User talk:Majin Gojira

Welcome!

Hello Majin Gojira, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- MicahMN | μ 16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts fully

I notice in your postings to Talk:Slayer (Buffyverse)#CITING SOURCES that you are manually creating signatures and leaving off the timestamps. It is considered basic wiki etiquette to always fully sign your talk-page postings by using four tildes (~~~~), as described above in the Welcome message that MicahMN posted to you. The wiki software will automatically convert this to your user name (with a link) and a UTC timestamp, so anyone reading any of your comments will know exactly who posted it and when it was posted. This may seem redundant to you, but I can assure you that it is very important in many situations: long discussions, reviewing very old discussions (even your own sometimes!), sorting out posting problems, repairing vandalism, etc. Plus, it's a lot easier to type than "[[User:MyName|MyName]] 12:00 December 25, 2005 (UTC)". (Not to mention avoiding the need to calculate the UTC time, or forgetting to do so and posting your local time, which can't be deduced without a timezone.) All it takes is four tildes. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Buffy Checklist

Hiya, just letting some people who regularly work on Buffyverse articles know there is now a checklist for non-episode articles in place to highlight articles needing work on, and articles coming into completion. It is available at the main project page, since this is where the 'WikiProject Buffy template' on the discussion page of all Buffyverse pages directs people:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy#Checklist

It mainly discludes episode articles since they are dealt with at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy/Episodes

Thanks -- AnGeL X 17:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dinosaurs

Hi Majin!

There's currently less than 100 dinosaurs left on the Missing dinosaur page. We've come a long way! I was thinking that since there's just under 100 dinosaurs left, and since there are 25 of us signed on for the project, if we each wrote about four articles, we'd be done! Well, not "done", obviously, as many of the articles are in need of expansion. But then we could focus on expansion and other things.

You could take, say, Piveteausaurus, Pneumatoarthrus, Poekilopleuron, and Ponerosteus.

It's just an idea, of course, and you're of course not obligated and can do whatever you like; I just figured I'd mention the idea, and see if you were interested. No harm, right?

Take care, --Firsfron 06:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

I'll see what I can dig upfor those species. I'll at least get some stubs up for them. Majin Gojira 14:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Great! I see you've already started! Looking good! Thanks,

--Firsfron 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you created Pneumatoarthrus! good research! I added a few more details already. We'll have a nice, big article in no time. Keep it up, Majin! :) --Firsfron 22:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana Wiki

Hi there,

I see that you are a pro-Cannabis Wikipedian so I hope this will be of some interest to you.

I've started a Marijuana wiki (aka The Sticky Wiki) which I think you might be interested in. I'm hoping you can help me get started with this project. Whereas lots of articles about weed get speedy-deleted on Wikipedia, they would be totally cool over at MarijuanaWiki. But really I want the site to be more of a marijuana community than merely an encyclopedia.

To give you an example, I want to have city guides about where to score, find pot-friendly cafes, marijuana events, and what represents a good price in that city. Etc. (You can check out the featured article: "Toronto" to see what I mean). I also want to have grow diaries and marijuana blogs. All in all, basically more communal than encyclopedic.

I am in need of admins/moderators, and people experienced with MediaWiki to help build policy, categories, and templates, etc. If you'd be interested in helping me with this project, the URL is MarijuanaWiki

Thanks for your time and consideration. Hope to see you there!

-- nsandwich 00:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dinosaurs

Hi Majin!

I wondered if you had made any progress on the dinosaurs you have left. We've got just 19 dinosaurs left on the List of Missing Dinosaurs! Woot! What a relief. We started out with over 1,000, and we're down to the last dregs. Although admittedly, most articles are still in need of expansion.

