your reverting my plot cleanup. The synopsis as it is now is not entirely accurate, and is definately confusing in that it leaves out details that explain other things mentioned. I don't mine constructive critisism, but complete reversion is not tollerable, when you cannot rightfully deny that some of the cleanup was necessary.

For example: you reverted to the original image caption:

Emmett Lathrop "Doc" Brown, (Christopher Lloyd) and Marty McFly, (Michael J. Fox) watch in amazement as the De Lorean time machine vanishes one minute into the future.]]

from my improved:

"Doc" Brown, (Christopher Lloyd) and Marty McFly, (Michael J. Fox) watch as the time machine vanishes.]]

I don't see how you can argue that an image caption requires Doc Brown's full name, including the never heard-in-film, and not even mentioned in the article's lead, middle name "Lathrop". It's a complete overkill, and to revert my edits without even reading them and taking the improvements is not acceptable editing. I will be going back and making changes. TheHYPO 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, I didn't know what "dead" referred to - thanks for explaining. TheHYPO 10:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ratzenberger?

haven't seen the ref confirming him in wall-e yet. whatchoo find? (i know you're on top of pretty much all the film stuff anyway, so i'm more likely to believe you over others if you say it's so...) SpikeJones 11:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I Am Legend (film)

I'm sure you're right that Lawrence is a big fan of The Omega Man, it was just the cited article named Goldsman as the fan, rather than the director, so I assumed it was safe to make the change. Has a citation gone missing somewhere along the line, as they so often do? Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

I was just patrolling my watch list and had a look at what you edited with the comment - what the hell? on Schindler's list. I couldnt help but laugh that someone considered the girls death as a plot spoiler, as if the history of the holocaust tragedy isnt enough to suggest death.. My laughing may not be appropriate but those sort of edits just make you wonder what the hell! -- LordHarris (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Smallville poster

It always seemed out of place to me, and I was the one that put it there. I placed it on Pilot (Smallville) though, since it was technically the poster for the pilot. It's basically the same shot as that of the screenshot that was there before.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, occassionally they have promotional posters created for episodes, especially these later seasons. If we can actually find a real poster for an episode, I find that's always better than just some random screenshot, even though in the case of the Smallville pilot, they were basically the same shot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to get "Tempest"--the first season finale--because there's plenty of production info on it. But, I can't find any reviews of the episode, so it would have no reception section. I based episode pages off of reception availability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried, there's usually not much there. But, I'm not done looking. My focus with Smallville will be getting the season pages up to GA, and then focusing on the main page to get it closer to FA status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean Articles

Hi! I just wanted to ask you if there was something that could be done about the serious amount of vandalism and false info coming on all of the PotC pages recently, such as Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, etc., etc.

Do you have any form of "blocking" that might work on certain IPs or something? I'm not sure, I'm not very familiar with locking an article :)

Thanks for your time! -- BlackPearl14 (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help :) BlackPearl14 (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hulk film

I would probably say this early development information would be appropriate in a franchise article. What was the deal with Hensleigh and insects? Also, which quote about thematic intent are you referring to? I see the comedy quote, and it seems fine, but I'm not sure what you mean by the other quote. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the insect mention now... the whole "bug" theme didn't stand out to me immediately. About the thematic intent, perhaps that can be saved for Ang Lee's take? His intent seems similar, where the comedic approach of before may be a nice difference to the film that resulted. Like "What could have been?" —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I laughed at this. It all happened a long time ago, that silly editor! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry man

I was trying to put down who they played as, I didn't realize that I had deleted the actors name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elrohir92 (talk • contribs)

