User talk:Lepeu1999

Welcome!

Hello, Lepeu1999, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan

I understand you intended to move that section, but if you compare your edits before my reversion of one of them, you see that of the three paragraphs under 'Development', only the first was moved, the other two were deleted. [1]. Edward321 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. It's just that almost every movie FA/GA has a descriptive list of characters, and that Development section that IS needed. I don't know if I can search for articles, create/improve whole sections and watch the DVD for more info as I did in some article that is now a GA[2],but since SPR is my favorite movie and also an important film, we need improvement. igordebraga ≠

Sorry, some of those mistakes in the Character came from me not really being an expert in military, and also English not being my primary language. There are two things we can do to make a Development section and other improvements, search for articles about the film and its production (I did it for Aladdin and Minority Report [3][4] , both GA now) and watch the DVD(which I don't have), since it seems to feature lots of extras. Hope we can get to GA status soon. igordebraga ≠ 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, those two aren't in the "character list" ones (MR doesn't need, and I want one for Aladdin, but I can't find an all-character picture to replace the ones in the table). But don't go saying I'm on other people's work - maybe in MR, but I improved the Reception and Development, and after the GAC, created a "Adaptation differences" from scratch. But Aladdin, it was a mess, with Trivia section and such, I made a Production, Reception, Music, Home Video and organized the things that were already there. And another article, that if you don't like video games may not interest, I'm the biggest editor, and made all that was needed to improve to GA. I'm not a big and respected Wikipedian, but I never said to be superior, don't go despising me. And since you want a Peer Review for SPR, I'll start it for you. igordebraga ≠ 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vandal

Thanks for reporting, however, next time, please use this page instead when reporting a vandal, since I'm not online all the time, and if the vandal is active, that is the most suitable page to report it. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 14:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of his edit, he is already blocked after he made that vandalism. The block has not expired yet, if you look at the timestamps of his edits since he was blocked after making that vandalism. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

harrassment

Don't change the damn Saving Private article. That movie is propaganda and that's a fact. --Dominik92 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above was added in the middle of a comment by another user. I've moved it so it won't be confused with that other comment.--Lepeu1999 14:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Aloha Lepeu, thanks for your kind words on User:JereKrischel's talk page about our (mostly) civil running battles. It's hard sometimes (today wasn't good!) but speaking for myself at least, even at our most pugilistic I always try to act honorably and with respect. Anyway, thanks. Arjuna 09:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Red Sox WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the Boston Red Sox. Simply click here to accept!

Re:Ryan

Problem is, that's not Spielberg's response. But I trust in your stewardship of the article. Alientraveller (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar/grammer

If it were two of the men..., it would be survive, but when it's singular it should be survives. - Dudesleeper | Talk 12:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound right to me, but go ahead. - Dudesleeper | Talk 11:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Boston Red Sox Newsletter for April 31, 2008

	Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.
The Boston Red Sox WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 9 • April 31, 2008 • About the Newsletter
News Project and team news: Project News Team News Collaboration	Features Featured Red Sox articles of the week: Justin Masterson Tony Granadillo Tom McCarthy	New Articles New Boston Red Sox related articles: Jim Wright (1978-79 pitcher) Mike Trujillo Marino Santana Johnny Welch Scott Taylor (baseball player) Bill Mundy Win Remmerswaal
Archives • Newsroom

The message above has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot, a bot operated by Diligent Terrier. 00:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World War II userbox

This is an announcement to those interested in World War II that a new userbox {{User:Otolemur crassicaudatus/Userboxes/World War II}} have been created. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan

We are not talking about other historical mistakes of the movie. What we are talking about is the fact that all German cast members of Saving Private Ryan were prepeared with shaved heads for the movie; portraying all German military personnel as having shaved heads - despite the fact that shaved heads were and still are forbidden in policies of German military. This is a very big historical mistake, not just "interesting trivia". --Kurt Leyman (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am fine with the changes you did. Actually, it seems better than my original version. I am glad that we could reach an agreement. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan (2)

As you can see, I've been working on the article lately. I think it's one of the greatest films of all-time. I've noticed that you are one of the major contributors to the article; if you have time, please feel free to help out with the current push for the article to reach Good article status. Specifically, I'm looking for more references for paragraphs that currently don't have any, such as most of the information in the "Historical inspiration" section (a lot of which I believe you added yourself, so you should have the references readily available?), and I'm looking for more information on the film's development and production. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of your edits that I came across was this one, where you added the "While researching the" paragraph without a reference; I am currently looking for one. Gary King (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the DVD for the film and know if it has more information on the film's production? If we can't find a reference for that piece of information, then we will have to remove it. Gary King (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, excellent, that solves a large chunk of remaining issues. I'm currently going through the past reviews and such for the article to see what needs improving on; I noticed that the Cast section doesn't have descriptions, then noticed that there were previous discussions on this so I will leave it be. An anonymous editor added the "Spielberg is renowned" paragraph a few months ago; do you think we should keep it or reference it? It sounds very much like original research and should probably be removed unless a useful reference is added. Gary King (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good. I copyedited it. Gary King (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on bringing the article to Good article standards before the end of this week, so feel free to help out wherever you can. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that this is one of your favorite films if you have been working so long on it. It's also one of my favorites; I'm really surprised that it hasn't gotten more attention than what it's getting. Gary King (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick peak at the SPR DVD at Amazon.com to see what bonus material it contains. Under the "DVD features" it appears to list quite a significant amount of information that sounds useful; for example: "About 90 minutes of new material is here, showing how the famous D-Day invasion was created, the historical facts of the story, and how the actors were trained through an abbreviated 'basic training.'" I imagine that some of that could be used for the article? I don't have access to the DVD unfortunately so I can't help on that front, but if you've got a chance then perhaps we could use that. The DVD is probably actually the best source for information on the article. Gary King (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah those are bound to happen; just be glad you're not dealing with something like The Simpsons Movie which gets far more popular culture-related edits, which can get annoying very quickly. Gary King (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Many of the references currently used in the article will have to be removed eventually and/or replaced because they are not considered reliable, per WP:RS. Gary King (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through them, I think they are fine. I was talking specifically about the references linking to the Second Battle Group (such as this one) but after reading the group's Wikipedia article, it should be a reliable reference. Gary King (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think we all did some great work :) Gary King (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it; I think it's better now. The most ideal solution would be to find a better reference. Gary King (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saving Private Ryan 3

Hello. I'm not sure where in the article it mentions mearly the British contributions, but the Total Film review mentions the "British, the French, the Polish [and] the Canadians" in the sixth paragraph. I think that is enough to say the article is not mearly talking about the British, but also other countries that were shunned in the movie. --Plasma Twa 2 04:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:8th M26.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:8th M26.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Basictraining wwii.jpg

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

File:Basictraining wwii.jpg

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic . Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]