I just wondered if you'd had time to work on them. No pressure or anything. I just thought maybe you were busy, or having trouble. That's the thing. When we come down to the last few dinosaurs, it's usually dinosaur articles no one wanted to create, since they're often obscure, or hard to find good info on... I just wanted to drop you a line, and say that if you were having any problems, I'm here to help. :)

Take care, --Firsfron 00:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, just general life-busisness and partial sloth (good old sloth!), I should get a few more up...pretty soon (start of the new week?) --Majin Gojira 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I appreciate your swift reply, and I look forward to the new articles. If you need anything, I'll be glad to help. Good luck! And thanks! :) --Firsfron 02:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Horror/Collaboration of the month

Hi! I noticed your name on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror membership list and am writing to all members who have not voted for the Collaboration of the month. Today is the designated selection day to choose the collaboration, but we currently have a tie between the two articles receiving the most votes, John Carpenter and Dario Argento. I am hoping to remedy this by drumming up a few more votes. Note that by voting for any nominated article (not limited to these two) you are indicating your "commitment to support and aid in collaborating on that specific article if it is chosen," so please feel absolutely free to ignore this message if for any reason you don't wish or would not be able to participate.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a winner!

You showed support for the horror collaboration of the month.
This month John Carpenter was selected to be improved to good article or featured article status.
We hope you can contribute.

--Fuhghettaboutit 12:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Dear "Maijin Gojira", I was the author of the "vandalism" you removes from the prehistoric warfare page, I'm saddened that perhaps you have little humour, because wasn't actually a vandalism but a contribuition to the BJAODN In fact, when I'm low in morale, I load the BJAODN page and in less than a quarter of an hour the morale raise to very high and I laugh like a crazed drunk. Because of this, I feel obliged to contribuite to what raise my morale and good humour, in the same spirit of the actual Wikipedia, whose is a mine of knowledge as the BJAODN is a mine of laughing ;)

Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio Maria d'Errico.

I was unaware of such a "system", and I feel I must appologise for the deletion--I was quite grumpy at the time, I must admit. - Majin Gojira 02:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Shepard

Where did you get the name Speed for Thomas Shepard?--Chris Griswold 21:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livejournal community posted some scans and a review of the latest issue (which was in the hands of subscribers) [1] Majin Gojira 23:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it took subscribers forever to get their comics. 52 subscribers get their comics two months later. Incidentally, I find it interesting that most of the Young Avengers have superhero names that can't be copyrighted.--Chris Griswold 04:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer under peer review

As a Wikipedian who contributes to Buffy-related articles, you maybe interested to know that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is currently under peer review at Peer review/Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Feedback about the article at the forum, on how it might be improved upon is hugely appreciated. After successful improvements to the article, in the near future it may be submitted as a candidate for a featured article. Thanks. -- Paxomen 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article

Hi

Just letting WikiProject Buffyverse members know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination would be wonderful:

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer

-- Paxomen 17:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stegosaurus

Hi Majin!

I'm planning to send Stegosaurus to Featured Article candidacy. The article failed its first nomination, but user:Casliber and I have been hard at work fixing stuff. As you're listed as a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Dinosaurs, I figured I'd drop you a line and see if there was anything you thought should be added/removed/cited on the article before it is sent to FAC. We definitely want it to pass! :)

(Feel free to make any edits on the article itself, comment on the talk page, or leave a note on my talk page). Thanks for your time, Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull Island

Hi Majin. I was reading your edits to the Skull Island dinosaurs. I sent most of that info to Stbalbach when he inquired about where I got the info for the Elasmosaur. There are a couple of other creatures that were cut and I don't know if you want to add them or not.

The Arsinoitherium another casualty of the cutting room.
The huge serpent that appeared in one scene and was later cut out of the film had its living prototype in Egypt. This was a giant snake that menaces Fay Wray at the foot of the tree. It was cut but you can see Fay's reactions to it below her. Look at Fay's reactions just before the T-Rex comes into the clearing. If you look closely at the famous publicity photo of the giant spider and lizard you can see the giant snake to the right of the spider. Go here for a better look.
http://newboards.kongisking.net/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=5606;guest=70450
http://newboards.kongisking.net/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=5608;guest=70451
http://newboards.kongisking.net/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=5609;guest=70452
The snake was apparently in the test reel and then cut. The Arsino was also in the test reel but then re-shot with the Styracosaurus. This is all according to George Turner and Orville Goldner's book The Making Of King Kong. Goldner actually worked on Kong and was very explicit with what was in the test reel. For example he said it contained 147 shots.