Bolded cast lists

Hi, as you seem to be a strong proponent of the partially-bolded cast list in film articles, I hope you don’t mind my asking you this. I understand, and agree with, the rationale behind bolding the actor and character names in a cast list, when the entry for said actor/character spans multiple lines; it’s an aid to clarity. However, I think we’re failing to take into consideration users who may have, for example, different resolutions, different browser window sizes (not everyone goes fullscreen; many people prefer to tile multiple windows), permanent browser sidebars and different browser text sizes - all of which would vary which entries spanned multiple lines. An example would be Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film); the cast list appears different than ‘as intended’ if any of the above variables are tinkered with. I’d appreciate your thoughts on this. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 23:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the mention of bolding in the lead; that's a completely different issue. Don't get me wrong, I think bolding the cast lists works too; I was just thinking of those users who might not have a similar configuration to the editor doing the partial bolding. I don't know the policy name, or if it even exists, but I assume there's one somewhere about making sure, where they can be, that the layouts of pages are tailored towards as wide a readership as possible. With that in mind, I would make the suggestion that bolding should be used on any entry within the cast list which contains prose (whether it spans multiple lines or not), while leaving non-prose entries (where it's "Actor as Character" only) in the same section unbolded. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 13:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I'm not entirely sure how that might look. It might be better to use an example, such as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film), as I did earlier. In that article, the first five entries are bolded (and while some might argue that implies a certain prominence for those actors over the others, I'll leave that issue to one side for now). Yes, I would probably bold all of those, see how it looks.

Edit: To be clear, I'd be happy to leave it up to the individual article caretakers to decide, instead of changing on sight. For example, the implementation of the cast list in the Beowulf article is excellent, and there's no need to bold the supporting cast names, despite their containing a small amount of prose. Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 14:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I am legend Edit

I don't know if Will Smith said Satan, but the correct information is that God is the one who took away all Job's possessions, etc, in the Book of Job.

It was in response to a challenge by Satan, but God is still the one who did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsilman (talk • contribs)

hulk and sequel

Most of the edits regardingthat are by one editor, Gman124. Mutiple editors have reverted him on multiple pages, and he just keeps going. He's not much for talking about it, either. ThuranX (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Radcliffe image

Yeah, I think it is, I just wasn't sure what we should do since it would be nice to have a picture and this one's fair use and accurately represents the subject of the article. I suppose though that if you have a skinnier screen than mine it really interferes with the text and the key, in which case it would be wise to remove it? --Fbv65edel — t — c // 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Well, it's a series of episodes so I think it actually belongs in the "Television and Radio shows and series" category, but if you do put it under episodes, then it should go before the individual episodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Comic Book Guy plot was pretty decent. If they had done it for the whole episode, it probably would have been one of the better ones of the season, but the Homer/Marge marriage thing kind of destroyed it and there was no conclusion to the CGB thing. The Homer getting plastic surgery thing was a dream, but it was still terrible. In the early seasons, they always poked fun at normal sitcom cliches, now they'rve seriously used several of them in the last few seasons, Marge has had amnesia, Patty married Grampa and now Homer's had weight loss surgery. Next thing you know, there actually will be a serious episode where the family has to spend the night in a haunted house. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget, they also made fun of using weddings as plots on two occasions but they STILL went ahead with Rome-Old and Juli-Eh (which is also an example of an excellent subplot saving an episode with a terrible main plot). They are aware of it, and yet they've done nothing to fix it. Al Jean recently sent a message to NHC [1] and he said we could send messages to the staff to support them during the strike and he actually said "Please do not say 'get new writers'". A lot of NHC folk got a kick out of that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down

I did not delete any important information from the Beowulf article, as you claim; I merely delinked a few stand-alone dates (which editors are supposed to do) and a few names which had already been linked. I'm getting pretty tired of the knee-jerk edits and reverts from you and a few other editors, and I would appreciate it if you would actually read what I do before undoing it. Thank you. Treybien 15:23 19 November 2007 (UTC)

GAC candidate

I hear you review GACs, and was wondering if you could review the 2 i have. They are my first 2, and i'm extremely impatiant to see if they pass, they have been there for 12 days Ctjf83 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since this is my first GA...do i just fix what you said to change, it is passes or how does it work? Ctjf83 22:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

so what needs to be fixed on Realty Bites I'm confused Ctjf83 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Done...just for you ;) Ctjf83 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, i sourced all the CRs from both episodes and removed unsourced...hopefully both pass now! Ctjf83 03:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, how do they look now? Ctjf83 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

response please? Ctjf83 18:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

what about Realty Bites and can you fix my page so that Bart Carny is listed below the GA contributions user box...i tried doing <br> but that didn't work Ctjf83 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Writing attributes