Giantdevilfish 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and put it up, just make sure to note that they ended up on the cutting room floor - Majin Gojira 13:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add something about the jaw edit you did. Kong killed the T-rex by snapping his jaw and leaving it to die.. He pulls the upper part of the jaw snapping it. He even plays with the broken jaw before beating his chest in victory. When Driscoll walks by the body of the T-Rex, you clearly see a river of blood pouring from it's broken jaw. Also if you notice the T-Rex is still breathing. If he was killed by a neck snap he would be dead, yet he's still alive slowly bleeding to death on the jungle floor. The script/screenplay also talks about Kong snapping its jaw, as does the book The Making Of King Kong. Also if you notice in other Kong movies, Kong does the same thing against the V-Rex in PJ's version and Gorosaurus in King Kong Escapes. It's obvious they are paying homage to the original film in that Kong kills his dinoasaur opponent with a jaw break.Giantdevilfish 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-watch the scene. Seriously. Hell, I'll give you a timecode: 1 Hour, 4 minutes and 36 seconds. It even spasms slightly before the snap occurs. And the film itself trumps the screenplay/script any day of the week in terms of what is 'canonical'.

Review the scene: Kong is not even touching the Rex's Jaw in the final snap. He's leaning on snout and pulling it back to the rest of the body. The blood was there before the snap, from the pulling appart of the jaws while Kong was on it's back. Contrary to popular belief, if a neck is snapped low enough, they'll live for a good deal of time after the break--usually suffocating slowly due to pressure on the trachea.

It's clearly a neck snap. I just wathced it again in order to get the time code. I wish I could show you pictures, but my computer does not have the capacity to take DVD snapshots (or it does and I havne't figured out how). Even in the 2005 version, both the jaw and neck are broken. The neck in Spec. Edition Disk 2: 36 minutes 50 seconds, the neck at 35 minutes, 52 seconds. -- Majin Gojira 15:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Majin. I added the extra creatures to the page but I don't know how to do the citation part. In refrencing the quotes from Goldner. Meanwhile as far as the T-Rex goes, I checked some threads over at kongisking.net, and the general consensus is that the T=Rex was killed by a broken skull. Here's is one quote. Kong leaned with all of his weight on it and broke the skull of the t-rex. I assume that the tyrannosaurus died as a result of pressure on the brain. Here's a pic that the contibuter used to illustrate where the break would occur. http://newboards.kongisking.net/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=6005 Another quote was but there is little indication that the neck itself is broken, only the jaw. So the broken skull theory can apply just as much as your broken neck theory does. The point is, is that the neck break (as is the upper manible break, and skull break) is purely speculative and should not be posted as fact. The script, novel, and Making Of King Kong book all state the T-Rex was killed by a jaw break. I think it would be best if we just wrote Kong killed the T-Rex after a protracted battle, then speculate it was a neck break without concrete evidance.Giantdevilfish 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't know how to reference stuff either, at least officially. Majin Gojira 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majin I was thinking, should we add the 1976 film or not bother? Its referred to as Skull Island in the screenplay and Jack Prescott describes it as "The Beach of the Skull" in the film. Of course in King Kong Lives they screw up continuity and keep referring to it as "Kong Island". But since its Skull Island should we add it? The reason I'm asking is that the only creature on the Island outside of Kong is a giant snake. So do you think its worth adding that little tidbit in between the 33' Kong and 05' Kong creature lists or no?Giantdevilfish 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Majin Gojira 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And just why did you delete the bit about swishing the tail? Thanos6 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire statement was not worth mentioning. Inaccuracies in portrayal of dinosaurs based on knowledge recently aquired is something so blatantly obvious that it does not merrit mentioning. Of course we now know that dinosaurs didn't drag their tail and swish it around like a whip, but it holds no relevance to the Skull Island article. -- Majin Gojira 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not BEHAVIOR, that's BODY STRUCTURE. The Meat Eater *couldn't* have done that physically because of the way it's tail is built. Thanos6 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the fact that it is considered inacurate today is a tremendous "No Brainer" and not worth mentioning. A movie with dinosaurs in it portraying them innacuratly by today's standards (hell, or any standard) is simply not notable. Otherwise, you'd have to add that to every sort of tag to every movie with dinosaurs in it and doubly so for those that use lizards in makeup. -- Majin Gojira 00:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varan

There is a difference between redirection and deletion. Varan absolutely failed at WP:WAF and WP:FICT; Varan only primarily appears in one film, and a short cameo in Destroy All Monsters does not justify a completely new article for the monster. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 05:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you did not propose the artcile for deletion and did so on your own accord? Without a proposition for deletion? Unaccetable. Though it does not matter since I already went and merged the article into the Varan the Unbelievable Article. -- Majin Gojira 13:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Runaways

Yo,

In hopes of putting a stop to our editing war of the Runaways articles, let's chat.