I am thinking about proposing an edit to the Infobox Film template in which there can be a "Screenplay by" attribute and a "Source material by" attribute. I haven't been crazy about our attempts to cover both -- it has not been well-formatted, and I think the change is warranted considering how many screenplays are adapted from something else. Thoughts? Of course, we may need a way to differentiate items like creation of a novel or of a superhero. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean which line should be above the other? We can declare that in the parameter off the bat and just point to it if people have an issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just a thought, considering how we've had to do formatting like Novel: or (novel) -- feels like squeezing in. I'm not enormously worried about it, but in setting up Radio Free Albemuth (film), that thought just came to me. And thanks about The Mist (film) -- one of the challenges of consolidating information is that they don't always fit together, and bits like the sentence about extras seem to be their own islands. Not to mention a lot of the citations had "touchy-feely" content -- Darabont going on and on about King's work, and I didn't want to make too much of the article about the director's opinion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No kidding! I chuckled at this -- Darabont: "That's why I thought the thing had some muscle. And it's, you know, the thing -- it's about fearing fear itself, it's what does it do to people, how does it wig them out. How does it compel us, you know? Does it bring us together? Does it tear us apart? Do we make mistakes? So we sail off a precipice? This is pretty meaty stuff for a filmmaker, and I, I can't thank you enough for letting me make the movie." Stephen King: "Aw gee." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf 2007 Variation from Original

I am meerly pointing out the difference between the original poem and the 2007 film version. I have no point of view for either matter. So I dont know how the following violates:

Difference from the Poem

In the poem Grendel is unable to harm King Hrothgar because he is a holy man protected by God. In the 2007 movie version Grendel is unable to harm him because the King is his biological father; unbeknownst to everyone (Grendel’s mother is a demon who copulated with a human thus producing the monstrosity that is Grendel). That is why King Hrothgar’s kingdom will forever be burdened with Grendel.

In the poem, Beowulf successfully kills Grendel and his mother, the demon. Returning with Grendel’s head as proof to King Hrothgar and returning home to his kingdom. In the movie, upon the death of Grendel on Beowulf’s hand, King Hrothgar asks Beowulf why he only brought Grendel’s head as proof of his death and did not kill the mother as was their agreement. Beowulf argues that he did kill the mother otherwise he would not have been able to return. It is then implied that Beowulf, much like King Hrothgar, was seduced by Grendel’s mother to copulate with her instead of killing her. This eventually leads to a new antagonist for Beowulf in the third act.

In the poem, a peasant thief in Beowulf’s kingdom incurs the wrath of a dragon thus producing the third antagonist for Beowulf to defeat (leading to both their demise). In the film, Beowulf inherits King Hrothgar's kingdom after he commits suicide when he realized that the curse has returned. Years later, Beowulf’s ‘son’ returns to torment him repeating the cycle with King Hrothgar and Grendel. And in the end, during a sea cremation for Beowulf, Grendel's mother appears as a flying serpent kissing Beowulf's corpse as it sinks to the depth. She reemmerges from the water trying to once again temp another man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.20.209 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the welcome

Should have said this earlier, but thanks for the welcome. Mr Tumnus (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: X-Men cast

Well, take a look at the edits I just recently made to the lead for HP. I'm not too familiar with the X-Men series, but you could probably talk about the "faces" of the series, the acclaim the cast has won, a very brief bit about the casting process, etc.? I don't think it needs too much. One thing, though: leave the formatting stuff (like the list is divided by x and x) for the last paragraph of the lead so it doesn't interfere with the content. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 17:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

katy n whoever it was ^_^

• Happened to me before. No worries. x_x JuJube (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Holiday feast

Nah, Christmas ham shall be the main course, along with assorted dishes. :) Believe me, though, I'd happily eat leftovers of homemade Thanksgiving food rather than rely on my own cooking. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean about my user page? The reduction of userboxes or the implementation of the Status section? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, did you follow the situation with producer Don Murphy? That kind of made me relieved I've been careful not to divulge too much about myself on Wikipedia. Not to mention that it helps reduce any prejudices that may arise in tough discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose he showed his ugly side when he got upset over the Wikipedia article about himself being vandalized. Anyway, for the dwarf costume information, is there not a place for it to go in Production? I'm not sure if costuming for secondary roles is something truly cast-related, as opposed to what's been done at The Dark Knight and I Am Legend. (Our coverage of the Batsuits is outside the Cast sections, too.) Would Design at the Prince Caspian article not be appropriate enough? Also, I'm signing off for some time, so I won't be able to respond for a while after this answer. I'm sure whatever solution you decide will suffice! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

It was actually pretty good. I haven't given a new episode a 4/5 after one airing since 24 Minutes. Have you read the full description for Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind yet? It sounds like an amazingly fresh episode, I just hope they don't screw up the ending. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Spelling Debates & Disputes

We should have a section in Wikipedia on how people spell a certain word and not to have unknown users make a change that is spelt in their country.

Examples: US & Canada uses month followed by the date. International uses date followed by the month.

Color is spelt Colour in the UK.
Check as in a "pay check" is spelt Cheque in the UK and Canada.
Organization replaces the Z with an S in the UK.
Center has the last two letters of the word reversed in the UK and Canada.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.250.105 (talk • contribs)

Non-free vs public domain

I see you've been having some fun with image Nazis. On a completely unrelated matter, regarding this, Image:Titanic5dvd.jpg is not a PD image as the subject of the photo is a copyrighted cover. Just for reference. :) Brad (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: New York Post

You're right, New York Post would be like The Sun. Due to its tabloid nature, I'm not sure about putting a lot of weight on it. I would say that if the newspaper deals with conflicts between people, I'd ignore it. There was some coverage about Vin Diesel and Babylon A.D. (film) in it a while ago and how production was difficult because of him. I ignored that coverage. Maybe for some more descriptive items that don't sound so surreptitiously reported, it could be appropriate. I know we cited it at The Dark Knight (film) for other candidates for Sal Maroni. As for judging newspapers, I should think that most of them are OK. Watch out for items like those categorized supermarket tabloids. Personally, one of the trickier aspects is solely online news. If online news is based on an actual newspaper, great, but otherwise, examine its reliability more closely. Stuff like ContactMusic.com News, I generally dismiss. Just judge it on a case-by-case basis; you nailed it for the New York Post, so I'm sure you'll be fine in the future. If only I could find a way for you to use Access World News... it can be a gold mine of older headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I've kind of let headlines pile up because I've been trying to go beyond just superhero and science fiction films. There's just so much information to sift through. I've been considering a different way to update articles about newly released films, like expanding the content before its DVD release rather than before the theatrical release. Stuff like The Invasion (film), I watched too much, and I'd rather provide content for well-received films. You probably noticed that I don't upkeep my Future articles subpages much anymore. I've been using Google Alerts -- just setting it and forgetting it, basically. There's quite a few projects in these subpages that are pretty much immobile, and I'm trying to cut back on wasting my time with headlines of films that may never be. I'm thinking that down the road, I want to expend more effort on Top-importance films from the past, like The Shawshank Redemption. I just basically need to focus on one project at a time and have a limited number of tasks for my daily editing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I felt like I needed to do something significant... I was tired of my contribs consisting of either removals/reverts or off-mainspace edits. I figure that's what I'll probably do when I sit down and have nothing but Wikipedia at hand -- take on an article in a big way. For The Dark Knight, do you think we could swap out pictures? It seems like there could be enough detail to put in a picture of the Joker. That and the Batcycle won't fit in the same section, so maybe we could kick out the cycle pic for now? The Joker's more important, I would think... we can restore the cycle pic later when we have more substantial content all around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