I can see and pretty much understand what you don't like about my revamp, but at least it's better now than it was before, right? I want to leave the biographies in the articles, split up by story arcs, and once I get my hands on the vol. 3 hardcover, I'll finish Nico's bio. However, I tried doing the same thing with Karolina and you changed the whole thing back. I'm confused why it seems to be okay for Nico's bio to remain structured as is, but it's not okay for Karolina. I could understand that some of the stuff was redundant, but the characters of the book have all shared a very similar history, so there's bound to redundancy somewhere; what I was trying to do was focus each character bio around specific events that happened to the individual character, so as not to make them too repetitive. Like, for the East Coast/West Coast sections of their bios, Nico's and Chase's bios would talk about Pusher Man, Vic's and Gert's articles would talk about meeting Spider-Man, Molly's would talk about her time in church and her encounter with the New Avengers, and all would converge on finally finding the assailant. The sections on The Good Die Young story are a little more difficult because it's a group story, so I'd ask that instead of just changing Karolina's back to the way it was, we collaborate to structure all the Runaways character articles to look like Nico's, but tailor each individual one speaking to the specific character's development in that story; if they don't have any significant role, we leave them out. Care to work with me on this? Your friendly neighborhood Booch-Man 16:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for the expansion of the articles, but you need to focus on the character's devlopment. Do not fully explain an event in a blow-by-blow fasion. Talk about and focus on how the character reacts to the changes and how they change because of it. Give maybe only a single line saying what the event is. I'd give more info, but I'll be away for two weeks pretty soon, so I won't be available for colaboration. -- Majin Gojira 16:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Oldonebtvs.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Oldonebtvs.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 (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Speed.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Speed.png. 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 (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverfield

From Wired: "Infantry are like camouflaged candy to the five-legged, 500-foot-tall creature that flattens Manhattan and gobbles hipsters in the new movie Cloverfield." Could you please restore the description? It's better to have this rather than the subjective interpretations of editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wired is also wrong, because the creature has 6 legs. Check and recheck, that is how you write a Wikipage. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you say six legs because of your personal observation? There are people on the talk page who disagree with the actual count of limbs. That's why we need to cite an independent source in this case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the "Desciption" reads more as hyperbole than a detailed third-party assesment. -- Majin Gojira (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter -- it's an independent source from a news magazine's online portal. We don't question the descriptive nature of these things because there's no serious POV concern here. How about this -- "The creature has been described as..." with these details? It's an independent source, and it's certainly better than having editors assume the characteristics, as you can see from the talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the next issue of G-Fan. Artistic rengerings and production images are set to be released in it. The article is not an independendt source, it is a third party interpretation with only tenuous connection to the production staff. Compare that description to all of the other 'descriptions' of the creature--check deviantart for the various interpretations, and while they vary in certain minor details, they all generally picture a different creature than what is described there, and a quick google search shows no concensus on the beasts height. -- Majin Gojira (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to it as an independent source in the sense that it is not a claim being made by the editors -- someone else is describing the creature for us, so all responsibility is abstained. However, I'll go with this for now in hopes that there will be better coverage of the creature's physiology. What do you think of the "name" situation of it? Is it appropriate to call it "Cloverfield" or not? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had heard it refered to as "Clover" by J.J. Abrams during production, but I cannot find the source for the quote, so I have refrained from posting it. -- Majin Gojira (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horror needs your help

Majin Gojira : You've received this message as you are listed as a WikiProject Horror Participant. As you may have noticed, WikiProject Horror has suffered from a lack of direction and coordination of late. A suggestion on how to improve the Project and maintain it as a viable resource has been placed up for discussion here. As a member of the Project, your voice is valued and your input is requested. Thank you, hornoir (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ultra Monsters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ultra Monsters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultra Monsters (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]