At long last! Now, we'll have to deal with Batfans who want a picture of Two-Face no matter what... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call on a Casting section for I Am Legend (film). Makes me think of the implementation at Fight Club (film), which I'm sure you've noticed that I'm expanding. What do you think of the presentation of the reviews so far? I wanted to make some reviews more than mere soundbites. Also, I'm considering merging the soundtrack stuff to the film article, maybe even prodding it. I'm also considering writing up the interpretations article separately so it can be put up for WP:DYK, then possibly merge it into the film article if there isn't too much substance. Thoughts on any of that? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the lead section isn't much fun for me to write. I'll get to that when I feel like I've milked all the possible resources for the film. That's my beef with Featured Articles -- I don't think many of them quite nearly flesh out every aspect of a film. I'm hoping to present Fight Club as a top-tier example. One thing that's nice about the anonymous editing is that it shows that people do read these articles, whether for this film or for The Dark Knight. Anyway, I will probably consult Awadewit (remember him from the big themes debacle?) to get his thoughts on the academic studies I'll eventually implemented. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Success! I've expanded the lead section -- I figure that four paragraphs are warranted. While I've had 2-3 paragraphs as the rule of thumb, I think the coverage of this film needed four paragraphs to touch on everything. I figure I'll try to shape up the critical reaction section some more and hopefully work in some "popular culture" stuff. Dang, the lead section really does make a difference -- it captures the scale of the article well! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree about the removal of the production paragraph, but I think I know what you mean about the "meh" nature. Production is a lot of details compiled together, and there's nothing incredibly broad and sweeping about it. Considering that it makes up a large portion of the article, though, I think a paragraph is warranted. Perhaps we can spice it up a different way? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the Easter egg at Hitman (2007 film)? I recognize that it's a major Easter egg for video gamers, but it's a scene that has no impact on the plot and seems forced into that section. Do you think the mention is warranted at all? I was thinking that if there was a Production section and possibly some comment on the Easter egg by the star or director, it'd be OK. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Big Fish

I have fully protected the article for 2 days, to prevent the edit war continuing. Please discuss the issue on the talk page. Let me know if problems continue. It wasn't really an AIV issue, but hey, as it was there, I thought I'd take a look... Bencherlite^Talk 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest easing up on reverts -- the article does not need to be immaculate 99.9% of the time. Just wait a certain duration before addressing the matter or cleaning up the contrib. Back-and-forth so quickly just aggravates both sides. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have now blocked the ip for 24 hours, notwithstanding the semi-protection of the article. I should comment that I am disappointed by your conduct at the ip's talkpage (per this) and would remind you that being correct does not allow editors to act contrary to WP:CIVIL. Please keep WP:COOL when the editing gets hot. LessHeard vanU 22:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I know the vandal was reported - that's how I saw that the article needed protection! Next time don't bring edit wars to AIV. Content disputes and 3RR violations don't belong there. I took a decision to protect to prevent the edit war continuing. Another admin blocked the IP for 24 hours for 3RR. I'll leave the protection in place to prevent the situation starting again when the IP block is over. In any event, you couldn't revert at present without breaching 3RR yourself. I've protected m:The wrong version, of course... but it's only for 48 hours. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll live with your disappointment for now, I'm afraid. If you would like the issue looked at by another admin, go to WP:RFPP and request unprotection there. You can show them this diff, which says that I will quite happily accept any decision made there by another admin, whether that's to unprotect or downgrade to semi or shorten the period. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:The-Incredible-Hulk--1-.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:The-Incredible-Hulk--1-.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 05:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

I'll leave myself a note and try and capture it when I get back from work this evening. Are there any others?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this the image you wanted? Is the quality ok?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's another I took, seems a bit better. Either way, these two are about the best I can give. Unless that isn't even the image you wanted.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Matrix article

Would you please go and read this and then tell me why these dates are not a case of overlinking? The dates may have something to do with The Matrix but, in the great historical scheme of things, The Matrix has no notabilty for these dates (as yet - time will tell). Regards, Mark TINYMark (Talk) 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you've convinced me. I still think it's silly. Firstly, who cares what day of what month the Region 2 Special DVD was released, and what great impact would this have on human history. Secondly, when you click on the link, you will find a lot of information, none of which pertains to The Matrix ;-) TINYMark (Talk) 07:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst vs. While

Sorry about my incorrect editing on the Lord of the Rings film page yesterday. However, for the record, my intention wasn't to change one international variety of the word to another; instead I saw the usage of "whilst" as archaic. Be that as it may, it's obviously my perception that's at fault, and I'm grateful for the heads-up.

Perhaps I should concentrate more on the confusion of usage of "its" and "it's". There's a lifetime's worth of work for you! Tomwhite56 (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)